the primary drivers of our economy and will have a major role in our future competitiveness and the health of our future generations. by eliminating commonsense regulations with projects with a massive public health consequences, it is a dereliction of our duty to protect our families, communities and businesses that rely on the great lakes. instead of assessing the impact of the full project, the bill would limit review of projects to only the cross-border sections. we leave in in interconnected environments and the great lakes system is not an isolated resource but a come flex ecosystem intertwined with countless communities across two countries and eight states. what happens to one has an impact on all. the amendment would ensure the proper planning and environmental impact he valuations are complete and the

total scope is known and assessed. 1,000 miles of border between the united states and canada, it is irresponsible to take on the environmental risks to our drinking water, our $4 billion fishing industry and 200 million tons of shipping that occur on the great lakes including 90% of the nation's iron ore and 58% of the automobiles produced here. it is irresponsible to put at risk millions of americans who rely on the great lakes for their basic human needs. it's irresponsible to take on the risk of chemical a toxic contaminant changing our environment for the worst without doing our own diligence. for all great lakes communities, i ask that you take this step with us to protect our safe access to clean drinking water and denny companies who have a track record of contamination from being given the opportunity to do so again. 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 kentucky seek recognition? >> i rise to speak in opposition of the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i would say that h.r. 3301 is designed to do one thing. to treat pipelines and electric transmission lines exactly as natural gas pipelines are treated. wit when the the great lakes -- mr. whitfield: the great lakes we're all committed to. there are 33 separate environmental laws that would not be changed by this legislation. with all due respect, i view this as a procedural vote that says no to north american energy security and lower prices. it's time to say yes and end procedural delays. please vote no on this motion and say yes to north american security. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered.

the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the question is on the passage of the bill. >> madam speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is 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. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. 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 185 and the nays are 227. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is 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. [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: the yeas are 238 and the nays are 173. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 641, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4899 to lower gasoline prices for the american families by increasing domestic production to streamline and improve offshore and onshore permitting and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4923, making

appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postponefurther proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4631. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of he bill. does the gentleman mean to call

p the bill as amended? mr. pitts: that's correct, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to re-authorize certain provisions of the public health service act relating to autism and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from texas, mr. green, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . mr. pitts: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today in support of h.r. 4631 the autism collaboration accountability research, education and support, cares

act, of 2014, introduced by congressman chris smith of new jersey. autism cares demonstrates our continued effort to address the needs of children and adults with autism spectrum disorder, a.s.d. thanks to the monitoring done by the centers for disease control and prevention, c.d.c., we know hat as many as one in 68 children have a.s.d. with recent studies showing that a.s.d. can be detected in the first six months of life, the screening and diagnosis funded in the bill will mean early diagnosis and improved health and behavioral outcomes. many of these children are now transitioning into adulthood and will need community-based services to replace those provided by the schools. as a part of this bill, h.h.s.

will be required to study their needs and available services to identify gaps and make their transition seamless and productive. the bill would also fund important research at the national institutes of health to understand and treat a.s.d. and the operation of the interagency autism coordinating committee. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. green: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: i rise in support of .r. 4631, the autism colration and research education act of 2014. a.s.d. is a disbuilt that can lead to significant behavioral challenges. we do not know all the causes of autism and may not have a cure but we know early intervention

services can improve a child's development. recent data from c.d.c. show month children than ever are receiving autism diagnosis. this is due at least in part of a.s.d. and better diagnosis, but we cannot rule out the possibility of a true increase in the number of americans with a.s.d. continued federal support for autism activities will help us learn more about the causes of autism and will help more children receive early diagnosis and intervention and access to services that they need throughout their lives. i want to acknowledge congressman smith and congressman doyle and senators menendez and enzi and leaders on the senate health committee to make it possible to have a consen us -- consensus bill

before the house. i support this bill and send it to the president before the sunset provision. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time, i would like to yield five minutes to the distinguished prime sponsor of the legislation, a man who has really provided the leadership on this issue, congressman chris smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank my good friend for yielding and thank him for his strong support and chairman upton and former chairman waxman and mike doyle, and mike doyle where together since 2000 headed up the coalition for autism research and coalition and we have 91 members in the coalition right now and i would also like to thank the staff who have helped us move this bill and gary and

cheryl and brendon and jean, katie, kate and neal bradley and so many others who have been so many others who have been critical to this legislation. previous autism law including the combating autism act of 2011 made continued advancements that are working to determine the causes of autism spectrum disorder and identify children as ellie as possible to begin treatment and raise critical awareness and develop new therapist. the latest data from centers of disease control is shocking. one in 68 american children are on the autism spectrum, a ten-fold increase over the last 40 years. boys outnumber girls five to one. in my home state of new jersey, one in every 45 children has a.s.d., the highest rate in the c.d.c. study.

i would note, i have chaired two congressional hearings on global autism and this developmental disbuilt is everywhere. one estimate, 67 million worldwide. looking back, mr. speaker, it was two dedicated parents from new jersey who helped launch the comprehensive federal policy we seek to re-authorize today. almost 17 years ago, september, 1997, bobby and billy gal ager, parents of two small autistic children walked into my office for help and wanted action especially for their children. so i invited c.d.c. and other individuals to brick only to learn that prevalence rates were high not only in brick but in nearby communities as well. i introduced the assure act, and

that was incorporated in title 1 of the children's health act of 2000. mr. speaker, much progress has been made since. today, the evidence suggests there is no single cause of autism or type. environmental factors and low birth rate and prematurity among other factors may be triggers. signs of autism in a child manifest between 12-18 months and some as early as six months. yet early intervention continues to lag. according to the clinical reality is that only about 20% of children with a.s.d. are being identified early by three years of age and that, members of the house, is not good and has got to change. the research clearly shows that early diagnosis means early intervention and much better

outcomes. the most recent plan, i encourage members to read it. it is a textbook on how the federal government should do anything when it deals with research. they have pointed out that in the past few years there has been a major revolution in research. research and the potential between immune system and a.s.d. has resulted in major break-throughs. much progress in understanding the prevalence and biology of conditions that commonly co-occur, including sleep disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity. and they point out and this is their words, particularly intriguing are the results of prenatal vitamin intake through supplements and diet showing a 40% reduction in risk of a.s.d. with prenatal vitamin supplements taken in the three months before or during the first month of pregnancy.

recommended.cid is every year, 50,000 young people in the autism spectrum who go into adulthood are in the process of losing services. asperger's d with spoke at a dream conference at mercer community college last year and he stated, i can be a great contributor to society when i graduate. however, i need continuing support to get there. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pitts: yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has an additional minute. mr. smith: he says if you take your diploma at 18, you automatically lose services from your school districts.

individuals like jonathan find themselves confronted with unimagine nabble challenges including school, housing and then they have job needs. we have a large visible crisis that begs serious focus and recommends. the autism cares act tasks multiple agencies to study and report back to congress on the special needs of autistic young adults transising. we are requesting a comprehensive aging out g.a.o. audit which will include key stakeholder involvement. passage of this bill is an important investment for a special group of people who along with families, caregivers and friends, they struggle. i urge members to support the legislation and i yield back.

. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i yield to mr. doyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doyle: thank you. thank you, mr. green, for yieldings and for your support of the autism cares act. first off, i want to thank my good friend and autism caucus co-chair, chris smith, for his leadership and work on this critical legislation. over the past 11 years, it has been a are real pleasure and a -- has been a real pleasure and a labor of love to work with chris on these issues and he's truly a champion in the autism community. and i look forward to continuing that great working relationship with him. you know, mr. chairman, it seems that every time new data is released on autism spectrum disorders, the numbers become more and more troubling. in fact, the center for disease control most recent data show a continued rise in autism prevalence rates. one in every 68 american

children. that is one in 19 girls and one in 4 -- 189 girls and one in 42 boys. these are staggering numbers with serious implications for many aspects of american life. this is why passage of the autism cares act today is so important. to continue research into the causes of autism. to educate health care providers and the public, to improve early diagnosis and intervention, to identify effective treatments and to evaluate the types of services available to young adults with a.s.d. we can and must do better for the millions of americans living with a.s.d. and their families. many federal autism programs were first authorized by the combating autism act of 2006, which has made a huge difference in the lives of autistic americans and their families. since its inception, congress has re-authorized these federal autism programs twice.

without new legislation to re-authorize them, the funding for these important programs will expire on september 30 of this year. we have made tremendous advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders but this progress will be lost if congress allows these programs to expire. this is why it is so important that congress pass this commonsense, bipartisan, bicameral legislation like the bill that's before us today. the autism program this legislation would re-authorize are vitally important to many families and individuals across the country. early diagnosis and intervention can make a huge difference in an autistic individual's life and can have a dramatic impact on the individual's family and community as well. with the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders much higher than we thought just a few years ago, inaction is simply not an option. i urge my colleagues to support the autism cares legislation.

thank you for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis, a valued member of the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida sloysed for one minute -- is recognized for one minute. mr. bilirakis: thank you. i rise today in support of this bill, the autism cares act. which i am an original co-sponsor of. i want to commend our sponsor, mr. smith from new jersey, and i understand our prime co-sponsor, democrat, mr. mike doyle from the great state of pennsylvania, for sponsoring this bill. autism is serious and does not discriminate. people in all racial, social, economic and ethnic groups are impacted, mr. speaker. autism awareness and research is something people from all walks of life can support. one in 68 children is diagnosed with autism. let me say that again. one in 68.

that is a disturbing statistic. this legislation will help direct autism research on a federal level. this research is vital and i'm glad my colleagues and i have come together in a bipartisan manner to continue autism research, early identification, intervention and education. i'm proud to support this legislation and i urge my colleagues to pass this final passage of this legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i again thank the chairman and my for sponsoring the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: mr. speaker, i yield to my good friend and deskmate on the energy and commerce committee and ranking member of the foreign affairs committee as much time as he can consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my good friend from texas, mr. green, for giving me the time. i want to thank my good friend, chris smith from new jersey,

whom i have so much respect for his hard work in doing this and anyone who knows chris knows when he wants something done, he's tenacious, he gets it done. and mike doyle also has been a really good partner. and we all take pride with this legislation. so i rise to support it. the autism collaboration accountability research education and support act or the autism cares act. and i'm pleased that we have an opportunity to pass this today. autism, as my colleagues have said, affects more than two million individuals and their families across our country. the rate of diagnosis has climbed dramatically in recent years and today one out of every 68 american children is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder by age of 8. that's really shocking. so these individuals and their families are counting on us to pass this bill. the autism cares act will extend and strengthen the efforts we established under the combating autism act of 2006 and the combating autism re-allingtization act of 2011

-- re-authorization act of 2011. i was proud to support both of these bills on the foreign affairs committee and in the full house and i'm sore -- i'm sorry, in the foreign affairs committee and the energy and commerce committee in the full house and i'm pleased to see this legislation have give our autism policemans the -- programs the dedication they deserve. this will help training medical professionals. this bill will also provide valuable updates to the law. it will increase coordination across federal agencies and improve our understanding of the issues youth and young adults face as they transition out of school-based services. these changes will advance our understanding of autism spectrum disorder and allow us to better assist the millions of americans it impacts. the programs provided for this in this bill have -- for in this bill have traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support on our committee, on the energy and commerce

committee, it enjoyed strong bipartisan support and i guess it will as well here because this is a strong bipartisan issue. so i urge my colleagues to continue this commitment by voting for the autism cares act today and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. peter roskam, one of our distinguished leaders. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. one in 68 is diagnosed with autism, mr. speaker, and we have an opportunity to come alongside those families that are dealing with this diagnosis by supporting the autism cares act. it is a holistic approach, one that takes on research education, early detection and intervention, for those all across the autism spectrum. there's so many times that we can get into dollars and cents

and chapter and verse and future savings and all of these things, but think about it. beyond all of that is something that's much more important. and it's this. we can be a part of helping children reach their potential as adults. it is the desire of every parent to see their child reach full potential. so we can do that by coming together with this legislation, think about the joy that is involved in that. i'm pleased to associate myself with the work of congressman smith and this effort and to be a part and to be a co-sponsor of autism cares. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: mr. speaker, we have no other speakers and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: we have no other speakers. i reserve. we're ready to close. mr. green: ok. i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'm very pleased to support this very important

bipartisan legislation, urge all the members to do so and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 4631, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4080. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to call up the bill as amended? mr. pitts: yes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4080, a bill to amend title 12 of the public health service act, to re-authorize certain trauma care programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from texas, mr. green, each

will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may dume -- consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i rise today to support and in support of h.r. 4080, the trauma systems and regionalization of emergency care act, introduced by representative michael burgess. this bill amends the public health service act by re-authorizing two important grant programs. the trauma care system planning grants and the regionalization of emergency care systems. the first program supports state and rural development of trauma systems and the second funds pilot projects to design,

implement and evaluate innovative models of regionalized emergency care. we know that immediate access to trauma care within the golden hour after injury is critical. by improving access to the specialized care designed to treat trauma injuries, both of these trauma bills will save lives. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: i rise in support of h.r. 4080, the trauma systems and regionalization of the emergency care re-authorization act. and i'm proud to be the lead democratic sponsor in this important bill and with my colleague from texas, colleague dr. burgess, i want to thank him for his leadership and commitment to this issue. this bill re-authorizes the programs that provide grants to

states for planning and implementing and developing trauma care systems and establishes pilot projects designed. ideally trauma and emergency care systems respond quickly and efficiently to ensure that the seriously injured individuals receive the care they need within the golden hour. the time period which medical intervention is most effective in saving lives. however, unintentional injury remains a leading cause of death for americans ages 44 years and younger, and access to trauma centers is inconsistent throughout the country. in fact, 45 million americans lacked access to a trauma care center within that golden hour. the first hour after the injury. emergency departments and trauma centers are overcrowded, the emergency care system is splintered and surgical specialists are often unavailable to patients who need them. this legislation helps establish the systems that save lives and improve the functioning of our trauma care systems. again, i want to thank representative burgess for

championing this effort with me. i also want to acknowledge chairman upton, chairman pitts, ranking member waxman and pallone, and the work of the committee staff in advance -- to advancing this bill through the energy and commerce committee and bringing it to the floor today. i support this bipartisan bill and i urge my colleagues to do the same and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the health subcommittee dr. burgess, who has been a real champion and is the prime sponsor of this bill. the president: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. trauma is the leading cause of death for people under the age of 65. it's expensive, costs over $400 billion a year, only behind heart disease and cancer. it affects individuals of all ages. 35 million times each year. that's one person every 15 minutes. h.r. 4080 re-authorizes two existing bipartisan grant programs that support the regionalization of emergency

care and trauma systems across the country, trauma systems deliver a full range of care to injured patients. most members of the house have trauma systems eethser in their district or that are able to serve their constituents. this bill is supported by the american association of neurological surgeons and the american association of orgetpeedic surgeons, the american burn association, the american college of emergency physicians, the american college of surgeons, the emergency nurse association, the american trauma association, the congress of neurological surgeons and the trauma center association of america. a study released in april found that patients living near a recently closed trauma facility were 21% more likely to die from their injuries. two years after closure of the likelihood of death has increased to 29%, emphasizing the importance of these grants.

passed the full committee. this legislation is supported by medicine, it is bipartisan and has gone through regular order. i thank chairman upton and mr. pallone and the energy and commerce staff on both sides and robert, brenda, katie and ann. mr. green and i have worked on this issue for years and i appreciate his continued partnership on the bill. and i want to thank his staff, kristen. from adrianna and paul my office. i urge all members to vote in favor of this legislation. it is important for all of our districts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: we have no other speakers. mr. pitts: at this time, i yield two minutes to my colleague from

pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: i rise in strong support of h.r. 4080, the proposed trauma systems and regionalization of emergency care re-authorization act and i thank my colleagues for introducing this important piece of critical legislation. the leading cause of death for people under the age of 45, trauma. it is something that the majority of states are not prepared to handle. according to the c.d.c., trauma kills americans more than aids and strokes combined. it needs a network to get seriously injured individuals to the appropriate trauma system within that golden hour that has been discussed, which is the time period when medical intervention is necessary to saving lives. this bill will allow the

innovative state and regional care to prevent these trauma deaths. this bill would require states to update that model plan with stakeholders. when a difference between life and death rests on the ability to deliver trauma care, we need legislation in place such as h.r. 4080 to improve emergency care to several injured -- severely injured patients. and we need on-call specialists. but that is a fight for another day. let's get h.r. 4080 day. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation introduced by mr. burgess and mr. green. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from text pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. green: i reserve. we are prepared to close. obviously as a co-sponsor of

this bill working with my colleague for a number of years on trauma care, i urge a aye vote and yield back. mr. pitts: h.r. 4080 is another very important and bipartisan bill. and i urge all the members to support it and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4080. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is amended ishe bill as passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3548. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to call up the bill as amended?

mr. pitts: yes. the clerk: union calendar number 339, h.r. 3548, a bill to amend title 12 of the public health service act to extend the definition of trauma to include thermal, electrical, chemical, radioactive and other intrinsic agents. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from texas, mr. green, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials under the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3548, the improving trauma care act of 2014, introduced by congressman bill johnson of ohio. this bill amends the public health service act by expanding the current definition of trama

to exposuren injury to agents. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of h.r. 3548, the improving trauma care act of 2014. this legislation amends the definition of the term trauma for the purpose of trauma care grants authorized in title 12 of the public health service act to include burns and other injuries do from exposures. shrinking our trauma care services is a priority that i hope to continue working with members on both sides of the aisle to address. i thank congressman johnson for his sponsorship of this legislation and i acknowledge the work of our committee, chairman upton, and all the

staff in bringing the bill to the floor today. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. johnson: today i rise in strong support of h.r. 3548, the improving trauma care act of 2014. bipartisan legislation, i am proud to have sponsored with the support and council of the energy and commerce committee. i commend the committee staff for their hard work to move this legislation forward through markup of all subcommittee and full committee levels and steer it to the house floor today. this simple but important bill seems to constitute trauma as outlined in the united states code. common sense would certainly point to many burn injuries as a type of trauma, but the u.s. code doesn't recognize them as such.

failure to incrorpt the full range of traumatic injuries into the description of trauma, including burns, can result in gaps of coverage throughout the care system. by modernizing this term as federally defined, congress can ensure that it reflects the medical realities of trauma and protects access to the provision of trauma care. there are -- there are important gains to be made in the field of traumatic medicine. and finding relationships between burns and trauma centers. this saves lives after national tragedies such as 9/11 and the boston marathon bombing. the importance of strengthening our burn care infrastructure cannot be stressed enough. inadequacy in the u.s. code around the classification of burns further compounds serious shortfalse in our traumatic emergency medical care system.

traumatic injuries is the leading cause of death under the age of 44 but getting a victim to a level one or two trauma center within the first golden hour can make all the difference. 45 million americans do not have access to a level one or two trauma center within an hour's travel. i applaud the efforts of my colleague, dr. burgesses to improve this system with his bill h.r. 4080, which i'm also proud to support. ment nk him for his endorse and grateful to improve trauma care more broadly. this legislation has the strong support of a broad coalition of the major medical societies and associations representing the trauma care community, including the american burn association, american college of surgeons, american association for the surgery of trauma, american

trauma society, american college of emergency physicians, trauma association of america and america association of hospitals. i thank my colleagues for improving the trauma care act of 2014. i hope my colleagues will support this commonsense legislation and improves the provision of trauma care. and i strongly encourage a yes vote. 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. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: we have no other speakers and i'll just close by saying i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 3548 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i also urge members to support this commonsense legislation, bipartisanly supported and yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3548 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1281 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar 354, a bill to amend the public health service act to re-authorize programs under part a of title 11 of such act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from texas, mr. green will each control 20 minutes. mr. pitts: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their

remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1281, the newborn screening saves lives re-authorization act of 2014, introduced by representative representative roybal-allard of california and representative mike simpson of indiana and now includes 120 co-sponsors. this bill amends the public health service act to extend and revise a grant program for screening and counseling and other services related to genetic disorders. h.r. 1281 re-authorizes federal programs that provide assistance to states to improve and expand their newborn screening programs, support parent and provider education and ensure laboratory quality and surveillance.

newborn screening is an important public health program testing every newborn for certain conditions not apparent at birth. this early screening and diagnosis can be life changing for these children and their families. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i rise in support of h.r. 1281 newborn screening lives re-authorization act of 2014. it is conducted for a number of genetic, metabolic and functional conditions that may not be aparent at birth. some newborns have a condition that can't be detected through screening. if diagnosed, they can be managed successfully. it re-authorizes the department of health and human services advisory committee that recommends conditions to be

included in the uniform screening panel and allows the panel to begin consideration of certain new conditions more quickly and requires the secretary of h.h.s. to make recommendations. the bill also extends support for state programs involving screening, counseling, education and other services. demonstration programs to evaluate the effectiveness of service is in the clearinghouse of resources of newborn screening and puts timeliness on the newborn screening and requires the g.a.o. to report to congress. i thank the sponsor of the legislation, congresswoman roybal-allard and congressman simpson and the senators. the leders on the health and education labor and pensions committee on this bill and i support h.r. 1281 and i urge my colleagues to support the legislation as well and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania.

mr. pitts: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from new york, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: i thank my representative for her leadership on this important issue. i come to the house floor to speak in support of h.r. 1281, the newborn screening saves lives re-authorization act, which i'm proud to co-sponsor. for the last 50 years, newborn screening services has played an important role. screening for developmental disbilities or diseases at birth can identify treatable diseases early and give a child the opportunity to live a healthy life. i want to thank a leading advocate for newborn screening, jim kelly, who is from new york's 27th district. in 1997, jim and his wife jill founded hunter's hope foundation. shortly after their son hunter

was diagnosed. this disease is fatal and tragically cut hunter's life short. the story of hunter kelly and others with developmental diseases could have been different. i urge the house to re-authorize this vital program today. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: i yield to my colleague, congresswoman roybal-allard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. roybal-allard: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker. i rise in support of the newborn screening saves lives re-authorization act. i introduced this bill to help ensure our babies continue receiving life-saving newborn screening. i extends my sincere thanks to my lead co-sponsor, congressman michael simpson, for his support and his long history of

championing newborn screening services. i thank senators hagen and hatch for introducing the senate companion bill which passed by senate consent in january of this year. i also thank the coalition of public health groups, especially the march of dimes, and the association of public health laboratories for working with my office over the last 10 years on this critical issue. lastly, i would be remiss if i did not mention debby gentlemen's up of my staff -- jessup of my staff for her outstanding management of my bill and the work of two exceptional public health fellows, ariana and daffney, who provided strong leadership in moving the bill forward. newborn screening is a public health intervention that involves giving babies a simple blood test to identify many

life-threatening genetic and metabolic illnesses before symptoms begin. newborn screening is one of the great public health success stories of the 20th century. prior to the enactment of the original newborn screening saves lives act in 2008, only 10 states and the district of columbia required infants to be screened for a complete panel of recommended disorders. and there was no federal repository of information on the diseases. today 44 states and the district of columbia require screening of at least 29 of the 31 treatable conditions. and today professionals and parents have centralized access to newborn screening information when their babe is diagnosed with one of these disorders. since the passage of the original bill, newborn screenings have improved and

new screenings have been added. these screenings are critical for the approximately 12,000 babies who each year test positive for one of these treatable diseases. 50 years ago, before newborn screening tests were developed, the conditions of these babies would have gone undetected until symptoms appeared. as a result, they would have unnecessarily died or suffered from their life-long disabling disorder. today, because of newborn screening, they have an opportunity and they have hope for a relatively normal life. the ability to rapidly identify and treat these disorders is making a difference between health and disability and even life or death for the children affected by these severe diseases. unfortunately critical challenges still remain.

due to existing discrepancies in the number of tests given from state to state, each year approximately 1,000 infants tragedyly die or are permanently dis-- tragically die or are permanently disabled from otherwise treatable disorders. the passage of the newborn screening saves lives re-authorization act will help avoid these preventble -- preventable tragedies by providing states with the resources they need to improve their newborn screening programs and to uniformy test for all -- uniformly test for all recommended disorders. it also provides states with assistance in developing follow-up and tracking programs. these provisions will help our financially burdened health care system by saving billions of dollars over the life of these children. in addition, this bill renews the secretary's advisory committee for disorders and requires the c.d.c. to ensure

the quality of laboratories involved in newborn screening. the bill also continues the hunter kelly newborn screening program which helps n.i.h. researchers develop better detection, prevention and treatment strategies. mr. speaker, the newborn screening saves lives re-authorization act will continue to help parents and health providers to be knowledgeable about the importance of newborn screening tests and it will help ensure all our newborn babies receive the comprehensive, consistent testing they need to have healthy, happy and productive lives. where a baby is born should not determine its chance to have a healthy future. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the passage of h.r. 1281. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from

pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mrs. bachmann: i thank my colleague, mr. speaker, mr. pitts from pennsylvania, one of the greatest champions that this chamber has ever seen in the cause of human life. and i share that cause with him as well. and i thank the authors for their positive intentions on this bill. i'm a mother of five biological children and 23 foster children and that's what every parent and every mother and every father hopes, is to have the best possible health care for their children, the best possible outcomes. but i do share concerns on this bill as well. as well intentioned as this is. and let me just list what my concerns are. number one, the federal government will have the ability to collect and automatically store the blood sample of every baby in the united states. there won't be any allowment for parental consent to be

required before the storage of these blood samples are made. every baby's nadarkhani, which is the entire -- d.n.a., which is the entire genetic code of that baby, will be under the control of the government. i have data privacy concerns. why should anyone, especially our government, have everyone's identity at their disposal? third, there is no provision for any parent to opt out. so this legislation presumes that every parent of every newborn in the united states of america pre-agrees that the government can have their baby's blood sample, which contains their d.n.a. code, and that the government can indeaf litany -- indefinitely store that data. what limitations will there be on the government, on our government, and what they can do with this information? and how they will handle this data? and now, mr. speaker, knowing

that our government has the potential to control every american's health care under obamacare, how could government 's control of a baby's d.n.a. information impact the full access to health care or education opportunities or job opportunities for a child who is predetermined by their d.n.a. to potentially have a problem later in life? these are just a few of the questions, mr. speaker, that i believe need to be addressed. i know this bill has passed the senate. i know it will be voice voted. i would like to ask for a roll call vote but i understand that the process is already deep on its way. i do hope that these questions will be addressed in future legislation. it may not be done in this legislation. i hope it will be in the future. because we should not be -- americans should not see the death of privacy, especially at

the most sensitive, private information that every american can have, d.n.a., their genetic code, what god gave to them, that should be something that's between the individual, their doctor and god and it shouldn't be for the government to control that data. i want to thank mr. pitts. i in no way cast any negative aspersion upon himself or any of the authors on this bill. these are just some of the questions that i have and i yield back to mr. pitts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: we reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: i urge support for the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge support again for this important and bipartisan legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is, will the how it's suspend the rules and pass

-- the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1098 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1098, a bill to amend the public health service act, to re-authorize certain programs relating to traumatic brain injury and to trauma research. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and the gentleman from texas, mr. green, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1098, the traumatic brain injury re-authorization act introduced by mr. pascrell of new jersey which will continue to provide the needed services that help patients with a traumatic brain injury. t.b.i. more than 3.17 million americans live with a disability that resulted from a t.b.i., including children and adults. athletes and soldiers. the prevention and surveillance work done at the centers for disease control keeps the public and providers aware of t.b.i. research that leads to early diagnosis and treatment. research at the national institutes of health improves the understanding of t.b.i. and identifies treatments that will improve lives. programs available at the

health resources and services administration help families to better care for their members who suffer from t.b.i. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1098, the traumatic brain injury re-authorization act of 2014. traumatic brain injuries or t.b.i. is an unexpected blow or jolt to the head. these injuries affect people of all ages, soldier in a blast injury, an elderly person who has fallen or a young driver involved in a car crash can experience t.b.i. the centers for disease control and prevention estimate more than two million americans experience a traumatic brain injury each year. the vast majority of these individuals have an injury that can be treated at a hospital emergency room. but not all americans are as fortunate. their injuries can have mob devastating consequences, may

as a result -- have more devastating consequences makers result in death or a lasting isability. this has been re-authorized twice in 2001, again in 2008. the legislation before the house today once again re-authorizes t.b.i. programs in which t.b.i. surveillance and research activities, it would also extend programs where t.b.i. service support is administered across health and human services. i want to commend the sponsor of the legislation, mr. pascrell and congressman rooney, and acknowledge the work of other members and the work of our committee staff in advancing this bill through the energy and commerce committee and bringing it to the floor today. i support this bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. green: mr. speaker, i yield to my good friend and colleague from new jersey, congressman pascrell, as much time as he

wishes to consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the passage of this legislation. traumatic brain injury re-authorization act of 2014. i want to thank chairman upton and ranking member waxman, chairman pitts, my friend, ranking member pallone, mr. green for their thoughtful consideration and support for millions of traumatic brain injury survivors and their families. additionally i want to thank any co-chair of the traumatic brain injury task force for his leadership on this issue as well. throughout my 13 years working on this issue, i have witnessed firsthand how these programs make a difference in people's lives. you've heard the numbers. let's go beyond the numbers. traumatic brain injury has become the signature wound of the wars in iraq and

afghanistan. 20% of our soldiers deployed are estimate to have had experienced a brain injury. many returning service members suffering from t.b.i. will receive care and rehabilitation services within the department of defense and veterans' affairs. but as they're suffering from t.b.i.'s that are initially undiagnosed or misdiagnosed will later look to the civilian community and local resources for information and services. that is why it is essential that we continue to foster civilian-military collaboration like the department of defense center of excellence for psychological health and traumatic brain injury to build a system that ensures returning troops receive what they need to put their lives back together again. unfortunately, t.b.i. remains the silent epidemic in this country. that's why the legislation today is so critical.

the t.b.i. act is the only legislation that specifically allocates federal funds for programs supporting individuals with brain injury. originally it was passed in 1996 and re-authorized in 2000 and 2008, the t.b.i. act represents a foundation for coordinated and balanced public policy in the prevention, the education, the research, and community living for people living with t.b.i. and their circles of support. and it has produced results. for nearly 18 years the traumatic brain injury act has successfully provided direction and legal authority for the vast traumatic brain injury community. grants within the t.b.i. act have helped improve access to health and other services for persons with t.b.i. prior to this law, they did not have the tools to even access their own needs.

thanks to the t.b.i. act and its director at the centers for disease control and prevention we now have a record of incidents, including details and prevalence, plans for prevention and finally access to treatment. we've also begun to educate the public and provide much needed scientific data for scientists, health care providers and policymakers. additionally, thunder act, the national institutes of health is conducting basic and applied research in t.b.i., making great strides in our knowledge of the brain and impact of t.b.i. this is in direct correlation to the president's initiative on the brain which keeps on meeting together to explore this new horizon for us which i think is going to dramatically have very positive consequences. the re-authorization act of 2014 will elevate the t.b.i. program

within health and human services by moving the program from maternal and child health, children's program, in acknowledgment of the impact of t.b.i. across the age span, including older adults and returning service members and veterans. our intention is for the program to be relow cailted to the administration on community living to better coordinate with federal agencies regarding long-term services and supports available to individuals with other disabilities. brain injury survivors from all walks of life and their families look to community and local resources for all types of information and assistance. regardless of the source of the injury, this legislation will ensure the framework, the information and research resources are available to help. mr. speaker, only a strong commitment will allow taos continue the incredible advances

we have made in the area of basic brain research. prevention. ke e-- detection. early treatment. physical and mental rehabilitation. long-term care and patient advocacy issues. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bill and i yield back and i thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yield back. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas eserves. mr. green: i'm prepared to close -- mr. pitt: i'm prepared to close. mr. green: i urge support for this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: i urge members to support this legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1098 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the aaffirmative, the bill is -- the rule is suspended and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass he bill s. 1681, the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1681, an act

to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the united states government and the office of the director of national intelligence, the central intelligence agency retirement and disability system, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill s. 1681. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ronellers: i yield myself such time as -- mr. rogers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. i want to thank my colleague, dutch ruppersberger, for the great work of you and the entire democratic caucus on the committee as well as my republican members for what is a good, bipartisan, national

security bill. i also want to thank diane feinstein and saxby chambliss for their work in the senate to put together a bill that i think america will and should be proud of. the intelligence authorization act is an annual blueprint for the work of the intelligence community. the bill sets the priorities for our critical intelligence efforts. passing a yearly intelligence authorization bill is the primary method by which congress exerts its budgetary and oversight authority over the intelligence community. as most of the intelligence budget involves highly classified programs, the bulk of this committee's recommendations are found in the classified annex to the bill. which is the same fiscal year 14 annex the house recently passed as part of the combined fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 intelligence authorization bill. at an unclassified level i can report the annex for fiscal year 2014 authorizes funding slightly below the president's budget request level. its funding levels are in line

with the levels appropriated by and enacted appropriations act for the national intelligence program and the national defense authorization for the intelligence program. the house recently passed its version of the fiscal year 2014 bill by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. the bill contained many of the same provisions in the same form as they are contained in the senate bill, 1681, and the senate bill 1681 contains a few additional provisions negotiated with the senate. mr. speaker, we find ourselveses in a very interesting time in history. al qaeda has metastasized into dangerous affiliates and safe vens have emerged in sir ark and the tribal areas of pakistan. the islamic state of iraq in the levant is trying to build an islamic state across the mideast. they already control a jihaddist disneyland the size of indiana. without leadership from the

united states, this will quickly devolve into a full-blown ctarian war which only helps isil's ambitions. it does not recognize the border and we have to focus on them so a safe haven doesn't emerge on either side of that border. the goal of our counterterrorism strategy is to deny safe haven from which terrorists can plan attacks against the united states. they can finance, they get breathing space, they can further radicalize individuals from around the world. al qaeda is also regaining a foothold in northeast afghanistan, just as the president announced a complete withdrawal of united states military forces in the counterterrorism capability that comes with it. by the end of 2016. we are about to make the same mistake in afghanistan that we did in iraq. uneven leadership in recent years has also emboldened adversaries like russia and

china who are increasing military and intelligence spending and working to change the international order, to the debt ri789 of the united states and our interests. -- detriment of the united states and our interests. we rightly demand that our policymakers be provide the best and timeliest information possible. we ask them to stop devastating cyberattacks that steal american jobs, we ask them to track nuclear missile threats, and we demand that they get it right every day of the year. the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community are some of the finest patriots i've had the privilege to meet. within budget constraints and the often unclear policy guidance of the white house this bill seeks to ensure they have the resources and the authorities necessary to keep our nation safe. i want to thank you, mr. speaker, and i urge the passage of senate bill 1681 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland.

mr. ruppersberger: i yield myself such time as i may consume. chairman rogers, let me thank you for your leadership once again. you've produced a bipartisan, bicameral intelligence authorization act we're taking up today. i know you're retiring. you've served your country well as an f.b.i. agent and on the intelligence committee and now as chairman. we're going to miss you but i know you'll -- whatever you do you'll always think of the united states of america first. thank you for your leadership and friendship. i also want to acknowledge the members of our committee both democrat and republican and our staff that have come together as a team in a bipartisan way to do what's right for our country. now the chamber passed its fiscal year 2014 and 2015 intelligence authorization acts less than a month ago with over 300 votes in favor. today we're taking up just the senate's fiscal year 2014 bill which the senate recently passed by unanimous consent. i hope the house pass this is

bill and sends it to the president's desk today. we need these annual intelligence authorization acts to ensure the most rigorous oversight and accountability over all u.s. intelligence agencies and over all u.s. intelligence activities. we must ensure our intelligence agencies spend money only on programs of which congress is informed and approved. this bill does that we also need these annual intelligence authorizations to set the priorities for our intelligence professionals and their agencies and to allocate resources oto critical national security programs including those that detect, prevent and disrupt potential terrorist attacks. this bill does that also. and we need the intelligence authorization acts to promote fiscal discipline. this bill makes cuts to certain areas and adds money in other areas in a responsible, well thought out, fiscally prudent way. the result is a budget below the

president's request. since chairman rogers and i have taken charge of the committee, we have recused the budget by 20% without reducing capability. i do want to acknowledge also senator feinstein and chambliss if working together with us to do what's right for our country and national security. the unclassified legislative text in this bill is similar to what the chamber debated last month. it makes changes to the security clearance process, it requires detailed reports on matters like electronic waste and chemical weapons in syria and it promotes education in science, engineering, technology and math. it also added three substantive provisions that promote transparency, oversight and accountability. first the bill creates independent senate-confirmed n.s.a. and national reconnaissance directors as well as independently confirmed n.s.a. and n.r.o. inspector

generals. second, it requires the attorney general to establish a process for the regular review for publication of department of justice legal opinions provided to the intelligence community. it also requires that any classified opinions that can't be published be made available to the appropriate committees or members of congress. and third, it amends the national security act to prohibit any personnel actions against a lawful intelligence community whistleblower. as for the classified schedule of authorizations, it is identical exetcht for some minor pro-rated adjustments. we encourage all members to review the classified schedule of authorizations as well as the classified text and i'm pleased that so many have come down to the intelligence committee's classified spaces to do so. we is have spent a long time poring over every aspect of this bill and our committee spaces with the senate and the remotest corns of the earth where our intelligence operatives operate,

i can say this is a good bill which i'm proud to support. for the sake of keeping the country and its allies safe and for the sake of rigorously overseeing even the most classified intelligence programs and for the sake of our intelligence professionals who work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, nauve harm's way, i urge my colleagues to pass this bill and send it to the president today. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. are up rip i yield to ms. sule. she's a member of the -- mr. ruppersberger: i yield to ms. sewell. she's a member of our committee. she's become a highly influential member on our committee. she also keeps her focus on the people, both the american people as a whole, and the intelligence professionals who work every day to keep us safe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama voiced. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i stand in support of the fiscal

year 2014 intelligence authorization act. the annual authorization act is the most substantial oversight mechanism congress has over the intelligence community. most of the work within the intelligence committee and our -- community and our work on the intelligence committee happen behind closed doors and therefore far from the television cameras. let me assure you, though, just because c-span is not in the room when we have our regular meetings and hearings, does not mean there is lack of opinion, discussion and debate. there is rigorous back and forth about the necessity and the necessary number of core contractors within the intelligence community. how to best exploit and preserve the documents from the osama bin laden raid, and the appropriate ways to respond to unauthorized public disclosure of covert actions. we ask hard questions in this committee of our witnesses, we read and study legal authorities for u.s. engagement around the world and ensure that the intelligence professionals tasked with

protecting america not only have the tool neesd to do their jobs but are held accountable for their actions. director clapper said recently that at the heart of our work is our people. this bill makes some important changes in the work force of the intelligence community. it requires the director of national tense to ensure that contract -- intelligence to ensure that contracters have in place security measures consistent with the d.n.i. standards for intelligence community networks. it requires that d.n.i. -- it requires the d.n.i. to ensure insider threat capabilities of the i.c. apply to contractors. the bill also requires that the d.n.i. will submit a strategic plan for improving the process of periodic investigations so those individuals who have security clearance are interviewed toed on a routine base -- interviewed on a routine basis to make sure they continue to be cleared for classified information. on a final note, director clapper continued, a diverse

work force is critical to the mission success. he is right. the threats america faces are complex, ranging from proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorism to russian plans and intentions. we need people who understand all cultures and backgrounds and who can use their unique experience for creative solutions. the i.c. has made some progress on diversity. minority representation in the largest intelligence agencies increased to 24% in 2013. yet there's still work to be done. recently the c.i.a. released an unclassified report on women in leadership and found that women in the c.i.a. who sought greater responsibility were hindered by organizational and societal challenges. indeed, throughout the major intelligence agencies, female hiring has remained below 40% for the fourth consecutive year. women make up 51% of the general population in 2013 but only 39% of the work force in the i.c. community.

in addition, the percentage of female managers was only 35.5%. c.i.a. is reviewing the situation of its minority and women officers and i commend that initiative and i strongly urge other agencies within the i.c. to do the same. this bill and the i.c. efforts are good steps in the right direction. however, we have to stay in stride and look for efforts to create a more inclusive and equitable and diverse work force. going forward, i hope to look at the status of women and minority workers throughout the i.c. and how to increase their management ranks. our work force is our greatest asset and our greatest strength. there are many parts of this bill which cannot be discussed on the floor. the united states keeps secrets for a reason. however, let me say that the intelligence professionals at each of the 16 i.c. agencies go to work every day to do their job, keep america number one and to protect the homeland.

i want to commend the chairman, chairman rogers, and ranking member ruppersberger for their leadership on the intel committee. it was the committee assignment that i was not sure i wanted to accept at first, but i know how important our national security is and i want to thank your staff, mr. chairman, and the ranking member's staff for helping new members come up to speed. indeed, what we do here is so critically important. the f.y. 2014 intel authorization is a good bill and i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i reserve and i have no more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i would use as much time as i might consume. i just wanted to thank the gentlelady for joining us on the committee and it is sometimes long hours and thankless work and i'm fairly confidence our i.q. on the committee has doubled since she has arrived on the committee. penetrating questions, robust debate, curiosity that has no

bounds and her traveling around the world has been critically important to the work we do on the committee and the work she's done on the committee has been exceptional in adding to the product that you see before us today and i think that's one of the reasons it's such a good bill and i wanted to thank the gentlelady for her work on the 2014 fiscal bill and i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. speaker. to ensure there's rigorous oversight and accountability over all u.s. intelligence agencies and all u.s. intelligence activities, i urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill. i also urge my colleagues to support this bill for the sake of all of us, not just in america, but around the world, who benefit from the work of our intelligence community in the united states. and i urge my colleagues to support this bill so that our dedicated intelligence professionals who work worldwide, often in harm's way, can keep us safe and our allies safe.

they are truly the best in the world. we can disagree about policy but we should never disagree about the professionalism, bravery and dedication to the rule of law that are the hallmark of our intelligence professionals. let me thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership for these past years. i also want to sincerely thank every member of the intelligence committee. i want to thank congresswoman sewell for being here tonight and for being involved in this bill and you were a big part of our success. we debate and we argue but we always negotiate and we always keep in our minds what is most important, the security, privacy and civil liberties of the american people. together with the senate, and i thank senator feinstein again, we have produced for the house to consider today a truly strong bill which i'm proud to support. i urge all my deleegs to support it as well -- colleagues to support it as well. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i might consume. i want to thank my ranking member and i want to thank all

the staff, republican and democrat staff. these bills don't come together from the fine wishes of us members alone. we have very dedicated committee staff who sit down and work through the issues just the way the members do and we wouldn't have this product today if it weren't for that collaboration and i want to thank all of them for that. and i want to thank dutch on a personal note. there's a lot to not like in this town and there's a lot to not like in this place. but it shows you, and i think it shows americans, that when you sit down and have mutual respect for each other, even though we disagreed on certain issues, you can come to a conclusion that is in the best interest of the united states. and through forging that relationship i think we forged a lasting friendship that i will always be grateful for. so i want to thank you for that, thank you for your work on national security and thanks to all the staff who brought us here today. we have a lot more work to do so we can't be too nice to them. we're going to have to get a lot of pound of flesh between now and the end of the year to get a lot of work done but with

that, mr. speaker, i would ask and encourage this body to support a bill that will provide national security safety for the united states, for the following year. so with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1681. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule of the rules of the house -- 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been issued a

subpoena for the northern district of ohio for my testimony in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will determine whether compliance with this subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed, sincerely, mr. jordan, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will hour in entertain requests for one-minute speeches -- will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, our current immigration policies and political rhetoric broadcast to people around the world that they can come here illegally without consequence, in fact if they do they will be rewarded for it. we send this message and then we act surprised when the illegal immigration invasion into our country skyrockets. a growing crisis at our

southern border sees tens of thousands of children being abandoned at our doorstep. their parents miscalculated. they heard someone talk about the dream act and thought their children would be taken care of. ultimately this crisis was brought on by democrats and republicans who have advocated granting legal status to those people who are here illegally, especially in terms of the so-called dreamers. while most of those advocating such policies have good motives and good hearts, they are unintentionally, they have unintentionally created a humanitarian and bureaucratic crisis that our government is not equipped to handle. i say it, we should send them home. the children and those who have come here illegally need to be sent home, whether they're adults or children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania for today and mrs. napolitano of california for june 24, 25 and 26. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority eader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives and i appreciate the opportunity to do so. there are a of topic -- there are a number of topics that are on my mind. generally for me, mr. speaker, it flows from the previous debate. as i listened to the deliberation and the dialogue and the -- i'll say the cooperative nature that came between the chair mnd and ranking member -- chairman and ranking member this evening, mr. speaker, i appreciate that kind of dialogue and i think

our founding fathers would be very pleased if they could see that this work that's being done, a lot of it behind closed doors, in the select committee on intelligence, is being done in a deliberative process, sometimes in a classified setting, but often in a nonpartisan environment. and it seems as though when the television cameras come on, the partisanness of this united states congress is amplified by the media's coverage of the events that take place. and when the doors get closed, we get serious about policy in a different kind of a way, we're no longer messaging to america or simply having that kind of debate and dialogue that our founding fathers envisioned. i don't know that it is particularly a phenomenon that's unique to the united states congress. in the time of our founding fathers we didn't have instantaneous media communications that went out across the district of columbia or into the states or across the country for that matter, or

the world. and as technology has developed and we have -- they had the printing press and that allowed for a newspaper to be printed in a limited form, in a compressed and compact form in a limited fashion, and as that message went out across the country, sometimes it took weeks for the actions here in congress to penetrate into the public and by then there was another wave of action and another wave of action, an entirely different rhythm that i envision here in congress as compared to the rhythm that we have here. i think the pace of what we do in this congress is related to the ability to translate a message out to the american people and now to the world. so now, going from an era when information traveled at its fastest pace as our founding fathers helped shape this nation, information traveled about as fast as a horse gould gallop, that was the closest

thing they had to lightning speed of -- as a horse could gallop, that was the closest thing they had to lightning speed of communication. today things travel at the speed of light, not a horse, but the speed of light. and it's not just that there's a single piece of information that goes out of here at the speed of light but all kind of pieces of information can go out everywhere, not just to the district of columbia, not just to surrounding states alone, not to the 50 state we was in the u.s. territories across the reaches of the globe and the pacific, for example, but everywhere in the world, it can go at the speed of light, as close to instantaneously as possible, and it can be transmitted out of an iphone, used to be a blackbury, but that got to be -- a blackberry but that got to be too slow for us, but now we can transmit things in realtime from a device that hangs from our belt. it's changed the pace of

politics in the congress, changed the civilization and culture in different ways. now we have people sitting in their living rooms all over america that, far long time now, have been able to sit down and from their desk and do email. that's a methodology that's now more than 20 years old, the ability to transfer instantaneously a letter we might write on an electronic page and click the send button and it can go anywhere around the world at roughly the speed of light but now there are millions of people sitting there, that have practice with the email extensively and set up their email trees and now a faster way is to do that on facebook and the more comes preed way is to send it out by twitter and there are a number of different social medias people are exercising and there will be more. while that happens, the american people are projecting their opinions, their observations, instantaneously to their families, to their friends, the people part of their

distribution list, those that are their followers and their friend list. this has changed the way we do business in this country and brought about public opinions that are accelerated in a faster way, a far, far faster way than public opinions were formed in, say, the era of our founding. and so because of this, it's been an expansion of our economy, the expansion of our efficiency, we're far more productive than we were before because we can communicate more quickly than before, but at the same time it's opened us up for the kind of attacks that come from people who, in the era of our founding, in the era of say 235 years ago or, they had no capability of reaching americans, no capability of getting to our shores, and no capability of penetrating into the domestic life of americans. we were safe enough then from the barberry pirates we had -- the barbary pirates, we had to go there before they attacked

us. yet at that time 20% of the federal budget was appropriated in this city was committed to paying tribute, which was ribes, you might say, to the barbary pirates. now we find ourselves still fighting the same ideology of people who would use cyberspace to attack us, that would use airplanes to attack us, both of which were not envisioned by our founding fathers, both of which n get here far faster than a barbary pirate corsair could be rode across the atlantic ocean. that's changed the -- changed what we do. the select committee sees the intelligence we have and tries to address this appropriately. some of the things we need to do is intel on our enemies. i'm hope that this bill that just passed will contribute to making it safer for americans and make our enemies, who simply

design that they would want to -- decide they want to kill us because we're not their religion, not their culture, not their, when i refer to them as a civilization, i have to put that in quotes, mr. speaker. but that's what's in front of us and as the select committee on intelligence delivers a bill to the floor about which most of us don't have inside knowledge of, we have to keep in mind what's happened with the intelligence community and the results of the attacks that have taken place around the world. and that takes me to what we saw, heard, and learned and thought we knew to a greater degree than most americans would agree did know with regard to iraq and went in there to liberate them in march of 2003. i was here in this congress then i remember the intelligence that was delivered. i remember the rhythm of what was taking place, the messages delivered by the president, by the vice president, the agreement on what they had for intelligence that went from u.s.

intelligence, israeli intelligence, french intelligence, everybody in the intelligence community for the world, agreed essentially on the same thing. and saddam was removed from power. and americans and coalition forces went in to do that. and in the ensuing aftermath of the liberation, we saw an ebb and flow of forces in iraq. one of them was a surprise for me to learn as al qaeda stepped in to places and took over in places like fallujah andra mahdi, that we would allow that to happen on our watch, that we occupy bases in iraq, we swept through the country and deleend country up, we swept through the country and turned it over to the people, oil was starting to flow, it was starting then to go into the treasury of iraq and yet, cities like fallujah andra mahdi and others were taken over by al qaeda and we watched that

happen. that happened under the bush administration. after it got to a certain point, president george w. bush then began to look for solutions. he was not willing to accept a pa kitchlation in -- a capitulation in iraq that would have allowed for al qaeda and our american enemies, general sunni-related forces, to take iraq back over again. that was what we had under saddam. not necessarily al qaeda -- alsky da, but the sunni forces dominated iraq -- i said iran, iraq. and then the forces within iraq that had been pushes back on american forces and shia forces within iraq, the president was not willing to accept that. president bush wasn't willing to accept that he put together the surge. the counterinsurges strategy drafted by general -- the sunter insurgent strategy drafted by -- the counter insurgent strategy drafted by general petraeus who

took some time to draft that strategy. that strategy before it was brought forward and publied was beginning to be developed to be implemented in iraq. i had the circumstance of timing to have been in iraq before the surge was the name but when the concept was being discussed and developed by our commanders in the field and pushed by general petraeus at the time. and i saw the success of the surge as we went in and aligned ourselves with the tribal interests of the sunnis as well as the shias who understood that al qaeda was too brutal, that they would not be trusted to simply allow the iraqi people to run their own country and run their own government and so they aligned theirselves with the people whom they envisioned would be the successful ones on the other side of the violent and bloody conflict that was ensuing. that aligned the right people on the right side on our side of

that particular battle, mr. speaker, that particular phase of the war in iraq, there were many battles. and it allowed for the surge of u.s. forces to step in, sweep al qaeda out and build an alliance and an allegiance with a local tribal interest, say in anwr and in multiple -- in anwar and in multiple provinces that would allow for a government of, by and for the people in iraq and for a system to be put in place, they would have an opportunity to succeed and an opportunity to build a stable democracy in the country of iraq. that was the circumstances that the bush administration left for the obama administration, however, i would add one piece to this that's not apparently being discussed in today a -- in today's news media, mr. speaker. that is this. on november 17 of 2008, after barack obama was elected for his

first term in office, president bush, under his administration, i'll say allowed or recommended or assented to our u.s. ambassador to iraq, brian crocker, an individual who is a wonderful public servant, one of the most knowledgeable people that we have on that whole area of the world that we call the mideast and whom has impressed me with the deep knowledge and good judgment that he has and the careful rhythm of the work he does, someone who has an eye on the moves of the world and how u.s. policy influences part of -- that part of the world so i wanted to put these commercials in for ambassador -- ambassador crocker because i remain impressed with him. it came to be his task to sign, however a new status of forces agreement with iraq and the moment i read that status of

forces agreement, which was signed by ambassador crocker on behalf of president bush, november 17, 2008, after president obama was elected so der the lame duck era of president-elect obama and in the last months of president bush's campaign -- or president bush's administration, excuse me, ambassador crocker signed a status of forces agreement which agreed to pull all military forces out of iraq, agreed to aban dan the bases we had established, abandon the airstrips we had established, the defensive positions and the ability to project force in iraq was not only diminished it was essentially eliminated by that agreement. i was alarmed that the administration would negotiate and agree to such a status of forces agreement that it so weakened our ability to project power in iraq, out of all the blood and treasure that was invested, it was -- it sent the

message and said either we don't care any longer or we have such confidence in the regime and such confidence in the new government that had been set up throughout those bloody years in iraq, that we didn't need to be there any longer. i think of the history of the united states' involvement, mr. speakering, and the time we was gone into place -- mr. speaker, and the times we have gone into places like germany, japan, the philippines, korea, for example, around the world, where america has invested blood and treasure, we have also established bases to operate from to project power, to project force, to protect freedom through the the reaches of the interests of the united states of america and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and billions, in fact, trillions, of dollars, we have not in the past washed our hands and waubed away as if we wanted to be finished with

it, except that as i speak, mr. speaker, it occurs to me that we did have general winfield scott in mexico and about 1845 we signed the treaty of hidalgo which essentially gave mexico back to mexico after the americans had invaded and occupied the state of mexico, including mexico city, could have stayed, could have established an american presence there, could have brought the american civilization into mexico, looking back on it historically, perhaps should have done so, but that was a time when american blood and american treasure was just packaged up and brought back home again, although out of that bargain came the gadsen purchase and a new line of american border between the united states and mexico. so there was something gained from that. in this case, we sacked up our bats and went home and left a few marines in the embassy in

baghdad and the rest of it, we left to the iraqis. as the intelligence came up, mr. speaker, and we watched what was isis n, we learned that was growing and the conflict in syria reached a questionable peak last september, last august, actually, around labor day in september, when president obama announced that he was planning on doing a tiny little surgicaly, teeny weany strike. that's when secretary kerry said, this is not an exact quote but he said it would be infinitesimally small. a tiny little ding on assad's regime to send a message, don't use your chemical weapons any longer on syrians. well that never happened. it didn't happen partly because we needed the british

cooperation, or the president wanted the british cooperation and david cameron, prime minister, went to the british parliament and said, i'd like to have authorization to conduct a military operation strike, i don't know that he said infinitesimally small, in syria and the british parliament rejected that proposal so he was powerless to go forward in support of a u.s. effort that might have been a military strike or two, however small they might have been, in syria. then our president, president obama, toyed with the idea of coming to congress and asking us for the permission or the endorsement or the authority to conduct operations in syria. now, mr. speaker, i want to make it clear that my opinion is, constitutionally, the president of the united states is commander in chief of the armed forces of the united states. and some in this congress would argue that the president can't issue a military strike order without first getting the consent of congress. i would argue instead that we're

living in an era where the president of the united states must have that authority. he must have the authority to, in an instant, order a military strike if that's what the circumstances and the intelligence say is required. if the president orders, and that time is a 30-day window, he should come back to congress and ask for our support and endorsement of military operations. but the initial strikes, the president has to have the authority and has the authority under the constitution to order an immediate and military strike. he didn't do that. he followed david cameron, the request before the british parliament and when they said no, congress sent messages out through the media that was a

whip-check on the vote of congress of whether we would authorize military force. when the president decided to not act in syria and decided apparently to lead from behind, which is a definition of following, not leading and do things in foreign policy and that is best described by the word digittering. he has been digittering especially on things that require an immediate response. there is a philosophy that says that if you pro contrast tin ate and if you do that, the decision will be made for you. if you dither, the decision will be made for you. action in syria, where the decision was resolved by waiting and now we can't identify good

guys on either side of this argument. we had good guys. and i didn't advocate for this and i'm a monday-morning quarterback. we had intelligence that identified good people, those who wanted to see a free syria, the syrian army that led in a free syria and believed that syria needed to remain a nation state, a country unto itself that a government that responded to the people of syria. that was the initial ideology that drove the free syrian army and i traveled into that part of the world a number of times, mr. speaker. but one of the colonels who was a leader in the movement was essentially, i'll say given over to the assad regime in a military operation and pressed

into prison and made him powerless and at that point, al qaeda and the offshoots of al qaeda and began top infiltrate themselves to the point that we are not able to identify the positive forces in syria. you have al qaeda and their affiliates, including isis that are operating there that have established the foundations for what they believe to be the future caliphate of islam. and as a result of partly the result of the u.s. not asserting itself, partly the result of perhaps not having intelligence that was good enough in that part of the world, the u.s. did not act. the president led from behind. the british parliament said no to david cameron and we have a mess in syria. we have had multiple executions and beheadings taking place and

christians being persecuted and skilled as well. and now that foundation of isis has flowed out of syria and flowing across iraq. and this group, this group, the isis has asserted themselves to the point where some are saying we need to avoid a civil war in iraq. i would argue we are almost passed that, we are almost past the point where the civil war has been engaged and to the point where it could be over resulting in an occupation of nearly the entire nation state of iraq. they have pushed that far into the countryside where the majority of the real estate is occupied by them. this is an astonishing development, especially considered in light of the president's statement three or four months ago when he told america and the world that we

didn't need to worry much about isis because they are are simply the junior varsity. the junior varsity. doesn't a force that have an identifiable source of supplies and ammunitions, although we have some intel that doesn't have an identifiable source of funding to buy their ammunitions, although we have good sources, how could they rise up in a period of three to four months from the time that the president said they are the j.v., how could they rise up and take up that much of syria and flow into iraq and invade and anwar province, for example and take the refinely, the largest refinery in iraq and

shut down and control the oil supply in iraq and now diverted it to their own sources. baghdad is threatened to be surrounded. the president has announced, he is willing to send up to 300 military personnel in iraq to prepare to evacuate americans. this is a call amy of great proportions and it was foreseen by the president of the united states. these wise commander in chiefs and the people in the white house who have the maximum access to the entire intelligent community, the intelligence community that is being discussed and re-authorized here on the floor of the house by the chair and ranking member, and i would think that a question that doesn't take many intelligence to ask is, mr. president, how

did you miss this? how did you declare isis, the junior varsity, how could they emerge this powerful force that is sweeping across iraq? this is nt a civil war but a executing the people who do not fit their particular religious sect. they are driving christians out of their part of the world and killing those. but it isn't that alone. they bragged over a week ago that they executed 1,700 iraqi soldiers and most of them are shia and the sunnis are doing the executing and killing. they have been the most most brutal and most violent force of the islamic world in that part of the world in iraq, in particular. and isis has apparently and

according to some news accounts are so violent and so brutal that they have even caused al qaeda to step back and say, you are too violent and too brutal. that is going a long ways to think that people that would fly planes into the twin towers in september of 2001 and burn americans that they did, that would find that the brutality of isis is so brutal that they want to distance themselves from it. it is one of those conclusions du jour that we come to that once you hear someone say it, it gets repeated again and again and no one challenges it and now we think al qaeda has been repulsed by the brutality of isis. i'm not convinced of that. mr. speaker, i can say this, i'm repulsed by their brutality and repulsed by the beheadings and the videos and the pictures.

i'm repulsed by the summary executions of hundreds and probable thousands of people that find themselves within the enforcement capability now of the black flag isis. i'm rebullsed what has come out of there and see the things that are going on within that part of the battle zone and in the aftermath of it as they go down he streets and do their ethnic cleansings. we will find that thousands of people have been executed by isis. at least hundreds have been beheaded and thousands have been shot in the back of their head as hands are tied behind them and forced to kneel. in those numbers there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands that will be forced to lay on the ground in a ditch and executed by ak-47 and fired into the back

of their heads. i think we will find that some and the videos are out there, some have been forced to kneel beside a pit that has a fire burning in it and gas on their heads and burned into a pit. that is the brutality taking over. that's the kind of people that have raced across the desert and faced no air power from the united states of america whatsoever. the president sitting in the white house dithering. a president who gave a speech a week ago last friday a week ago in this town and his speech was, and he said, and i'm going to give this in my summary version, steve king's interpretation of the president's speech a week ago last friday at noonan he

conveyed this message to us. things aren't going as well as we had hoped. there is an enemy that has penetrated into iraq. i'm -- we are not going to have boots on the ground in iraq. i have several options. we are going to study the options for a few days and take a few days. there are no boots on the ground. we have options but not going to dely deploy any options. there is not going to be peace in iraq. i'm going to require the iraqis to produce a political solution before we use any of the options, he didn't say this, but might help them. there are no boots on the ground. we will study it for a few days and then give the iraqis an assignment and that will be produce a political solution and then get around to helping you. that's the formula, mr. speaker

or dithering rather than fiddling. radical islamists who established a caliphate, the president is dithering in a imilar way that nero was dithering. they have the blood of our warriors and heroes at the tune of billions of dollars, of much of it board from foreign countries to keep this economy afloat. all of that price. and we don't know how this is going to come out. i don't expect the entire nation of iraq will be swamped by the black flag of isis. i don't expect that. but there is a significant threat that that happens. a significant threat. and as we watch the map as the flood and takeover of that sand in iraq is getting greater and

greater on the side of isis and smaller and smaller on the side of shias and the confusion of what i would call the legitimatized government of iraq causes them to back up, looks like their last readout is likely to be baghdad. and the opportunities for air strikes from the military have diminished. and now the opportunities to actually bring what would otherwise a cheap delay of that invasion, an invasion that runs at the speed that is as fast as n american military. isis is penetrating in iraq at a speed as fast without nearly the equipment, planning and communications as the iraqis peel backwards in front of them.

this is something more similar to -- well, i'll put it this way. when desert storm came about and needed to be done, there was much discussion in the public airways in this country about the republican guards in iraq, these crack troops that were highly trained and well equipped, even though their tanks were on the old side, they were supposedly well maintained and well positioned and their armor couldn't be penetrated and u.s. forces against them in the desert was going to be blood bath supposedly if you listen to some of the pundits in this country, generally the liberal ones. . i'm listening to this, i've been to this area several times, i've seen where they dig down and put

that tank in, it can fire from that fighting position and any kind of horizontal fire will be blocked by the dirt that surrounds it. from the air they're sitting ducks. that seemingly did not occur to the liberal people who were pontificating about how fearsome the republican guard was, but we know what happened when the air force began to fly over the republican forward and their armored division. a similar, in fact a greater vulnerability existed for isis as they traveled down the path through the desert and the roads. easy targets and the president, while this is going on, the president decided, i'm going to spend some days thinking about this we have to study this. fwather all this intel together. and then i'm going to require a political solution for the iraqis, i'm going to dither. frustrating and infuriating. it should send a message to the iraqis. there isn't a will there.

our enemies know that. and so they push on us. they push on us in iraq, they were watching the real estate being taken over, we're watching the will of the iraqi troops collapse in the face of the enemy, we've watched as we said, the refinery that's now invaded and occupied. fallujah is. andra maake dee -- and ramadi is. multiple cities in iraq taken alr, now has a black flag of qaeda's affiliate isis flying over it. and the influence of america is diminished and pushed backwards and iraq looks to iran as an ally and wonder if the sust going to do anything. what's what we're faced with, mr. speaker. we're faced with a russia pushing hard against the fee world. a putin who took he glory of the

olympics and the russia hyper nationalism that emerged from it and decided that immediately after the olympics in see chee went in and -- in sochi, went in and occupied crimea. he had a base there, he could have done that peacefully without violating international law, without occupy, could have operated freely out of his naval base in crimia. i think it's ironic thatall ta was invaded and occupied by putin, now that was the location where stalin and churchill and franklin delano roosevelt negotiated the line across europe that was to be the line in the aftermath of the second world war which became the iron curtain and became the dividing line between east and west. all ta invaded and ock -- yalta invaded and occupied as a component of crimea, by putin, riding the wave of hyper

nationalism that came on the wave of the olympics. now he's pushing into ukraine and we know -- no, let's say, we believe that when troops are show up, wearing russian uniforms and carrying russian weapons and appear to be deployed as russian troops in everything except lacking of insignias on their uniforms and not flying a russian flag, who do we think these people are? do we think they're something other than russians? why would we they thi that some force that looks for all the world like russian forces because putin doesn't admit they're russians, somehow they might have come from someplace else who do we think they are? they're russians. they're russians in russian uniforms with russian equipment, russian supply, russian systems and -- everything except the russian insignias. and meanwhile, we don't hear from the president of the united states in a strong way and meanwhile, ewe yainians wonder what's going to happen and wonder if they have a chance of

defending themselves. they wonder if any other part of the world is going to do that or are we going to see the iron curtain be pushed westerly again. when the berlin wall came down, november 9, 1989, that was the crashing down of the iron curtain and for a time, freedom echoed across europe, all the way across europe. in fact, it echoed, at least theoretically, all the way across asia to the pacific ocean. and it's been pushed back again by the strong arm of vladimir putin. now we're seing a line of demarcation between the east and west that's been redefined by putin in his effort to restore the former soviet union, the eastern bloc countries are very nervous about what happens with a very aggressive putin. and they're very nervous because they wonder, do they have an ally in the united states. and they wonder if they can hang on for another 2 1/2 years until

a new president is elected that is going to believe in america and a robust america, an america that defends itself, an america that's bonned with its allies, an america that has tax and regulatory policies that allows for the growth of our free enterprise system so that we can see an economic vigor that will drive our economy here and give us confidence in who we are again and go to the furthest outreaches of the world where americans are doing business and country -- and country after country. the american chamber of commerce, in nation a after nation, become the ambassadors for the united states. they teach the world about trade and free enterprise. they teach the world about, we have an american -- it's not a hyper nationalism. what it is is, very active commercial style. i would give an example, as i deal with the australians for example, and i have a special affection for the aussies, they

will come and make contact and they'll make friends and they'll be sociable and then they'll go away and they'll come back again and do the same thing. on the third time, they're more likely to bring up the discussion about the business that they want to conduct, mr. speaker. but americans are not like that we're a little bit different. we're more like the donald trumps, where we come in, we make -- we figure out what we want to do business wise, we think we understand what the other party needs and wants in a business deal, we believe that all parties involved in a business deal need to have an opportunity to profit. and so if one dollar is going to change hands with one other person, two people need to benefit from that. the buyer and the seller. if a three-way deal, three entities benefit. if it's thousands or tens of thousands of people shareholders, for example, everybody is designed to benefit from that and we go in and we say, here's the deal. this is our proposal. this is why it's good for you, this is why it's good for us, this is why we ought to sign

here on the.ed line. we'll get around to all the niceties and discussion afterwards. maybe we'll have a meal or a drink together, but let's do the business and then we'll talk about the social side. that's the american way. go business fast, we do business efficiently. it's a culture that has developed in tchunt -- in this country because we've had an unfettered ability to buy, sell, trade, make gain here in america without government interference, without the belief that we have to sit at the table negotiators that represented the government, negotiators that represent the unions to sit and talk with fwoshtors that represented the capital in america we do business with capital. capital because we do business for a profit. and capital deserves a return on its investment. labor gets the benefit from that profit by increasing wages and benefits to hire the best people to produce that good or service that has marketable value. that's what made america's economy great. our attitude about buy, sell,

trade, make, gain, do good, produce goods and services with a marketable value here and abroad and let's send our americans abroad to do business. let them bring our -- take our values there. let them encourage people to come here and do business with us and let's open up our trade wherever we can all over the world with a free and smart trade system that if we're going to grant access to our markets, we ask you to let us also have access to your markets. we don't believe ideologically in trade protectionism. we believe in free and smart trade. we don't believe in stupid trade. stupid trade would be, you have access to our markets but it's ok with us if we don't have access to yours. no deal. americans make a lot of deals. and we make them efficient. we make them smart. we make them fast. and we make them all over the world. that has been a foundation of the burgeoning growth of the -- growth of the american economy and the american civilization. it's been restrained in recent

years because we have a leadership that has failed to convince me that they believe in free enterprise. but we should remember that even on the immigration flash cards that we have, mr. speaker, when legal immigrants come to america and they want to study to become citizens of the united states, they will study the history of this country and the things necessary to be prepared to take the naturalization test. and uscis, the citizenship immigration service, has a collection of flash cards they can study from to be prepared for the test. these flash cards are laminated, they're about this big, they're mostly red with white letters on them and you can look at them and ask the question who is the father of our country? flip that card around, and the answer, george washington. who emancipated the slaves? on the other side of the card, abraham lincoln. what's the economic system of the united states of america? flip the card over, free

enterprise capitalism, mr. speakerism wish the white house believed in it as much was as we ask our legal imgrants to believe in it as they prepare for the test for the naturalization to citizenship of the united states. that's part of who we are. and yet, our economy is stagnant. it's floot. there seems to be an attitude that emerges from the administration that free enterprise and capitalism itself is somehow a dirty word. no, it's the foundation of the economy of the united states of america. it's on the test. and they believe, as i watch their reaction, that somehow the capital, the employers, are victimizing both employees and customers. and that there's plenty of money there and plenty of profit there to pay for more regulation, to pay for more taxation and to pay for more raises and wages and benefits for employees that could be dictated by the white house. that's not the american way.

it's got to be free enterprise. the relationship between the employer and the employee is up to them. not up to the government. the government can't set wages. the government can't determine that one work is comparable to another work. only supply and nand can do that effectively and efficiently. that is the american way, mr. speaker. there are other things that are the american way. for example, we don't support lawbreakers. we don't believe -- we don't believe that people who habitually in a calculated way, systematically violate america's laws should be rewarded for doing. so we understand that when ronald reagan said that if you -- what you tax you get less of, what you subsidize you get more of. and if you subsidize lawbreakers, if you reward lawbreakers, you get more lawbreakers. i was disappointed with ronald

ray began twice in his administration. i watched him closely. i believe that ronald reagan understood the founding principles of this country, so confidently and clearly that no amount of lobbying, no amount of rhetoric new york amount of misinformation was going to change his adherence to the fundamental principles that are the pillars of american exceptionalism. his comments in the house, there was an intense debate about amnesty and the debate went something like this. there are one million illegal immigrants in america. they have come across the border, generally across the boarder from mexico, and it's too difficult. we can't deport them all. i think i've heard that before system of emust make an accommodation to them and we're having difficulty getting enforcement at the border because there are competing interests and those who would drag down the effort to enforce

our emigration laws, especially to secure the border, but we can get full cooperation on border security and full cooperation on domestic enforcement if we just give amnesty to the millions of people that are here illegally and from this point forward, hereafter, we will all enthusiastically join together and enforce immigration law and i.n.s. will be in every office of every employer in america examining your records to make sure that you are carefully following the law and being there to be the tool that will elp enforce immigration law. i thought, president reagan you know, you can't reward lawbreakers. if you do that, you'll get more lawbreakers. if you subsidize any activity, you'll get more of that activity and if you tax it, you'll get less of it. the penalty for violating the

slaw a taxation, a deterrent for riletting the law. the greater the penalty, the less law violators you have. and theless penalty and the greater the incentive, the more law violators you have. so if you wanted to subsidize lawbreakers, you'll get lots more lawbreakers. these argues, i thought, were so clear that i didn't need to go stand outside the white house with a sign, i could just write a letter here and there and with great confidence raise my family, run my business and have trust that the president of the united states would veto that amnesty act that was to come to his desk in 1986. it came to his desk, and the people around him strongly encouraged president reagan to sign the amnesty act and take all of this disagreement, all of this angst off the table that had to do with the million illegal aliens who had entered the united states illegally, were unlawfully present in america, give them a legal presence and be done with it and i.n.s. will enforce this law at

the border, border patrol, and internally, immigration and naturalization services. ronald reagan signed the amnesty act and i, in my construction office, as an employer, hit the high levels of frustration, at least for that stage of my life, but i began to comply with the law. we had applicants and i made sure i took the records and evaluated their documents, their social security card, most of the times i could then and a driver's license, at least two forms of identification. i made sure our form collected the records necessary that were required by that act. i made sure i kept those records for every applicant. i was prepared for our employees and the applicants for the jobs that wanted to work for king construction, i made sure i had

all of those records up to snuff and i made sure that my executive secretary kept those records because i feared and i was concerned, i don't know if i was afraid, but i expected i.n.s., immigration and naturalization to show up and say, we want to see your records and we want to make sure you haven't hired anybody illegally or entertained you hired anyone illegally and have the documentation so you are not enabling the employment of illegal aliens in america. you all know this, no one showed the om i.n.s. or enforcement didn't materialize and didn't get enhanced at the border either. the promise of enforcement came unfulfilled but the promise for

amnesty came three times the number of people that were projected to be amnesty by the 1986 act were granted amnesty. and i have met with a respectable number of them at random and i asked them, what do you think of amnesty and they will look at me and say, i support amnesty. i think it was a good idea. it was good for me and my family and it is a good policy. i said what do you think about the rule of law and what do you think about the rule of law when people break the law? it was bad for america. it was really bad for america, because here we are, here we are, 28 years later and we're still debating the issue, the amnesty still hangs out in front

of people from all over the world that says, well americans have a soft heart. they welcome illegal immigrants to the point of 2.2 million. we don't care about the quality of their standards. not very much any way, because 7% and 11% of the illegal immigration in america is immigration that is measured by a standard that might be an index of what they can do to contribute to our country. every nation in the world should have an immigration policy to enhance the social, economic and cultural well-being of that country. i have continued to believe we must have an immigration policy to enhance the economic, social and cultural well-being of the united states of america. it can't be the safety valve for

the poverty in the world. poverty in the world. we are over seven billion. the poverty rate grows at a faster rate than we have the ability to drain off those. and by the way, the numbers i have seen when we were six billion people, there were 4.6 billion, billion with a b that had a lower standard of living than the average person from mexico. if you think about alleviating poverty, there are many places to draw people from where the poverty is worse. and many places to draw people from where the prerp traitors of violence come in greater numbers. however, the violent death rate of the united states is one-third of the violent death rate in mexico and if you

compare violent death rates in other countries, mexico is one of the safer count from central america down south. you have to go down to chile that has a death rate that is comparable to the relatively lower death rate of the united states. colombia had a violent death rate of 15.4 times that of the united states. our rate today is 6.5 violent deaths per 100,000. 10 years ago, it was 4.5. at that time, mexico's was 13.2. 4.6 violent death rate in the united states, 13.2 violent death rate in mexico. drug wars and the massive killings that have taken place, maybe 70,000 or more that have died in the drug wars, that is part of the statistics that has taken mexico at a higher violent

death rate. now a violent death rate of 18 per 100,000 and perhaps there is some index that u.s. death rate as gone from 4.6 on up to 6.5. but the ratio remains the same. mexico is more violent than the u.s., but significantly less violent than countries like hon did your asand guatemala. the highest murder rate, they ave said on the floor is honduras. i haven't seen those numbers, but i can tell you the violent death rate in gault maula is higher. easy enough to do the math. little more than 11 times, the vial ent death of the united states in guatemala.

so there is significant violence there. but some of the people that are the perpetrators of that violence are migrants and look at the housing taking place in texas as illegal immigrants are coming across the border, perhaps tens of thousands, i migrants, a thousand miles of mexico and arrive at the river and stage themselves to try to come across the river into the united states brought across by the coyotes. sometimes in jet skis or inner tubes, they come across the river. and the staging that's there and the pushing of the people that are in here, the mix of the population that are being picked at the border of texas is

reported in the newspaper to be this, of that mix of unaccompanied minors, it's a special category, of that mix, 80% male, eight out of ten are boys, two out of 10 are girls. 80% boys, 20% girls. and of those, the country of origin, 2/3 of them are from the three countries that we have been defined. that's 2/3 of them. 83% of the unaccompanied minors, we see pictures of little kids, a three-year-old, two-month old, yes, they are there, they are there in some kind of numbers, mostly the younger kids are in the company of a mother or a parent. but of the unaccompanied minors,

of those, 83% of them -- get my numbers right here, 80% are boys, 83% of them fit this age group and that is they are 15, 16 or 17 years old. 80% boys, 83% fit those ages, prime ages for gang recruit mnlt. it isn't innocents coming into america. we have a heart and obligation and first thing we have to do is stop this and send them back and have to require the countries of origin to distribute them in the places they want them to live in their country of origin. we have an agreement. the reason we have 12%, we have an agreement by mexico that was forged by congress that requires health and human services to negotiate a repay tryation policy and when we pick up the

minors, they are be turned over and taken back to their homes in mexico, to a significant agree and not always within 48 hours. that does work, which is why we don't see a larger amount of mexicans coming in. but the other than mexicans are exploiting a loophole. we need to change the statute here in congress and send a bill to the president that negotiates an agreement so the countries can receive their unaccompanied minors and be required to do so. and we should freeze the foreign aid to those countries so that amount cannot increase to provide them an incentive. and i would remind the people who are sending their children here, and saying go across a thousand miles of mexico and pay more money to get to the united

states, present yourself to the united states and say i'm afraid i'm going to be killed, remind them in this country if a mother or father loses track, they are guilty of child endangerment. and if they are guilty of that, not only on subsequent offenses, we do that, we take those children in the health and human services and we can terminate the parental rights and place that child into foster care and transfer that child into adoption because we in this country do not tolerate parents who abonn done their children or fail to take care of their children or endanger their children. that is a very description of what happens when you send a child across 1,000 miles of a country. that's got to stop. and i will be introducing legislation that addresses that very topic. and i appreciate your attention

and indulgence and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i have to catch my breath after listening to the last hour of an unbelievable stream of consciousness. but i want to be specific of things we need to do here in congress. often we come to the floor in the evening and we talk about the subject of rebuilding the american economy brick by brick, road by road, job by job and putting the manufacturing sector back on its feet. today i want to talk about one

of those -- my colleagues and i want to talk about one part of making it in america agenda and that is not the trade taxes, energy, labor, education or research but the infrastructure part of that equation. infrastructure is the foundation upon which any economy grows and the american infrastructure has a problem. here's the problem. the american infrastructure's falling down, falling apart, overused, overworn and in desperate need of rebuilding. we can do it. america once built the greatest infrastructure in the world. we are falling way, way behind in our own country and we aren't keeping up with other countries such as china, who is building everything everywhere and laying in place an infrastructure that will carry them into the future.

that's why we are not keeping up. here's why we are falling down. here's why we have pot holes and why cars are losing their ability to stay on the road, not because the drivers can't drive, but because we aren't spending the money we once did. back in 2002, we were spending $325 billion a year. right now, we are down to somewhere below $250 billion on infrastructure. that is why we see bridges collapsing. that is why we have the transportation snarls and all of the problems in our transportation system. . . as they say in the mideast, just wait, it will get worse. here in america, we're two months away from this happening. we're going to fall off the transportation bridge.

the funding for transportation programs funded by the federal government will run out of money sometime in august, perhaps in early september, depending on several factors that are simply unknown. but the funding for maintenance and constructions of our roads and bridges by the federal government will be over, they'll be no -- there'll be no more federal funding available unless this congress acts. we have a road map. we have a road map. weave plan. we have a program. pothba ma and the transportation department with secretary fox recently laid out a program called the grow america act. it's a program that would provide $302 billion over the next four years, money that is desperately needed for rail, buses, ports, the freight system, buses, meaning light

rail, heavy rail, the transit systems in our cities and the rail systems, amtrak, bridges and highways. all of this is available, the grow america act is a real proposal. it's one that this congress should take up. there are some that have better ideas and better plans. bring them forward. highways, about $199 billion. $19 ridges and buses about billion. excuse me, $79 billion. about $10 billion for the freight systems. for the rail. another $10 billion. all of this is possible. but we need to do this. we need to finance it. this program, by the president, is fully financed. the $212 billion relies on existing excise tax for our

gasoline, for our dee jell fuel and the president would add another $100 billion or so to fill up the pot so that we'd have the $302 billion which is some 27% more than we presently are spending on the transportation system. where does that extra money come from? it comes from corporate reforms. but that is not the only proposal on how to finance our transportation system in a few minutes i'll turn this over to my colleague from oregon, mr. blumenauer, who will talk about that in more detail. also joining us tonight is my colleague from kansas, mr. cleaver, who will be taking about -- talking about his transportation systems in that area. this is a real plan, a real proposal, all the details we would need, how we could develop the freight programs to connect the ports to the rail systems, how you would provide those

intermodal proposals, how to repair the bridge the funding for it over the period of time and the highways and it's all coordinated around fixing the things that are broken. fix what is broken. the rail systems are critically important. the intercity rail, the amtrak system on the east coast, and this happens to be the capital corridor in my district that runs between roseville to san jose through san francisco, one of the most heavily used rail corridors in the entire system. one of the things that we also talk about here in the make it in america is that we spend our tax money on american made goods. if we're going to spend $302 billion of the american taxpayers' money, my legislation would increase the buy america legislation. i want to give you one brief example of what it means. this is the most modern

locomotive in the united states and arguably one of the most modern electric locomotives in the entire world. it is built in sacramento. this is money that was made available in the american recovery act, the stimulus bill, and written into that bill was a provision that said that money for the -- some $800 million for amtrak, locomotives had to be spent, 100% on american made locomotives. siemens, a german company, big german manufacturing company, looked at that and said, $800 million, 100% american made? we can do that. they took their factory in sacramento and expanded it. s the first locomotive among those that will come off the line some 70 or 80 of them, that will be 100% american made. this locomotive will soon be operating here on the east coast corridor. eventually we'll get those in sacramento but those will be

diesel elective. the final point i want to make before turning this over to my colleague, mr. blumenauer, is this. these are men and women in my district, fairfield, california, in december of this year, that atened a job fair that i put on in fairfield. i expected to find a few of my fellow citizens attending that. this job fair took place in december. the temperature was just below 40 degrees. it was a foggy and rather cold day. more than a thousand people lined up outside our job fair seeking a job. americans want to go to work. americans want to work. they want those good middle class jobs that come from building the infrastructure. it's not wrust the hard hat jobs. these are the techniciansing to, the engineers the accountant the secretaries -- the engineer the

accountant the secerer tears, the people working on the software, all those jobs, so our plea today to our colleagues on the republican side is, let's go to work. let's go to work here in the congress. let's put forward transportation bill that avoids that transportation cliff, that allows the american public to go back to work. tens of thousands of jobs. indeed if we fail 3.5 million americans will lose their job in the coming year if we fail to put together a transportation bill. that 3.5 million plus thousands upon thousands more will be able to go to work if we get this transportation program moving. the president is giving us a program to go -- a program, the grow america program. if there are better ideas, they should come forward. we should pass this -- act upon that legislation, improve upon it.

figure out the financing if the president's notion of ending unnecessary corporate tax loopholes and giveaways isn't the best way, then let's put together a better way. so with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back my share of the time and if possible turn it over to my colleague, mr. blumenauer to manage the remaining portion of the session. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman, under the speaker's announced policy of january 13 -- january 3, 2013, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer is recognized for the remainder of the hour. mr. blumenauer: i would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from california for his ongoing eadership, adcocacy and focus, making critical investments, putting people to work and calling on this congress to get in gear to be able to move the country forward. i appreciate his courtesy and his leadership. i would like to begin, if i

could by turning to another of my colleagues from kansas city, missouri, reverend emanuel cleaver, a gentleman who was kind enough to give me a visa to visit his district recently, watching not just the affection his constituents have for him but the big plans that are evidence in his community dealing with how we put the pieces together in a more sustainable future a vision for transportation, it was fascinating for me to watch. i appreciate his allowing me to be part of it and i yield to the gentleman from kansas city at this time. mr. cleaver: thank you, mr. blumenauer. mr. speaker, i appreciate the with mr. y to be here blumenauer and particularly mr. garamendi who have long histories, longer than i've been

in the house, of pushing for transportation issues and i think that this is a rather sad and tragic moment in our history, the interstate highway system was put in place in 1956 and who would have thought that when we got into the 21st century that the congress of the united states would fail to keep that system in a top condition. the transportation bill affects americans in every state of this country. a robust federal investment in transportation is an economic engine strengthening hundreds of communities and the thing that i have said often in my district and frankly in hearings is the best stimulus for the economy.

the very best stimulus is a transportation bill. and the weird thing is that the infrastructure is the back bone of our economy upon which businesses, families and communs thrive so everyone is involved in this, red or blue, urban, rural, we all rely on transportation infrastructure. ensuring economic prosperity is of paramount importance. it's not a republican or a democratic goal but one we all share. one of the things that troubled me most since i was elected to congress 10 years ago is that we have somehow narrowed everything down to the point where it is either red or blue. it's either republican or democratic. and i'm not sure how we can look at highway systems in terms of political tribalism. i served as mayor of kansas city for eight years during the

1990's. i can truthfully say that i had no idea on a day-to-day pay basis based on what people said and did who the republicans were and who the democrats were. we were all interested in trying to preserve kansas city. when there was a pothole in one of the streets in kansas city, and kansas city is a huge city, 322 square miles, to give you an idea, you can put san francisco inside our city limits 30 times. or st. louis three times. and so it's a huge city. but what we all were interested in is making sure, if there was a pothole, it was fixed. because there was no republican way of fixing it, there was no democratic way of fixing it. we fixed the pothole. and so one of my great disappointments when i arrived here is that is a republican or a democrat philosophy on everything, including transportation and infrastructure. every dollar invested in

missouri transportation generates $4 of economic activity. and the federal highway administration actually estimates that for every $1 billion spent on transportation, 34,000 direct and indirect jobs are created. think about that. 34,000. indirect and direct jobs are generated. that's why i take every opportunity i can to talk about infrastructure and improvements to our roads and bridges and waterways, in my district and around the country. investment in transportation and infrastructure generates growth and jobs during initial design, construction, and then post construction. i can tell you that at a time like this when we're still having some healing needed with our economy, this is the time to

pump it up. we don't need qe-4, we don't need to do another dodd-frank. we need to pass a transportation and infrastructure bill. that begins to help heal this economy because it is a job creator. according to the american 2013ty of civil engineers, he port card, over 35,000 -- i hope people at home get this, 3,500 bridges in missouri alone are considered structurally deficient. 3,500 bridges in my state. considered structurally deficient. and over 3,300 are considered functionally obsolete. that's 14% of the bridges in he state -- in the state of missouri are functionally obsolete and every day, kansas cityians and missourians are

driving over those bridges and that's a tragedy. because it's not only bad in missouri, it's that way all over this country. all over the country. and this body is the only body hat can address the problem. while i agree that states should step up to raise the necessary revenues and make crucial investments themselves, it should be no surprise that interstate commerce is a duty in which this congress is uniquely poised to fulfill. we are a nation of red states and blue states, usualen communities and rural communities -- urban communities and rural communities and i represent both. while each state must make investments of their communities, there's a responsibility to make sure our nation remains globally and competitive, that falls on this congress. bridge after bridge after ridge is in danger, highways bling and we cannot sit by