o from being able to capture their free signals. what do you think about this technology and the supreme court weighing in? think -- my guess is the view of the court -- i'm a lawyer. i started out as a lawyer. that it is a is is backdoor around copyright. that will be viewed by many in the court as that is exactly what it is and that has a very negative connotation. is being technology used as a back door around existing law, that is always going to have a negative connotation. i think they have a case. they have an argument. i would doubt that it gets the support of the court. host: we have to leave it there. bob wright, cofounder of autism speaks. thank you for talking to our viewers. we appreciate it. guest: thank you. a pleasure to be here.

host: that does it for the washington journal. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 25, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable ileana ros-lehtinen twact -- to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate.

the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip , mited to five minutes each no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, it's my great pleasure to rise today in celebration of lgbt pride month. this year, my friends, in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transjebbeder, has more to celebrate than ever. for decades the struggle for lgbt equality seemed like a distant dreamed. just 45 years ago in june, 1969, a series of police actions against the gay

community sparked the stonewall riots, one of the pivotal rights in the fight of equality. what began as a moment is now a movement, bringing lgbt americans with allies to fight for their rights but are too often denied. back then the movement moved slowly but surely, making enroads neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city, but now i'm proud to say the equality movement is moving state by state, picking up steam across the country with no signs of slowing down. it seems like almost every other month a new state is reaffirming the rights of gay and lesbian people the right to marry whoever they want, regardless of their gender. my home state of illinois became the 16th state to legalize same-sex marriage. i have to smile when i think that just two months prior i was officiating symbolic marriages as a festival in chicago to draw awareness to

the cause. what a difference a few months can make. currently gay and lesbian americans have achieved marriage equality in 18 states and the district of columbia, and america is stronger for it. even the supreme court has recognized the march toward equality is inevitable, striking down the defense of marriage act last year. for too long, doma denied same-sex couples the federal benefits they earned and deserved. thankfully, the supreme court saw this discriminatory law for what it was and tossed it into the ash heap of history. now lgbt couples are able to file taxes jointly and take advantage of tax breaks that were once limited to hetio sexual couples. now the -- heterosexual couples. now the brave men and women in the armed services can use the benefits. and now once binational couples are able to sponsor their partners for green cards and

are treated equally under the immigration laws. what once was a dream is now our reality. as i said, madam speaker, there's more to celebrate this pride month than ever before. this weekend, thousands will celebrate how far we've come at the 45th annual chicago pride parade. i'll be proud to join the celebration, as i have every year since 1982, and recommit to the work that lies ahead to reach full lgbt equality. i look forward to one day soon when the supreme court extends marriage rights to all citizens once and for all so that no american is denied equality because of the state they live in. a day which congress passes the enemployment nondiscrimination here in the house so no american can be fired simply because of who they love, a day which lgbt americans are allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital and have access to every federal benefit that is available to all other americans, a day which we

ensure lgbt youth are protected from harassment and bullying, a day in which healthy gay and bisexual men are no longer barred for life from donating blood for patients in need. the day is coming soon, no doubt about that. until then, we must find the courage to keep marching, fighting and believe that one day america will be a nation that fulfills its promise for liberty and justice for all. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, yesterday the united states fish and wildlife service announced it will extend the deadline on its decision whether to list the northern long ear bat as endangered under the endangered species act in order to further review public comments on the

proposal. the announcement comes in response to a letter initiated by members of the pennsylvania congressional delegation outlying the lack of sufficient data used to support the designation and cautioning moving forward with the listing would constitute a fundamentally ineffective approach to species restoration. while severely harming the economy. the service initially cited the effects of the white nose syndrome as the lone basis for its proposed endangered listing. although the disease is impacting the long ear bat in areas of 38 states, the services acknowledged that the economic activities that would be most affected by the proposed listing have little impact on the population numbers or the decline of the species. madam speaker, this extension will allow for a fresh look at the sufficiency and the accuracy of the data, and with any hope will allow the service to consider a better alternative, a more effective

approach to combat the white nose syndrome. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. madam speaker, i come to the floor on april 2 to tell my republican colleagues that they had three months to craft an immigration policy before the july fourth recess. at the time there was still hope that sensible republicans would see that their existence as a national party depended on getting immigration issue resolved. i came back to this well almost every week to remind my republican colleagues that time was running out. with the nation gripped by world cup fever, let me give you a visual representation of my message for the last three

months. i gave republicans a yellow card to put them on warning if they failed to act on immigration, if they failed to act, they would be out of the game. having met with the president in march, i knew he was prepared to give republicans time to craft an immigration reform bill, but if they failed to take action, i knew the president would take his pen and pad and saving families at the risk of being deported. let's see where we stand three months after i gave you the first warning. this marks the one-year anniversary of the bipartisan immigration senate bill that passed with 68 votes in the senate. we had our own group of eight here in the house crafting a tough but fair immigration compromise, but politics slowed us down and the effort collapsed. but some leaders in the republican party knowing immigration reform is the only way to achieve border security and workplace verification, like e-verify, compassion and justice for how we treat our

immigrant neighbors and friends, some in the republican party kept trying and i thank them. and on my side of the aisle we kept an open mind. when the speaker of the house said no to the senate bill, i said, ok. let's find a way to craft a house bill. when republicans said no to a conference, i said we will find a way to make it work if that's what it needs to be done. piecemeal bills, they said, not a comprehensive bill. i said we'll work with you. no direct path to citizenship for most immigrants, well, we didn't like it but we kept talking. no one tried harder than i did to keep the two parties talking on how to move forward on immigration. there are members of the house immigration conference that need immigration reform politically. others need it to restore law and order and others deeply grounded in their conservative philosophy. still, others in the republican conference are fighting for reform out of a sense of compassion and doing the right thing, as my friend, diaz-balart from florida, has.

but months passed and republicans turned their back on their own members, turned their backs on the american people, turned their backs on latino voters and those trying to save the republican party from itself. you know, madam speaker, i kept hoping the better angels in the republican party would tap down the rational and angry angels, blocking reform the american people want and deserve. and then the last draw. as violence and poverty and gangs out of central america, i see allies and talk radio and tv taking advantage of a humanitarian crisis to score cheap political points. in a few hours, the judiciary committee, which has done nothing to help move the republican party in the congress forward on immigration, will hold a hearing on what it calls administration made disaster on the u.s.-mexico border. i gave you the warning three months ago, and now i have no other choice. you're done.

you're done. leave the field. too many flagrant offenses and unfair attacks. you're out. hit the showers. it's the red card. first of all, your chance to play a role in how immigration and deportation policies are carried out this year are over. having given ample time to craft legislation, you failed. the president has no other choice but to act within existing law to ensure that our deportation policies are humane. the due process rights are protected. that detention conditions are as they should be and most importantly that the people who assets to ting are our families and society. i think we all know that you are out when it comes to the white house. by taking no action, even after repeated warnings, you have decided it is up to the democrats to pick the supreme court justices, conduct foreign policy and carry out all the

functions of the executive branch for the next generation. the republican presidential nominee, whoever he or she may be, will enter the race with an electoral college deficit they cannot make up. republicans in the house simply have no answer when it comes to immigration reform, and republicans have failed america and failed themselves. mr. speaker, it is now time for the president to act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. grimm, for five minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise unfortunately today to call attention to a growing epidemic that is plaguing families across our country and particularly in my district in staten island and brooklyn. this week "the new york post" and another mentioned a story

cion 11-year-old student, williams. cion's struggle is with unaddressed bullying which drove him to contemplate violence and suicide. think about that. an 11-year-old boy contemplating violence and suicide. just a few weeks ago, i met with this bright and very impressive young man, along with his mother, at their home. i have to tell you it was an absolutely heartbreaking story o see this very mild-mannered, very nice, polite, respectful young man tell me a heartbreaking story of how he's terrified to go to school every day, but yet he's yearning to read and to learn.

unfortunately, madam speaker, cion is far from alone. there's an example of a tragic suicide of a 15-year-old student back in 2012, and that suicide proves all too well that this epidemic is continuing. . if her memory and the memory of downless children victimized by bullying, it's time we all say enough is enough. we must demand accountability from those charged with addressing bullying in our schools, especially in new york city, where one in five public school students are victimized by abusive peers. i'm calling on all my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring h.r. 1199, the safe schools improvement act. this would require all public schools to establish policies to

combat bullying. we owe it to all of our young adults and to demand safe learning environments where they can grow and develop in a peaceful environment. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. how do we all get here? how do we get to be one of 435 people in the united states congress? great honor that it is to serve in this congress. madam speaker, we all get here because people vote for us. the american public votes. it's the essence of a democracy, it's what makes this country great, why we have sent soldiers to iraq and other places to try to give other people democracy and have people vote.

49 years ago this congress passed the voting rights act. john lewis, a member of this congress now, marched in selma, alabama, was beaten by troopers to get the right to vote. even before that, students went to mississippi and throughout the south, it was called the mississippi freedom summer, to register people to vote. and had to fight to get african-americans the opportunity to vote. people were killed in mississippi, freedom summer fighters. i met with andrew goodman, who was murdered down there, his brother, yesterday, because a year ago almost to the day if not to the day the supreme court in shelby vs. holder ruled part of the voting rights act unconstitutional. and our chief justice said it's no longer needed. he was wrong, it's needed. everyone should be entitled to vote.

and there are issues about states right now denying people the right to vote. long i.d., madam speaker, lines, ending early voting, different problems being placed before people to stop them from voting. that's anti-american. and yet it's occurring in this country right now. there is a voting rights amendment act proposed right now bipartisan, but limited bipartisan, mr. sensenbrenner, a few other republicans, i could count them on both my hands, are co-sponsors along with democrats. to pass a law that would require preclearance in states that have hown by actions and deed discriminatory practices that would inhibit the right to vote. and stop it before it becomes discrimination.

but we've got just a pause it of republican support -- paucity of republican support. i haven't been a sponsor of that act because the decision was we wanted to be bipartisan. for a democrat to be a sponsor they had to bring a republican along. i went over here, madam speaker, and i talked to at least 15 different republicans and asked them to be a co-sponsor. because i thought they should have been a co-sponsor and because i wanted to be a co-sponsor, and i had to be somebody with me. it would have been easier to go to the south pacific and find that airplane in the ocean than to find another co-sponsor over here. so today it's being opened up for democrats to show they want to be for voting rights and i'll be added as a co-sponsor today and many other democrats will be, too. but, madam speaker, every republican should join as well. this is american as apple pie to have a voting rights act that gives the courts the justice department the right to go and have preclearance and stop discrimination before it occurs.

the voting rights act amendment would create a new coverage formula to identify those states and localities with a recent history of discriminatory voting laws and practices that are still a high risk for continued voter discrimination. it would enhance the authority of courts to order a preclearance remedy, require greater transparency, regarding photo changes, and clarifies the attorney general's authority. those changes to the voting rights act amendment would make the current law would help prevent voting practices that are likely to be discriminatory before they have a chance to cause harm. the house judiciary committee which i'm a member, particularly the subcommittee on constitution and civil justice on which i'm the ranking member, should have hearings immediately and pass this act now. 49 years ago this chamber historically passed voting rights. and now we can't pass an amendment. in 2006, the house voted to re-authorize the voting rights act by a vote of 390-33.

390, which meant on both sides of the aisle, great majorities were for it. but now the supreme court has struck it down and said we need to modesh -- modernize it by finding states, localities, that are currently exercising discriminatory practices, we can't come up with a formula, because politically it would harm theoretically one side more than the other. just as mr. gutierrez spoke earlier about immigration and how that's going to affect the republican party in the future elections, voting rights will affect them too. it won't affect them positively. if the party becomes a party that is against people of color and giving them the american right to vote as well as opportunities for sound and logical immigration practices which this country needs for labor, it will be a minority party forever. but i'm not here to lecture the republicans about what they could do to help themselves

politically, i'm here to say what they can do to make america more america. pass the voting rights amendment. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, for five minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in honor of the 200th anniversary of the linsly school in wheeling. established in 1814, linsley is a preparatory school committed to academic excellence and character development. the school was the first of its kind west of the allegheny mountains. the school's founder was born in connecticut in 177 with a law degree from yale, he began his career at his alma mater. however, recognizing an opportunity in this frontier town of wheeling, noah moved there in 1799 and valuing the need for education, established a school for children. at the time of its founding,

napoleon bone part was still causing havoc in europe. james madison, the fourth president of the united states, was president. and the british troops that captured and burned washington, d.c. 200 years ago there were no phones, no cars, no buses, no trains. just a lawyer with a vision. who moved to a small town on the frontier, donated all his belongings to help children get n education. linsley's current president for external affairs said it best when he said, when one considers everything that's happened to our country, to our local community, in the time period of 200 years, the civil war, two world wars, a great depression, major floods in the valley, the civil rights movement, we are proud that linsley has been able to adapt with the times to persevere and overcome challenges and to remain

committed to its founding principles. linsley's motto, forward, no retreat, has been reflected in their emphasis that the greatest accomplishment is not in ever failing but in rising again after you fall. with this motto, linsley has tain continued to believe that children should be challenged and pressed without the possibility that they will quit. from the fourth president to 44th president of the united states, linsley has not only survived but thrived. among its graduates are federal judges, business leaders, professional athletes, authors, congressmen, college presidents among others. this little school in wheeling, this little school in wheeling not boston or philadelphia, is the 25th oldest boarding school in the united states of america. its reputation has spread internationally. now in its 200th year.

linsley is welcoming students from 15 states and 12 foreign nations. as one of the ben factors once stated, it will in the years to come influence the lives of hundreds of young people and will go forth to serve their fell man. after 00 years, linsley has already influenced the lives of hundreds of people and now it's ready for another 200. madam speaker, i ask that we honor this momentous and heartfelt anniversary for a program at linsley. ppy 200th birthday linsley school. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes, for five minutes. mr. himes: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, over 60 years ago the united states president sent advisors to a nation in asia. he did so because a regime that

was perceived as friendly to u.s. interest but which was in fact deeply corrupt and rotten was threatened. he promised that those advisors would not engage in combat. that they were there to protect american military equipment. years later with 60,000 dead americans and billions and billions of dollars expended, the helicopters lifted off from saigon and the vietnamese regime fell. today another u.s. president is sending advisors to a nation in asia -- in asia and contemplating air strikes in a three-way civil war in iraq. this president is doing it purportedly to preserve a nation which was the creation, as secretary albright says, of british and french diplomats lying to each other almost 100 years ago. it is a nation which, while we have paid gravely in blood and

treasure to preserve, may not have the support of its own people. as usual, politics are intruding . the architects of the iraq war under george w. bush see the possibility of redemption for their mistakes and so unbelievably they are accusing this president of losing iraq. let's be very clear. iraq cannot be lost or won. a brutal dictator or the united states military can sit on top conflicts between sunni and shiite tribes that have ruled that society for centuries, but remove that dictator or remove the u.s. military and those conflicts will re-emerge. at the end of the day it is iraqis, and iraqis alone who have to decide whether their nation will be preserved, whether there will be multiple countries reflecting multiple

faiths, or whether there will be one pluralistic nation. whether they will live in the 21st century, 7th century, a caliphate, what kind of nation they'll have is up for them to determine. there is an argument, of course, that identifycies, the terrorist who is have -- isis, the terrorist who is have made gains in iraq are bad people, this is true. i sit on the intelligence committee and see emp day the outrages they perpetrate. they made two mistakes, one their brutality will be the undoing with their own people. and second, they are now occupying territory. this means that they have addresses. just as there are terrorists in nigeria, in somalia, in libya, in lebanon, in syria, in iraq, in iran, egypt, and more racko, the list goes on, there are terrorists in the sunni areas of iraq, but the answer cannot be that the united states military will be there to prevent them from doing what they would wish to do. our interests, let's be clear about what our interests are, it must first and foremost be up to

the citizens of those nations that i just listed to determine what sort of society they will live in. we cannot do it for them. and when we try, it does not end well. and we must say to these nations that if you work to craft an inclusive society respecting your minorities, respecting the rights of the individual and of women in particular, if you abide by international norms, we'll be at your side. we did this 240 years ago and we know a little something about how one might do it. and if not, we will not be at your side. number two, our interest is to say to them that if in the birthing pains of your new societies, you nurture or support or in any way assist those terrorist that is would target us or -- terrorists that would target us that would target our ally, israel, other other nations, we'll find them, we'll fix them earnings we'll

take them off the battlefield as we are doing around the world today. those are our national interests. those goals are worth our time, our treasure, and our talent. coaching a team in a three-way civil war is not. . colleagues, let us not expend one more dollar or one more life on military activity that is not in the clear service of our essential national interests. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce, for five minutes. mr. royce: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to condemn today in the strongest terms the ongoing violence against the minority muslim population in sri lanka.

last week buddhist mobs rampaged their way through three towns, attacking muslim homes and businesses and burning them to the ground. as one victim said, the house i owned was burned down. my family has nowhere to go. another victim describes every night following an attack as a nightmare of fear, fear of another attack. the sri lankan government has not dealt with the threat of the so-called buddhist power force, the group responsible for this violence. when the sri lankan police were called in to stop the violence, reportedly many just stood on the sidelines doing nothing. madam speaker, the sri lankan government must take a stronger stance against this violence and protect its minority muslim possible lakes. while promises be --

population. while promises have been made to rebuild buildings and shops, this minority lives in fear. and, madam speaker, today we pay our respects to two -- to sue kent, a longtime friend of many in the community from buena park, california, who recently passed away after battling what began as lung cancer. sue kent's remarkable story has humble beginnings. born to korean parents in japan, sue later moved to south korea as a young girl where she ttended a woman's college, university in seoul, korea. she later moved to the united states to complete her bachelor's degree at california state university-los angeles, majoring in finance and law. she was the founder and c.e.o. of canton associates, a successful international

consulting and trading company. through her exceptional work and dedication, she was recognized as one of 2,000 notable american women. among her other notable accomplishments, she served on the chapman university board of governors and was recently awarded an honorary doctor of the university degree. she also served on the orange county chapter of the national unification advisory council as appointed by the former south korean president and the current president. she was a valuable asset on the asia pacific community advisory council and was known as an exemplary woman who cared deeply about excellence in education and what could be done in education and opportunity for the next generation. in her fight with cancer, she maintained a spirit of courage, dignity and grace. her strong will and desire to

live a fulfilling life has encouraged others to do the same. she will be truly missed by all the lives she has touched, by her brother, kevin, by all of her friends and remembered as her spirit lives on. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, for five minutes. mr. foster: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act of 1964, one of the greatest legislative achievements in the history of our country. there were so many men and women who were part of the civil rights movement, but i would like to take this time to highlight one of them who's been especially important in my life. my father, who was a civil rights lawyer and who wrote much of the enforcement language behind the civil rights act of 1964, which was one of the greatest achievements in human rights in

our nation's history. like me, my father was trained as a scientist, and during world war ii he designed fire control computers for the navy. most of the way through the war, he started getting reports of how many people had been killed this week by his team's equipment. and despite his understanding of the justice of that war, he became deeply unhappy with the idea of his technical skills being used to hurt other human beings. so when he came back from the war he thought about it for a while and decided he wanted to spend part of his life in service to his fellow man. this was the late 1940's and 1950's at the birth of the civil rights movement. my father had grown up in the south where he saw firsthand the struggles for equality and for basic human rights, and he saw civil rights as the great cause of his generation. so he left behind his career in science and became a civil rights lawyer. my father, among other things, wrote the federal regulations for implementing school

desegregation under title 6 of the civil rights act of 1964. there were 10 years after the famous supreme court decision in brown vs. board of education that established the right of children to attend integrated schools and the civil rights act of 1964. during those 10 years, there were only the federal courts to attempt to desegregate the public school systems. my father spent much of those 10 years traveling around the south, interviewing and offering advice to school districts that were struggling with the implications of brown vs. board of education. and my father served as sort of informal advance man to the civil rights division of the justice department. he would send back memos saying, for example, that in one southern county there was one guy who runs the place but that he understands the tide of history and if you could get robert kennedy or anybody running the justice department to give him a call then everything would be ok but in another county it was a lost cause and you should plan on bringing in troops and filing

suit. it was actually reading my father's paper after he passed away that i first started thinking of stepping away from my career in science and start my career in service of fellow man. it was when the civil rights act was passed that my father had become somewhat of an expert of the nuts and bolts of desegregating schools, was called to write title 6 of the civil rights act. these were the detailed rules that called out what southern school systems had to do each year to desegregate their schools in order to qualify for federal funds. and with the carrot of federal education funding and the stick provided by the federal guidelines for title 6 of the civil rights act, more school desegregation was achieved in the year following the civil rights act than had been achieved in the previous 10 years following brown vs. board of education. my father had the chance to work with some of the leaders of the civil rights movement.

he described having dinner at e kitchen table of med ger evers and holding their infant son before he was shot down in his driveway. my father saw a great injustice and he quietly devoted himself to changing it. martin luther king famously said the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. but the arc does not bend on its own. on july 2, 1964, when president johnson signed the civil rights act into law, the arc was bent toward justice, but only because of the tireless efforts of so many who fought so long to bend it in the right direction. i am proud to say that my father was among them. madam speaker, i rise today to honor all of those who played a part in advancing civil rights and making our country and our universe more just. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the

gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. ummis, for five minutes. mrs. aluminum miss: thank you, madam speaker. i recognize the pillar of the higher education community in wyoming. dr. jo ann mac farland is retiring as the president of central wyoming college after 40 years of service. 25 years after she was named wyoming's first woman college president. active nationally with the american association of community colleges and with the higher learning commission, dr. macfarland has made great contributions to the development of community colleges nationwide. dr. macfarland started as an adjunct faculty member in 1970, shortly after the college was founded in riverton. under her leadership, central wyoming college has expanded its academic offerings and

instituted distance learning programs. it has opened facilities in jackson, lander, and on the wind river indian reservation. notably, dr. macfarland has created an atmosphere of courtesy, manners and respect at central wyoming college, unlike any of the seen on any college campus. the leader sets the tone for such a positive, respectful atmosphere, and jo ann mac farland is in every way imaginable leadership personified. madam speaker, the mascot of central wyoming college is the cattle wrestler. as a cattle rancher, i have a bit of a dislike for wrestlers, but this is one wrestler i will be very sorry to see hang up her spurs. she earned those spurs, madam

speaker. she earned them. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, for five minutes. mr. gallego: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. r. gallego: thank you so much, madam speaker. today as we continue our journey through the 23rd district of texas, i'd like to talk about the newest city in the 23rd district and really one of the newest cities in texas and that is the city of san lisardio, a population of about 12,000 people. located south of el paso, it is a small community that incorporated on november 5, 2013, after its residents voted to make it a city. nd recently on may 10, the people of the city elected their first mayor, maya sanchez, and the voters also

elected councilmembers, will he uesdayia, david, miguel, rebecca, and george. but while it's a new city, the community has been around a very long time. n 1595, done juan, a spanish conquistador, he led a group of more than 530 colonists and about 7,000 head of livestock from southern chihuahua to settle the province of new mexico. the group traveled a northeasterly route for weeks and crossed the desert until reaching the banks in rio grande in present day, you lisardio. san in 1598, the travelers, who were very thirsty, drank the cool water of the river and then celebrated with a thanksgiving mass and ate fish,

fowl and deer. that is considered the very first thanksgiving ever celebrated in the present day united states of america. he performed a ceremony known as la toma, or the take, declaring the land a new province of spain, and declaring it a land ruled by king philip ii. the town was established around 1760 as a civilian settlement and in 1789, the spaniards established a port there called el precidio. the town took the for the. the word comes from the spanish saint known as the -- the roman catholic saint of soldiers, the patron saint of soldiers. the chapel there at the mission is one of three missions in el

paso. seguro and isleta being the other two. during the 20th century, it served as the center of missionary work throughout the mission valley. the chapel was moved to its present site in 1789 to protect travelers and settlers along the camino real which ran through mexico to ciudad juarez and on to santa fe, new mexico. pon mexico's independence, the precidio fell into ruins. the present structure completed in 1882 and little has changed since then. i invite everyone to vit -- visit the city there and the historic mission of el paso to learn about the culture and tradition of the 23rd district of texas. i congratulate the new city and, madam speaker, thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the

gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. today i'm rising in support of h.r. 4836, the providing rigorous oversight to terminate extreme criminal transfers, or the protect act. the protect act is a piece of legislation i have introduced with congressman wolf of virginia. it will ensure that guantanamo bay detainees do not, do not ever end up on american soil. . the protect act will prevent the transfer of gtmo detainees or y other unprivileged enemy belligerents captured overseas to the united states. current transfer prohibitions are tied to annual funding bills. the protect act is a long-term

solution to the detainee issue, and punishes unlawful transfers by up to five years in prison. it is supported by the 9/11 families for a safe and strong america. we do need the protect act. why? because of lawlessness. this administration has demonstrated a pattern of lawless behavior that is creating a constitutional crisis in our nation. the most recent example of this was the president's failure to notify congress about the release of the taliban five. make no mistake, the administration fully intends to bring gtmo detainees to american soil, read them their miranda rights, and give them access to our civilian courts. gtmo detainees do not belong here. their presence would endanger our local communities.

we need a solution that will deter this administration from looking for ways around the law. it is important to consider the administration's actions regarding this detainee issue. first, president obama signed executive order 13492 on january 22, 2009, to close the guantanamo bay detention center. second, in november, 2009, the administration announced 9/11 ster mind khalid sheik muhammad would be tried in new york. third, on december 15, 2009, a letter signed by hillary clinton and several other administration officials, was sent to illinois governor pat quinn stating the administration's intent to bring gtmo detainees to thompson correctional facility in

illinois. these actions triggered a avalanche of opposition and forced the president to temporarily abandon his plans to bring these gtmo detainees to the u.s. however, in this year's state of the union address, the president renewed his ledge to -- pledge to close gtmo by stating, and i'm quoting, with the afghan war ending, this needs to be the year congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prittson at guantanamo bay, end quote. an administration special envoy for the closure of guantanamo bay recently told abc that the administration would have to work with congress on changing the law so that detainees could be brought here. he stated, and i'm quoting, for detention and trial and persecution, we think -- prosecution, excuse me, we think people should be allowed to be brought to the united states.

our supermax facilities are very secure and we have hundreds of people convicted of terrorist offenses in our supermax prisons, end quote. the president may not like having three branches of government, he may not like checks and balances, but this system of checks and balances has served our nation well. his lawless actions are creating a constitutional crisis, and it must stop. gtmo detainees are coming to american soil unless we pass the protect act. its criminal penalties will ensure that the president respects the law. so i encourage my colleagues to join me on the protect act which includes a transfer prohibition, provides a long-term solution, and enacts criminal penalties, and provides an exception for american citizens w that, madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house >> the house comes back at noon for legislative work and they'll start this afternoon considering debate for the rules for two bills. one, easing regulations on oil and gas drilling. both onshore and offshore. it's to be considered today. the debate on other, the water projects will wait until after the fourth of july break. and they'll finish a bill expediting permits for liquefied natural gas exports facilities. a number of amendments are pending, awaiting debate. we'll have live house coverage when they return here on c-span. we're awaiting to go to capitol hill to hear nancy pelosi. sher briefing should get under way shortly. -- her briefing should get under way shortly. speaker boehner is expected to

be here at 11:30. a conversation from this morning's "washington journal," ahead of a hearing this afternoon looking at the un accompanied minors coming to the southern border in the u.s. henry cuellar of texas joined us. host: have you talk about what you have seen personally with these unaccompanied minors crossing the borders. what have you seen? guest: well, first of all, i do represent a large border and i represent the area. i breathe the air and drink the water and very familiar with it. basically we have a wave of humanity coming across. just an example, in may, 2014, just last month, border patrol detained from el paso down to brownsville about 48,000 individuals.

9,700 of them were kids with no parents. if you look at the average cost of bringing someone across by the bad guys, $5,000, times 48,000 individuals, that's about $240 million in one month that the bad guys have made. so you can see it's a big business across the border in latin america. >> good morning. how are you, all? good. here we go. we're into this week before we leave for the fourth of july break. what a wonderful holiday that is, the birth of our nation. of course we were all thinking about it yesterday when we had the celebrated the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act. i at that time quoted lincoln quoting the declaration of independence in the gettysburg address. lincoln, it's interesting to note. he didn't go back to the constitution. he went back to the declaration

of independence. anyway, we have a lot to celebrate. so sad, though, that we celebrate passage of civil rights act 50 years ago, honor dr. martin luther king, coretta scott king and we ignore passing the voting rights act. that's just one of the agendas -- items on the agenda that we will ignore as we leave for this break. it has 100 co-sponsors. it's bipartisan. -- acts to actually supreme court -- today is the one-year anniversary of the supreme court making its destructive decision to weaken the voting rights act. we shouldn't be leaving for the fourth of july. we shouldn't be celebrating the civil rights act's passage without passing the bipartisan voting rights act. another bill we're not passing,

having an anniversary this week, friday marks the one-year anniversary of the senate passing a bipartisan immigration bill. again, would secure our border, protect our workers, unite our families and provide a pathway to citizenship. in that year we've seen no action on the positive side for passing an immigration bill. as i have said to you before, i'm confident that the speaker is of good heart and good mind on this subject and we hope that we will be able to do something soon. we'll be talking more about that, senator reid and i, the rest of the week. another unfinished business as we leave -- another unfinished business is renewing of u.i. today, house democrats led by horsford and

mirowing what's going on in the senate to extend unemployment insurance and hopefully we believe that will be a bipartisan effort in the house as it is in the senate. so what we have, no voting rights act, no immigration bill, no extension of u.i., no serious jobs bill as we leave. and one jobs bill that they could pass it as bipartisan -- strong bipartisan support is the re-authorization of the ex-im bank. it's silly. this is about thousands of small businesses. it's about couple hundred thousand jobs at stake unless bank. uthorize the ex-im you think that would be a positive place of where we want to grow our businesses in the

united states, we want small businesses to thrive and have markets abroad, this is at no cost to the taxpayer and yet we have this delay. so there we are. instead of doing any of this and republicans are on the floor passing more giveaways to big oil and special interests, we'd like them to take action in a bipartisan way to get the job done for the american people, to create jobs, to protect voting rights, to have comprehensive immigration reform and to pass unemployment insurance extension, just to name a few, for this week. easily done, bipartisan, support in the senate, if not passed already in the senate. any questions? yes, sir. >> you have said when the house should go forth of the defense of marriage act that it was a waste of money. >> yes, it was. totally. >> now, the speaker is

[inaudible]g -- selectively waiting, what do you make of that effort? >> i make of it as subterfuge. as i say they're doing nothing here so they have to give some aura of activity. the action taken by the house republicans to defend doma wasted over $2 million -- how much was it altogether? $2.3 million of taxpayers' money. usually something like that would have been bipartisan but it was straight party line. two democrats and two republicans weren't going to support doma. they knew doma was unconstitutional from the start. from the start. why else would they have passed a bill in 2005 or 2006 before we had the majority, they passed a bill in the house that a that doma, it was

court-stripping bill that stripped the court of judicial review over doma. they knew it was unconstitutional. they did not want this court -- the supreme court to have the authority to rule on its constitutionality. so they knew it was unconstitutional. but they were doing their politics and they were spending the taxpayers' money, a waste. and here we go again with -- i don't know that the speaker has decided that. he said he's consulting legal authorities -- was that the word? experts. whatever. i hope not. it's subterfuge. whatever the subject happens to be of the week, you can just go on the internet and see what they're screaming about there, you know there will be a reflection of it here. in any event, this really needs to be an adult in that room of the republican caucus. i hope the speaker is that adult. i trust that he has.

i have great respect for the speaker. yes, sir. >> madam leader, as we near the end of the supreme court session this year, term this year, there's some quiet talk among democrats and liberals about what is the future of the court. it always turns to, are there going to be any retirements? the dean u.c. irvine school of law released a paper a while back one could retire so president obama could nominate another. do you worry if there are no retirements at the end of this term that the court is in jeopardy of switching hands if the white house is won by republicans? >> switching hands -- the court is in a bad plass where it is. i have every confidence in justice ruth bader ginsburg. she is one sharp justice. i think it's inappropriate frankly for whoever that is to

be calling upon her to say you should move so that the president can appoint someone else. i do hope that -- i would like to -- what i'd like to see is more fairness in terms of approving justices. can you just imagine if we had a vacancy on the court how long it would take to get a justice approved with the opposition and obstruction of the republican senate? . . >> republicans happen to win control of the senate. >> i thought you meant if we lose the white house which i completely do not subscribe to. no. >> even justice stevens said the justices should keep in mind who comes after them. isn't that conversation inappropriate -- >> just say in general. i don't know why they would target one person. will i say this, if they want to talk about the court, why don't they talk about what the court

did in 2000 to usurp the power of the people in terms of voting for president of the united states. why don't they talk about what the court has done in terms of citizen united to allow special interest to suffocate the airwaves with endless unproperty -- unreported money. there are a lot of things when you want to talk about the court that we could talk about. i don't know why they would target one person in that way. >> one of the things you talk about, screaming about on the internet about this, the i.r.s. issue here. one issue, we have heard from a lot of democrats, it's partisan. it's an attack on the administration. there's not evidence of wrongdoing. it was testified yesterday a nonpartisan issue there did seem to be a problem here. do those criticisms that this is partisan from the democratic side hold water when the

archivist comes in -- >> you remember when president ush -- it happens. i'm sorry just wasn't familiar with what happened with the archivist yesterday. but i understand -- i will just say this. what erience whether it's happened at the v.a., what happened with the rollout of the health care, the federal government needs work on its technology. i said last week, they turned over 750,000 pages of information. tens of thousands of emails and the rest. so i -- and the characterization on the traffic is they were only targeting conservative groups. that's simply not true. so that's why i think the

characterization of the charges against the i.r.s. are political because they are misrepresenting who was the target of the investigation. it was everybody who is engaged who e c-4's and also those are conservative. >> how would you grade the dministration this crisis on the southern border? >> how would i grade their performance sni think their performance has been, according to the law. here was a law passed in 2008. wilburforce law which was about protecting unaccompanied children. it was an anti-trafficking piece of legislation. and that called for when these unaccompanied children came

across the border that they would be received by department of homeland security, held for 72 hours, turned over to h.h.s., and that's exactly what is happening. the -- i believe it's unfortunately there are some who are using it as an anti-immigration reform kind of piece of rhetoric, but the fact is is that this is what the law is. now, are there people who are exploiting the law by saying come north and you will -- you won't be turned back? no, the administration has turned back children who are here with adults or adults who came in that's under that same, shall we say, auspicecies and send them back. they are complying completely with the law. what we have to do is make sure that in central america, that's where most of these children are coming from, these people are coming from, some with adults, that the message is clear.

when you go there you're going before a judge. you may be sent back. if you're using, so coyote, those who -- what's the word i would use, sell, transit from one country to our borders, they are saying that you can come and stay because of daca that the president put forth. they aren't here. that already has a date on it. so i think it's really important for people in central america to understand that don't come. now, it's a side also what's unfortunate in central america in terms of violence, some of it springing from terrible economies, that these parents have thought it's better for my child to go across the desert, across mexico, and into the united states. that would be safer than saying

at home, whether it's honduras, antanamo -- caught caught -- guatemala or el salvador. the administration is handling it specifically according to the law. vice president biden went there and told them, don't come. nless you fit into a certain category, which should be, but nonetheless these people have come. they will be sent back if they don't meet the criteria of the wilburforce act to protect kids coming into the country to avoid trafficking. that was really the main point. signed by president bush. signed by president bush. and the president is obeying the law. i think they have done a fine job. it's a terrible situation. it's a tragic humanitarian crisis. and it is -- there's an

exploitation by some of our good intentions and that has -- sad distinction is being made by the administration. >> do you think children across the border will make obama less likely to use executive action later this summer to halt deportations? >> they are completely due tinch issues. i know there are those who will try to use that issue as, well, see, they are coming here because the president may be employing prosecutorial discretion in terms of making judgments about who should be deported. one is humanitarian, these children coming. some don't even -- not that they don't speak english, some don't even speck spanish. they speak their ingidge us in language. we have -- indigenous language. we have to recognize that challenge for what it is. i think it's irresponsible for some to try to frame it in a way

that has anything to do with the other issue, which is prosecutorial discretion and deportation. but it's understandable simply because of location. simply because of location. people don't understand what the basis of the law is and what these numbers are. 29,000 last year. it could be 70,000, 80,000 or more this year. there's a cost to it, too. there's a cost to it, too. part of the cost is enforcement. is enforcement, to make sure these people have their trial te, that they have their due process, and then if necessary if they don't qualify, then they are sent home. but i'm telling you, this is really a tragic humanitarian situation. at the heart of it. i don't think that coyotes should exploit it.

i don't think republicans should exploit it. >> up in the financial services committee there's a lot of criticism of the export import bank today. do you think this is an issue that has been taken hostage by the leadership struggles on the republican party in the house? what good strategy to try to push it through? >> on this subject way back when i was the ranking member on the foreign ops and we had the -- we funded and authorized the -- the authorizing committee, but the ex-im bank, it's an important part of increasing our important part, which is an important part of our foreign policy. promoting democratic principles abroad, yes. but in this case promoting our products abroad. the -- it had been bipartisan. there's always been a little

element in the republican party hat wasn't in favor of the ex-im, but this right now for the republicans to say they are not going to authorize it, either they don't understand trade, our role in the global economy, the fact that this doesn't cost the taxpayers any money. they call it corporate welfare. and they engage in corporate welfare with every breath they take around here. so all of a sudden they are focusing on our exports. yes, i think you're right. it probably has something to do with leadership in the caucus. >> the majority leader-elect mccarthy has had a change of heart -- >> you have to ask him. you have to ask him. but i think his statement really struck a blow and all of their friends in corporate america and wall street, some of them sent a

letter to the republicans saying pass -- re-authorize this bill. and you see was it 41 or 42 republicans have signed a letter asking for the mults year re-authorization -- multiyear re-authorization of the ex-im bank. the votes are there. over 200,000 jobs, over 200,000 jobs in our country, thousands of businesses benefit from it. and even one of their own members who signed a letter had been -- had a small business before and said they probably just don't understand how this works. >> what can they do -- obviously, it's got to be brought up by the leadership. and the leadership -- >> the speaker is the speaker. the speaker has awesome power, you know. can bring anything to the floor. again 199 republicans voted to default on the full faith and credit of the united states of america, but the speaker allowed

the vote to come to the floor, 28 republicans, 190-some democrats, we honored the full faith and credit of the united states of america. i could give you many examples of that whether it's violence against women, whether it's opening up government after they shut it down, and overwhelmingly voted to keep it shut down. still the speaker allowed it to come up. should bring it and get it over with and get it done. theou have been criticizing executive authority. many your democratic colleagues have been publicly pushing the president to use his executive powers on the issue of immigration. is it appropriate for the president to unilaterally decide how immigration policy if he can't get what he wants in a divided congress? >> i don't know -- i don't know why those two things are together. the republicans are saying they want to sue the president for

not upholding the law. the president is looking at what his discretion is to use executive act of the administration. he hasn't come anywhere near what republican presidents have done on executive orders. but he will act within his discretion for whatever it is, whether it's prosecutorial discretion used to make judgments about who should be deported or not, and whatever else he works closely with his lawyers on that subject. i think that there's broader interpretations of the law than his lawyers conclude many times, but i don't think -- i don't equate the republicans make a project to criticize the president on executive orders that as riticizing inconsistent with saying the president has the right to do

what the law allows him to do. when you see what the republicans -- you know what they have used as some of the examples, what he they call the enforce act on the floor, they have said that two of the reasons why you could sue the president for not enforcing the law is he issued daca, the deferred action for the kids, that is very popular. across the board. they call that -- that was one of the basis to sue the president. another was prosecutorial discretion. well, any prosecutor should have making a as to adjustment about who comes, who stays, what their culpability is. not only have we not passed an immigration bill, they have used the president's actions to protect some vulnerable parties as a basis to sue the president issa has a bill to

deport all of the children who came here when they were little. all of the daca kids. that isn't a reflection of the republicans in our country. overwhelmingly, over 70% of the people think we should have comprehensive immigration reform, and most think it should have a path to citizenship. to say they are going to deport -- this is sad. america -- we celebrate america over the fourth of july and the rest, we have to remember our greatness springs from the fact we are a nation that is constantly reinvigorated with newcomers. this is a country that talks about family values, making the future better for the next generation, family values, community values, work ethic and the rest. and that's exactly the invigoration that newcomers bring to america to make the future better for their

families. when they do so, they make america more american. i don't know if these people all sprung from the head of zeus or maybe they are all native americans, bless their hearts, but somebody came from someplace for them to be here right now. but you never know it to hear them talk. i completely separate the two subjects you mentioned. one is subterfuge, let's mess around so we don't have to answer for our performance to create jobs and meet the needs of the american people. but again that's their right. to criticize. but it does not mean that we should not encourage the president to use all power at his discretion to respect people when they come to our country. even president bush, he was so great on immigration, president george w. bush, he had cautioned in this debate to be respectful of the people that we are

talking about. that's really not what's happening right now. so it's interesting. these issues blend. i grant you that they blend because people mention them in the same context. you bring up blends with immigration because it's at the boarder, -- border, but it's two different laws that we are -- that exist. that we are talking about. i hope you have a good fourth -- fourth of july is a long way off, but i hope you sell plate the birth of our country -- celebrate the birth of our country in a great way and i really wish we could be leaving having passed the bipartisan voting rights act. it would have been an appropriate celebration of the civil rights bill. the necessary antidote to the destructive actions of the supreme court of the united

states. to name another concerned about the court. thank you very much. is somebody told me it -- that the one where they sang "we shall overcome"? what's to think? you mean that i was smiling and singing? >> you were smiling and singing, the others didn't seem to be smiling and singing. >> maybe they -- i don't know. anyway, i just loved yesterday. i just thought it was the best thing, really, because it brought so many things together about our country. as i mentioned in my remarks, which i'm sure you paid great attention to, here we were sitting there and behind us was reverend martin luther king jr., his bust, and right in front of us at the other end of this

rotunda, was abraham lincoln. here they were looking at each other. and here we were in between some of us really celebrating, others kind of ignore the issue of the voting rights act, but also that incoln and reverend king are neighbors on the mall. isn't that just a remarkable thing. think of what president lincoln would think? think of what reverend martin luther king would think if they saw at the dedication of the king memorial barack obama presiding at that dedication. what a remarkable thing for our country. happy fourth of july. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> we are expecting to hear from house speaker john a. boehner about 10 minutes at 11:30 eastern. we'll have live coverage when that starts. the house coming back in at noon eastern for legislative work. that will include finishing up a work on a bill expediting permits for liquefies natural gas export facilities in the u.s. also this afternoon they'll swear in the newest house member, congressman elect clawson who won the special election yesterday to replace trey riddle. one race, a primary in new york, charles rangel's race could

hinge on absentees. representative rangel on wednesday was leading his challenger after an acrimonious democratic primary. was refusing to concede due to the outstanding balance he hopes could rush the race. with 100% of the predicts porting, rangel had 47.4% to 43.6%, a margin of 1,828 votes. the associated press is not calling that race. we'll keep you posted. while we wait to hear from speaker boehner we'll go back to this morning's "washington journal" and minors at the u.s.-mexico border. we are back. host: i want to show our viewers the 28th district and where it is in texas.

represent the 28th district. we have a wake of humanity coming across. in may 2014, border patrol detained 48,000 individuals. 9700 of them were kids with no parents. the average cost of bringing someone across, ,5,000 times 48,000 individuals it is a big business. host: how much does it cost the united states? guest: we spend billions of dollars on border security poirier -- border security.

>> this is not a mexican problem. this is central american problem. we used to have the same protocol like we have. 48 hours, we should return them. that's what the law calls for mexico and canada. host: what is the 2008 law that is often referenced that -- by those saying that's why they are coming here because of the law that's on the books? what does it say? guest: there's basically three laws we have to be familiar with. in 1997, there is an agreement talked about how you treat those kids. then in 2002 under the big reorganization of homeland security act, it also talked

about who's supposed to get the responsibility to get them and then deport them, house them, and take care of those kids. the 2008 it's a human trafficking re-authorization act of 2008. there it also talks especially where we are supposed to set up protocols and implement certain procedures, there it talks about within 48 hours the contiguous countries like canada and mexico are treated very differently than the central american countries. in my opinion, we should have the same type of treatment -- you just can't send people across the border into canada or across the board near mexico, but we got to work with those countries, get those travel documents and send those people back as soon as possible. the one that is need to go back. host: what about republicans who say it's because of the president's executive action by pending the authority for the so-called dreamers, the people -- children who are here through

no fault of their own? guest: can i always point out to the bush law in 2008 and 2002, those laws -- and say that this is not the time to get into a political -- i spoke to governor perry. he called me up a couple days ago, henry, this is not a democratic or republican issue. let's work together on addressing this issue. i don't think this is time to be pointing at anybody. i have been critical of the administration in the sense that they didn't respond fast enough. they didn't give us information. and again like in my hometown in two weeks they released 2,300 family units in just two weeks. in south texas, lower rio grande, they released 3,000 individuals within two months. they didn't tell us. they would take them to the bus station, give them the notice to appear, and then from there they would take a bus anywhere, washington, d.c., new york, chicago. with that piece of paper, it's a notice to appear and that notice to appear basically says, you

promise to show up in a couple months, the majority after they travel 1,800 miles or they face -- they paid $5,000 or they face very difficult views, rape, whatever the situation might be, they are not going to go in and turn themselves. so there is a gap right there. and we ought to have the same protocols we have for the republic of mexico and canada for those central american countries. host: you called it a humanitarian crisis. republicans are calling it -- the administration as well. yesterday before the house homeland security panel there was a back and forth between the homeland security secretary, jay johnson, and mike rogers, a republican from alabama. i want to show that exchange and get your thoughts. >> right now we have a crisis. i don't see this administration doing anything about it other than trying to house the children. i understand the humanitarian basis for that. but we need to send a signal to these other countries that it's not going to work. you can't send your children up

here and let them stay. we are going to turn them back and give them back to you. that's what i'm looking for is a way for us to do that. that's the clearest signal to these parents not to send these children here in the future. tell me what you can do other than give them to h.h.s. nothing? have you called the national guard out or asked for it? >> like i said i'd like to consider every option that's presented. i went through in my prepared testimony the 12 or 13 steps we have taken to deal with the crisis. which includes building more detention space. >> the president -- the speaker of the house last week called on the president to localize the national guard to give some relief to the border patrol and the fema in this crisis. why can't you tall on the president to do that? >> sir, if you're asking me if i can take an unaccompanied child, turn them around in the border, and send them right back to guatemala, i don't believe the law would permit to us do that.

host: congressman? guest: that's what i have been saying for the last month or so is we need to send a message to those countries that you cannot just come in and stay here. this is exactly what i have been asking. the law, if you look at the law, the 2002 and 2008 law, there is a procedure for mexicans. now, why can we not develop policies to do the same thing. don't think the law prevents us from doing the same thing with the central american countries. does it take negotiation was those countries? yes. i personally have sat down with the ambassadors of those countries, mexico, central america, honduras, el salvador, guatemala, i sat down with them. we are going to have a meeting after the july 4 who day. they are meeting right now at this time and we talked about bringing some ideas. but we got to negotiate with those countries and say, we are going to try to send your kids -- your folks back as soon as we can. we are doing that with mexico and canada, why can we not do

the same thing with those countries? >> the president put the national guard on the border? >> i always welcome the national guard. i always welcome the texas department of public safety to fill in the gaps. they are not going to do border patrol, immigration, that's not their job. they are already there. keep one thing in mind, border patrol time is taking up 40% or 50% of the time doing paperwork because of this process. my question s. who is filling in the gaps? that's the place where the national guard and t.p.s., fill in, coordinate, fill in the gaps, not do immigration control. that's not their job. i welcome them any time. host: your point you just made. that's the subject of this "washington times" piece in the paper this morning and will be debated in -- before the house judiciary committee today that the border patrol is getting distracted by having to take care of these kids. and the criminalities are

getting in and taking advantage of the situation there. we are going to be covered the house judiciary committee on c-span3 this morning. excuse me, c-span3 at 2:00 p.m. eastern time that will take place in the afternoon. john up first in florida. republican. hi. go ahead. >> the idea -- i have three comments. the idea of these kids coming in our country, they should be dumped right back across the border in mexico where they come from. and the idea of these other states, if they want to give awe court date, i just heard the other night on the news it was going to be 10 years before they ever had a court date. they'll never go to complet they'll be distributed all over the country. you will never find them. host: john, aim going to have you stop there and listen to the congressman. i want him to address your two points. where are these kids coming from? and what happens, he's hearing news reports they are getting on

a bus, going to other states and won't ahere in court for 10 years. guest: first of all as i said a while ago, over 75% are not from mexico. this is not a mexican problem. it is a sebtral -- central american problem. >> the situation in iraq continues to worsen by the day. the terrorist seized control of border crossings in syria and in jordan. and their march toward baghdad continues. the press has a number of options in front of him, which if part of a larger regional strategy i would support. my concern is whether the president will make a decision in time to reverse the terrorists' momentum as it sweeps toward baghdad. the president's fond of saying that only the iraqis can solve this problem. but we can't pretend that this isn't our problem as well. allowing terrorists to gain a

safe haven in iraq from which to plan and launch attacks on americans and our allies is a serious problem. we've got to be engaged in iraq. it's in our national interest to help reverse the momentum and spread of terrorism. retreating from the world stage in my view is not an option. it only undermines our allies and leads to more chaos that puts americans at risk. this is part of a bigger problem. the economy continues to struggle. the president has no plan for economic growth. and will push his party to act on the good ideas we passed in bipartisan fashion here in the house. the i.r.s. targets political opponent, lies about it, and the white house won't lift a finger to provide the truth to the american people. the v.a.'s abuses continue to be revealed. and yet we still don't see a long-term plan for reform at the v.a. not only does the president

ignore the law, he brags about it and he brags about his willingness to change it unlaterally. first this administration makes the wrong decisions, then won't give the american people the straight answers. instead, it's arrogance and incompetence right down the line. i think americans deserve better. the house will continue to listen to the american people and make their priorities our priorities. our energy focus this week is a good example. as all of our solutions are, to help families who are still asking the same question -- here are the jobs? hfl >> can you explain why that is necessary and what you hope to achieve? >> the constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws.

in my view the president has not faithfully executed the laws. we have a system of government outlined in our constitution with executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. congress has its job to do and so does the president. when there's conflicts like this between the legislative branch and the administrative branch, it's, in my view, our responsibility to stand up for this institution in which we serve. this is not about impeachment. this is about his faithfully executing the laws of our country. >> mr. speaker, over three days there's been three separate hearings on the i.r.s. we heard from the i.r.s. commissioner, the head archivist said it's clear to him they broke the law. still the add martial has not responded tore done anything about this. what else can and will the house

of representatives do to pursue the i.r.s. case? >> i think the committees have that been looking at this, the ways and means committee and government reform committee, are , i think, at least one of the committees that put together a letter trying to get into what will i call the forensics of what happens and who else may be aware of this. to track down any possible way that those emails may be retrieved. the current thinking. >> beyond that any type of court action or any suit on that? >> we passed a bill. calling for a special prosecutor. we have asked for a special prosecutor. those requests have fallen on deaf ears at this point. >> speaker boehner, you is oompling mr.

speaker, do you think paid-fors and long term and short-term extension -- >> don't know what the pay-fors are. i know the house ways and means committee is working on a package and i expect that after the district work period over the fourth of july we'll see some activity there. >> very briefly, what sort of package do you indthink passing both chambers? >> we'll let the ways and means committee do their work. yes, sir. >> you opened up with the iraq. i'm curious if you have any suggestions for what the president should do there? >> what he should do is send an overarching strategy to deal with the growing threat of terrorism. several weeks ago it was outlined there is a 58% increase in the number of terrorists that are out there intendsing to inflict harm on americans here and abroad. there's a growing problem.

iraq is one part of that problem. that's why i called over the last couple weeks for the president to outline the strategy to deal with this overall threat that we face. > on the ex-im bank issue, speaking in interviews, they have supported tax breaks for businesses, equipment, and do a lot of research and development. how are those two issues different? a i'll let you ask some of the policy wonks that get into this. but if you look at our tax code those items that are used to produce goods typically are deductible in some fashion. whether it's the cost of materials or whether it's marinery that's depreciated over some period of time. it's our tax by and large over the course of the last 50 or 60

years has encouraged more investment in our economy. that's all i can give you the tax side of this. when you look at the ex-port-import bang it was designed to help us deal with unfair competition. in the marketplace. and in someplaces you look at overnment subsidies going to airplane manufacturers, as an example, and i think for a long time the export-import bank provided some exwit to u.s. manufacturers. having said all that, there's a big debate going on in our conference and we are just going to have to sort our way through this. my job is to help facilitate the sorting through of this so we can get to an outcome. >> mr. speaker, on iraq a. week or two ago you had said prior to

going down to the white house you were interested in hearing what the president's policy was. now you said well this train may have gone too far down the track and it might be hard to deal with this. don't you get you have some responsibility here to say here's what i think we should do? here's what the president should be doing? are you giving counsel at that point? >> i called for more increased u.s. activity a year ago. in january when the isis forces came across the iraq border and began to gather territory, i called on the administration to act. and it's not my job to outline for the president what tools he should use or not use. it's not my job to outline the strategy for the president when it comes to the overall fight against terrorism. i don't have as many tools at my

disposal as the president does. so this is the president's responsibility. he's elected president. e's elected to lead. >> you touched on the export-import bank. several people in leadership and across your conference have said what they specifically want to do. what does the gentleman from southern ohio, yourself -- >> i'm not going to answer the question. you try to do this on immigration for the last two years. listen, the guy who's the facilitator of trying to get to a discussion to get to an outcome i think laying my cards on the table tilts the balance. i don't want to do that. i want to get our members to a place where they are comfortable, whatever that is. >> yesterday you were in a different position now going for when you supported it. what different position are you

in now -- >> i didn't recall the 2012 vote on this, but there was a bipartisan effort to do this. i think more than half our members supported it. i supported it. given where the export-import bank is today, given the accounts of what's going on down there in terms of kickbacks and other things, it's clearly time to -- for all the members to take a serious look at this. >> mr. speaker, speaking of immigration, you appointed a working group to deal with the problem on the boarder with this influx of children from central america. what exactly do you expect that working group to do? >> the working group was put together because we've got a group of members who i think are uniquely qualified to understand what's happening down there to help our members understand what the facts are as opposed to what some of the fix -- fiction is,

to suggest to the administration things we think can be done or should be done, and if necessary, make suggestions to our members about changes in the law that might need to occur. it just seems to me given the magnitude of this crisis, and the fact that it appears it's going to continue, we ought to get a better handle on it. >> have you asked them to report back to you at certain times so you can start to decide what to do? >> i have given them some suggestions and we are going to elp facilitate information for them, and i would hope that they have some information for the members that week they were back after the fourth in terms of outlining more specifically just what the problems are. >> what specific executive action are you planning to challenge in court?

>> when i make that decision i'll let you know. >> back to the lawsuit, given how long it will take for a lawsuit to make its way through the courts and the fact we are a divided government right now, do you expect to change the president's behavior? or is it more about energizing your base before the election? >> this is about defending the institution which we serve. if you look back over the last 235 years of our history, there's been a movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch versus the inparent powers of the legislative branch. what we have seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch. i believe the president is not faithfully executing the laws of our country, and on behalf of the institution and our constitution, standing up and fighting for this is in the best

long-term interest of the congress. -- thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the house comes back at noon. they'll debate two rules, one for gas drilling, and the other which will be debated after the july 4 break deals with energy and water projects. they'll finish up work on a bill expediting permits for rick will i fide natural gas export if a -- for liquefies natural gas export facilities. and later today they'll scare in congressman curt clawson who got elected yesterday in the special election in florida. this is from naples news. they say curt clawson, southwest florida's newest congressman said his best days are ahead. he received about 67% of the vote. e will fill the seat of trey

ridele -- readle. we'll take you back to this morning's "washington journal" and military options in iraq. " continues. host: back at our table is congressman rob wittman, chairican of virginia and of the subcommittee on readiness. the me begin with the headlines on the front pages of the newspapers. you have "the washington times" reporting that the militarists , want an islamic state as a staging ground for a u.s. attack. disturbing, understanding what their focus is and what they want to achieve, obviously specifically going after the united states and the united states interests. that should be a sobering finding is how we combat isis.

mean inat does that your opinion for what happens next in the rack -- iraq? guest: first of all, let's determine the exact extent of isis in iraq. we have 300 advisors on the ground also figuring out what is the extent and capability of sis.i forces to combat i we need to put together those pieces of the puzzle together what is there, and grab as much intelligence as we can, which is lacking about what the capabilities are, what they intend to do in iraq, and then put together with iraqi forces a counter effort to stop there efforts, especially their violent efforts. one of the big areas we have to pursue his engaging other sunni factions that would work with

the iraqi government, other forces there against isis and this extremist element. we need to be able to bring together forces within these buts, not just within iraq, other neighboring countries. this has to be a regional effort. focus, if it is not a regional effort, it will not work. the united states could help, but it cannot be the sole effort to say the u.s. will come in and clean this up. as we have seen what happened before when we had the -- did not have the status of forces agreement. states left, extremist elements reasserted themselves, and here we are. we cannot let that happen again. we have to make sure we will have partnered to continue the effort and it is sustainable. host: who are the partners -- what countries around iraq are the partners? guest: that is a great question. we have to look within iraq

first and foremost. i do not believe iran will be part of that. there are other sunni elements that could be part of countering isis. that is where we start. host: another headline from "usa today" -- what do you know about the kind of work they are doing? to get asy are trying much intelligence as they can about the wherewithal and capability of isis on the ground, and also the capability of iraqi forces. they are asking for volunteers to come in. they are not trained. we have to determine what is that there avail, what weapons do they have, what weapons had fallen into the hands of isis. they are trying to grab their awareness about what is on the ground. host: tell the viewers how they

go about doing this. guest: they sit down and meet with the iraqi military leaders. what do they have control over, how many people are part of that, what confidence do they have in the forces been able to, in an effective way, fight isis? they will do that, and figure presents onthe isis the ground, what areas do they hold, what have they captured, but do not have an ability to hold? are quickly trying to gain that type of information to determine what they can do to push isis out of various. what capabilities does the iraqi military have to do that? host: would you support drone strikes by the president? guest: i want to make sure all options are on the table. drone strikes could be part of that, but before you do that you have to determine how to best deploy u.s. assets in conjunction with iraqi forces to

achieve efforts to push isis back out of iraq. the front page of "the washington post" the government of syria, bashar al-assad, is bombing isis. is he helping the united states? guest: the key is is the effort being coordinated? if it is not, it could be detrimental. we need to make sure efforts against isis are coordinated. bomb,y will come in and there needs to be coronation with what bosher assad is doing against isis in coordination with iraqi forces. host: are you advocating the united states work with bashar

al-assad? advocating that we understand what they are doing, and if there are efforts that could be helpful in pushing back against isis, that ought to be part of the efforts. i am not convinced that bosher assad will work in u.s. interest or iraqi interest. we need to understand why that .ffort is being pursued in iraq i want to address the situation before we jump in and say yes, we will be working with bashar al-assad. withe not been impressed what he is not in syria and elsewhere in the region in stabilizing the region. i am not sure his efforts would be helpful. host: margaret brennan for cbs news tweeted that secretary john kerry tells cbs news that isis may have moved into iraq after being kicked around and attacked by assad and moderate rebels.

jeff. independent caller. caller: i served eight years in the military. i do not think we can effectively stabilize the middle east at all with our warfare. we are --ey fight, they are more barbaric. civilians.they use do you know what i'm saying? guest: sure. could: i do not think we accomplish it, so we should let them duke it out. in thei do know it is u.s. interest to have a stable middle east. you talk about the different factions, the history of conflict, and that plays in. at the end of the day, there has to be stable government in iraq to make sure you have a sustainable level of order in that particular region.

the u.s. cannot do it alone. the u.s. has to come in -- the not can help, but can expect the area to remain stable without having sure and stable government. i am not convinced that prime minister maliki is able to do that. when he to help iraqi forces stabilize the region -- we need to help iraqi forces stabilize the region and sustain that level of order in the country. that will be a challenge. you hit the nail on the head. be. presence is not going to something we expect to maintain their nor something that i believe in the long one creates the type of order that is necessary within the middle east. host: pennsylvania. perry. independent caller. are, theere we republican party wants to create the fear mongering that somehow or another any of these middle

east countries can somehow strike the united states from a far. it is the same problem saddam evenin was faced with -- if he had weapons of mass destruction, he had no vehicles to get them here. we constantly get this nonsense that these guys are going to have the sophistication to deliver a weapon to america. congressman,, there is no such thing about a dirty bomb. the nonsense about suitcase bombs does not hold weight because nuclear weapons have been around for 70 years and there has not been any. the reason you want a stable middle east is because you take money from the israeli lobby. tell me that you do not. thank you. thank you. we do on a stable middle east. extremist organizations can attack the united states. we have seen it. 9/11. it is very clear.

those forces can come here. we need to be able to stop them from being able to expand their for print. we see the effort in syria and iraq. it is a real threat. we have seen the manifestation of that threat. there is the opportunity for them to use a variety of weapons, nuclear or otherwise to harm the united states interests. that is the reality we have to deal with. it is in our best interest to have a stable middle east, one al qaeda is not able to operate out of, train people to extend their levels of violence to other areas of the world. host: the caller also believes you have this stance because of israel. guest: obviously israel is a partner in the region and we have to be mindful of our relationship in israel. help inas been a great making sure we have a stable middle east. we have a strong relationship that should continue. that is in the best interest of the united states, the region,

and israel. i am a strong proponent of a strong relationship with israel because it helps both countries and that area of the world. g on twitter -- howling reactive our embassy is attacked, staff, or 300 advisors are killed -- and we have a second invasion or go home? guest: we have to react. i do not know if it is at the level of an invasion, but we will be attempting the green zone within the embassy to make sure americans have the ability to make sure they are not attack, and if they are, we will at the veryike kind least against the folks that attack u.s. interests. host: another tweet -- any readiness to address isis integration with iraq population -- joan strike seamount, presence seems out, diplomacy seems out. it is difficult when

you're looking at this type of effort. this type of effort ends up being an insurgency. to question is does isis try infiltrate the iraqi society like we have seen with al qaeda or the taliban. that becomes more difficult. we have pursued a counterinsurgency strategy in the past that has been effective. it is much more difficult to do that because you literally have to go door to door to root out these insurgents. that is why it is important to determine what is the extent of isis presents, purely situation of them taking territory? it isis just that, different than them taking territory and holding it with their presence in those villages. it is important to determine what is the isis mode of operation what they will do to maintain a presence and what will he do to counter that. >> today's program available at c-span.org. "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. u.s. house coming in momentarily. legislative work this afternoon

includes debate on a rule for two bills, one on easing regulations on oil and gas drilling. the other on energy and water projects. that will be debated after the july 4 break. the house will also finish up work on a bill expediting permits for liquefies natural gas export facilities. later today they'll swear in its newest member, congressman elect curt clawson, who won the special election in the florida 19th. live house coverage here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, rabbi

israel zoberman, virginia beach, virginia. the chaplain: our one god of life's blessings who brings us together to be one family, gloriously diverse and gracefully united through the divine commandments of loving kindness. in this house of representatives , august chamber of the most flourishing democracy, we give thanks to the awesome universe for the essential twin gifts of freedom and responsibility. may you in your infinite goodness ever guide our elected and appreciated lawmakers who are entrusted with the american people's -- american people's ayen da and the safeguarding of our precious liberties. mindful of living in an uncertain and unsettling world, t us reaffirm that the

creator's beginity and human dignity are inseparable, that he who upholds one human life, upholds a unique, irreplaceable universe of purpose and meaning. may blemishes turn into blessings, hatred into love, violence into vision, and pain into promise in a global village at shalom's peace at last. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pusuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. kill -- mr. kildee. mr. kildee: i invite all present to stand and join in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak on behalf of sonia garro a member of the pro-democracy group ladies in white, who, after being imprisoned for more than two years in one of castro's gulags, will face a kangaroo trial on monday. she faces the likelihood of 10 to 12 years in jail because she is brave enough to speak out, demanding respect for human rights and democratic change. cases like those of sonia, and so many others, show us the true nature and brutality of the castro regime.

there have been efforts by castro apologists aimed at changing our policy toward cuba but it is the castro regime that must change its oppressive policies against the people of cuba. while castro's thugs continue to flagrantly violate the fundamental liberties and dignity of the cuban people, the u.s. will stay on the side of the cuban people who call for freedom, like sonia garro. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous the speaker pro tempore: how about the gentleman from new york. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, since 2008, the inside tim russert's office exhibit has been on display at the newseum here in washington,

d.c. this week, it's in the process of relocating to the buffalo history museum in western new york. this unique mix of personal and professional pieces of tim's life will represent a homecoming as he was born and raised an began his career in buffalo new york. even after moving to washington, d.c. he, never forgot his hometown and his ploved buffalo bills. mr. higgins: he made western new york proud as he exemplified the values that he learned right in our own community. love of family, faith, community, and country. mr. speaker, it has been my honor to work with the russert family, the buffalo history museum and the newseum in making this homecoming a reality. we eagerly await the debut of this expanded exhibit in the fall, including additional pieces that reflect tim's south buffalo roots and the story of buffalo, the city he never forgot. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. today the first quarter g.d.p. numbers were revised downward again and now show the economy contracted by 2.9% in the opening months of 2014. the administration's spin machine cited cold weather as the root cause of this. but its critics noted, canada's g.d.p. grew by 1.8% in the first quarter. was it warm for the canada? it is clear that this president is out of ideas about how to get our economy back on track. it now seems we've exhausted even his supply of excuses as well. being out of excuses is a positive development, since this

administration seems prone to believing their own spin, perhaps they will now, at long last, work with house republicans on legislation that will put americans back to work. there are 40 house-passed bills waiting action in the senate. these bills will help. will the president and his party act on them? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: the terrorist who is at this moment leading insurgent attacks against iraq and cities in iraq reportedly once said to u.s. soldiers, and i quote, i'll see you guys in new york, end quote. and when he said it, he didn't mean he wanted to go to a broadway show like "jersey boys" or "beautiful." new york has been and continues to be a target for terrorists to

attack. it is a towering symbol of all that makes america so exceptional. that's why it's so important for congress to get the changes that were being made to the terrorism risk insurance plan absolutely correct. but the tria bill recently reported out of the financial services committee. as it now stounds it would drive small and medium size insurers out of the market and reduce the amount of insurance available. that's just the wrong way to go. at a time like this, congress should acknowledge that a very real threat still exists and pass the strongest tria bill possible. it's important to the american economy and it is important for american jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to call on the department of justice to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the i.r.s. abuse of power by the most feared part of the federal government is unacceptable. we have yet to receive all the documents requested from the agency. mr. smith: the i.r.s. tells out it cannot locate two years' of emails from lois lerner a central figure in the investigation. with eknow the i.r.s. has been aware of this concern for months and has chosen not to notify demonk a timely manner. we must ensure that americans won't be targeted for their political beliefs. we have already urged the department of justice to appoint a special prosecutor and i hope the cotcht justice will work to ensure the american people that the scales of justice also apply to the i.r.s. i yield become. -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one inute. mr. cicilline: i rise to support rhode island housing which has made a real impact on the lives of thousands of rhode islanders, helping 60,000 families buy homes. its success is due in large part to its dedicated and talented staff. last week, rhode island housing was awarded over 856 -- $856,000 in federal funds to continue its work. finding affordable, healthy housing has become a real concern for middle class working americans. according to the "providence journal" in 2002, a rhode island household earning the state's median income could afford a medium-priced house in just 11 of our 33 cities and towns.

rhode island housing has helped rhode islanders become homeowners. i'm delighted these funds will help end homelessness in rhode island and i'm proud to support their outstanding work to strengthen our communities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to tell my colleagues about house resolution 631, which supports stress and ideals of disorder awareness month. ptsd is a condition affecting 5.2 million americans. our heroic service men and women face challenges on the battlefield and when hay come home, readjusting can be a brutal challenge. mr. desjarlais: without treatment, ptsd can lead to

alcohol and drug abuse. sadly because of the stig in a surrounding mental health in our country,less than 40% of returning military personnel seek help. my first job out of medical school was at a v.a. hospital. witnessed firsthand the toll ptsd take our soldiers and their loved ones. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 631, show our brave men and women in uniform we have their backs like they have ours. and thank you to been mims of the fourth district of tennessee for his continued work on this issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the urgent need to fix our nation's broken immigration system. we cannot don't wait. the time is now. mr. hinojosa: to pass

comprehensive immigration reform. according to the congressional budget office, the bill h.r. 15 would reduce the deficit by $900 billion over the next two years. over the next two decades. there are 200 bipartisan co-sponsors supporting house resolution number 15 and the senate overwhelmingly passed an immigration reform bill almost to the day last year. we know that comprehensive immigration reform will grow our economy so what are we wating for? americans across the country want us to do something on this issue and they want us to act now. i urge a vote on h.r. 15, the comprehensive immigration reform bill introduced by my hispanic caucus colleague, congressman joe garcia of florida. now is the time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek

recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the american people are not buying what the i.r.s. is selling re these lost emails. they want taos believe within 10 days of dave camp requesting emails from the i.r.s., lois lern's hard drive crashed and her emails are gone and unrecoverable. what are the odds the i.r.s. is telling the truth? my friend and colleague provided me the following calculations. using the i.r.s.'s own figure the chances a hard drive would crash on a given day is 0 .1%. the odds are one in 1,000 that your hard drive would cash in a 10-day period but only 10% of hard drive crashes result in having data and emails that are completely unrecoverable system of if you multiply those probabilities out, the odds that the i.r.s. is telling the truth s .01 of 1%.

mr. desantis: if you as a taxpayer provided the i.r.s. with an answer that improbable, how long do you think it would take them to laugh in your face and hold you account snble so the question we have, mr. speaker is why should we accept such an improbable explanation from the i.r.s. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? the gentlelady from florida is recognized. or one minute. >> mr. speaker, in april, nearly 300 schoolgirls were kidnapped by boko haram. as late as yesterday there were reports of more abductions. i listened in horror as the nigerian government announced it has completed its inquiry in the april abduction and has little progress to report. this means these girls remain in

the hands of boko haram. mrs. wilson: boko haram has emerged as a well-armed insur exwith a growing thirst for blood. this is unconscionable. the government's failure to recognize the -- rescue the girls or protect them has sparked international outrage and launched the bring back our girls movement dedicated to the support and rescue of the girls. we must keep pressure on the nigerian government until the girls are safely returned to their families. please join our tweet war, every ay, 9:00 to 12:00, #bringbackour gs dirrells. tweet, tweet, tweet. bring back our girls. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, after months of requesting all of lois learner's emails, the agency now tells congress it has lost two years' worth of her emails. mr. marchant: the i.r.s. knew about these problems for months. they even told the white house about the lost emails, but withheld this information from congress. this stonewalling by the i.r.s. must end. the complete lack of faith of my constituents in the i.r.s. compels me to demand a special prosecutor to independently investigate the lost emails of lois lerner. there needs to be an independent investigation that leaves no stone unturned. this should also include a forensic audit of their i.t. systems. only then will the american people know the truth. this will send a message to the i.r.s. that the american people will not tolerate further abuses. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek

recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm calling again on the house to introduce a dose of democracy into this body. for months, since december 28, millions of americans have lost their extended unemployment benefits. we were elected to represent the will of the people. to chart a course for this country and deal with the needs of those americans who are struggling. and a majority of this house is ready to do that. a majority of this house would vote to extend federal unemployment benefits that prevent people who have worked hard for their entire lives from losing everything they have worked for because this body fails to act. a majority is for it. a majority of the people and majority of this house, the senate will pass unemployment extension. they did once already. the president will sign it.

it's upon us. it's incumbent upon us to do the will of the people. if we do not do this, we bear responsibility for the fact that for generations poverty could be inflicted upon people who have worked hard their entire lives and stand a chance of losing everything. simply because we won't act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, on april of this year, georgetown university seniors andrew, who happens to be a ewe tan in my district, and andrew won the 68th annual debate fourment for the second time in three years. as sophomores and seniors they were the national championship team. as a junior they were in the final four. which means they are the only team in the history to

accomplish these standards each year. there have been 286 colleges who have competed in this tournament since 1947. only eight of those colleges have actually won more championships than these two guys by themselves. they are the only team to have won two national championships and the copeland award for the best year-long performance. arch was also named as the top individual speaker at the tournament. i congratulate these two debaters, as well as concontract lations -- congratulations to jonathan paul the director of debate at georgetown. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. this ngevin: mr. speaker, fourth of july will mark the 75th anniversary of lou gehrig's historic farewell address at yankee stadium where he brought national attention to the

disease that bears his name today. sadly, so many decades later, we are still struggling to understand the cause of a.l.s. and there is still no known cure. on june 13 i was proud to join the rhode island a.l.s. chapter to reaffirm our commitment to the families affected by this disease. hearing their stories emboldened me to fight harder than ever for additional research funding that will lead to more effective treatments and ultimately a cure. lou gehrig famously said in his farewell speech, i might have been given a bad break, but i've got an awful lot to live for. so, too, to the millions of people in the fight against a.l.s. i recognize them and the caregivers that take care of them. they are unsung heroes as well. together i know that this is a fight that we can win. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. bilirakis: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of posttraumatic stress awareness day on friday, june 27. approximately one in five veterans who served in iraq and afghanistan have been diagnosed with p.t.s., with many also affected by other mental illnesses or physical disabilities. all our veterans deserve treatment, mr. speaker. there is almost one veteran suicide an hour. this is inexcusable. it is vital that we recognize the invisible wounds that are just as serious as the physical ones. the one-size-fits-all doesn't always work and that's why i'm introducing the creating options for veterans expedited recovery act tomorrow that will pave the way towards alternative treatments for those suffering from p.t.s. all options should be on the table to treat our true american heroes, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation and

let's get our veterans covered. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today to call the house to action. on friday we will mark one year since the senate passed comprehensive immigration reform with broad bipartisan support. we also mark one year of inaction in this house where we have not even had one vote on immigration reform. this is despite the fact that we have had a house bill with 200 bipartisan co-sponsors. this is despite the fact that we have a house bill that 80% of americans support. and this is despite the fact that hundreds of businesses, including the u.s. chamber of commerce, and a variety of religious organizations, are all

calling for the same thing -- comprehensive immigration reform. it is not just a moral thing to do. it is the right thing to do for our economy, for public safety, and to reduce our deficit. the time is now. i am asking house leadership today, bring this bipartisan effort to the floor for a vote. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. daines: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. daines: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor vice chairwoman annette lambert of the sioux tribes of the fort peck reservation who recently passed away. serving her people was her calling in life. in prior to election to the executive board, she was a businesswoman who helped provide services and jobs on the

reservation. she inspired the young men and women to pursue higher education as a volunteer member of the tribe's higher education board of directors, and one of the founders of fort peck community college, a tribal college in poplar, montana. she'll be greatly missed by many and her commitment to service and leadership should not only serve as an inspiration for her fellow tribal members, but for all montanans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. r. sires: -- mr. payne: mr. speaker, we are here today to celebrate two very different anniversaries. 50 years ago we enjoyed the freedom summer and the signing of the civil rights act of 1964 that paved the way for voting rights in this country. but sadly, mr. speaker, 49 years

later and one year ago today, the supreme court gutted the voting rights act saying that it was outdated and unjustified. since this decision, we have seen that the voting rights act is needed more than ever now before. from 2000 to 2013 there were a recorded 148 violations in 29 states. meaning 29 states has actively tried to pass laws such as requiring a photo i.d. or cutting out early voting which limits access to the ballot. it is time we pass the voting rights act amendment of which i am a proud co-sponsor in fighting until voting rights acts are reinstated in this country. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is

recognized. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. over the last decade we have seen too many for-profit colleges deceive their students and mismanage their finances all while reaping millions of dollars in federal funding. it's critical that we hold institutions accountable for delivering quality education, but we must also protect the students who fall victim to these schools and ensure they don't have to live with the mistakes of the college should they close. that's why i have introduced protect students from failing institutions act which ensures every student who was enrolled at a school that closed their campus has the assurance that their federal loans will be forgiven and pell grants restored. career colleges of america a. for-profit college has a campus in my district in southgate, abruptly closed earlier this year, abandoning hundreds of students with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt and no degree to show for it. that's inexcusable and our students deserve better. there have been instances of

other for-profit schools that have closed across this country. i'm going to continue and i hope you do, too, to work to protect hardworking students in my district across the country from these shameful predatory practices. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, from the day that i was sworn into office, i have heard from the veterans that i have the honor of representing that while when they can get into the v.a. to seek care, the care is great, the providers are wonderful, it's too hard to get an appointment, and that appointment once given is often canceled. mr. o'rourke: the v.a. on the other hand was telling me something different. there were no problems with wait times. to resolve the differences we surveyed the veterans themselves and what they told us was more than 36% of the veterans that i represent cannot get in to receive a mental health care appointment. this is at a time when we have 22 veteran suesides every day in

this country. he -- suesides every day in this country. that's why -- suicides every day in this country. that's why i join my colleague across the aisle so we ensure veterans help us lead the v.a. out of the crisis we are currently in. we cannot trust the v.a. to tell us how the v.a. is doing, but we can certainly trust veterans to do just that. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. now what purpose does the gentlelady from virgin islands seek recognition? mrs. christensen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the virgin islands is recognized. mr. -- mrs. christensen: i rise today to pay tribute to one of my hometown stars, tim duncan of the san antonio spurs. tim is a tife-time champion, 14-time all star, two-time m.v.p., and a three-time finals m.v.p. he grew up on my home island of st. croix and graduated from st. dunstan's episcopal school with my eldest daughter.

that's where a tall, thin, and shy timmy began to play basketball ball. they -- basketball. they were not the winningest team. we have followed his games with pride. we appreciate how he stayed in touch with his classmates and friends these years. the way he's given back to us, to north carolina, to san antonio, to his foundation. the character program in our schools and his support of youth sports and health awareness and research. tim duncan is a champion in basketball and in the lives of the communities that he continues to -- give back to. on behalf of the people of the u.s. virgin islands, thank you, timmy, for making us proud and the role model you have been for our young men and young men everywhere. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from haye seek recognition? the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. hanabusa: the american

people want immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform. an overwhelming majority believe in a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented because we are a compassionate country, but you have not brought it to the floor. you have said you favor the enlist act, but wouldn't put it as part of the national defense authorization act. what's wrong with serving our country and earning a pathway to citizenship? what's wrong with going to school and being a good member of our society and earning a pathway to citizenship? these are dreamers, dreamers of the american dream. mr. speaker, what's wrong with reuniting families, keeping the promises to people like the filipino world war ii veterans who believed in what general macarthur said to them. there's nothing wrong with that. bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor and let us all vote, vote

for the dreamers, vote to truly believe in this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank youing mr. speaker. for generations in america, we have known that education is the surest path to success. that's why today i'm introducing the pre-k for u.s.a. act thefplg pre-k for u.s.a. act allows local schools and governments to apply for grants to expand high-quality pre-k programs. mr. castro: schools and local governments need to have the ability to pick up the slack where the state is failing them. unfortunately in texas, legislators have curtailed investment in education. they have pick tipped the troubling practice of pretending to balance budgets by slashing early childhood education funds. i call on my colleagues to

support the pre-k for u.s.a. act. we need all children to have the opportunity to get ahead and live their dreams. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: trurp does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> mr. speaker, americans want congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform and the senate already has. mr. pallone: it's been exactly one year this week since the senate passed bipartisan legislation to offer a pathway to citizenship for millions living in the united states. but 365 days later, there's still been no action in this house. the democrats have a plan that will decrease the nation's deficit by nearly $1 trillion, secure our borders, unite families and provide an earned pathway to citizenship but the g.o.p. has other ideas. moneys have made it clear they have no intention of acting on a plan for comprehensive immigration reform. last october, we introduced h.r.

15, the border security economic opportunity and immigration modernization act based on bipartisan principles and bipartisan solutions to fix our country's broken immigration system. the bill has strong, bipartisan support and has the votes to pass in the house if it comes to a vote. the legislation already has 200 co-sponsors including three republican co-sponsors. the united states, mr. speaker, has rightfully earned its reputation as a land of opportunity and we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 641 and if for -- and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 116, house resolution 641, resolved that at any time after

the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 4899, to lower gasoline prices for the american family by increasing domestic onshore and ffshore energy exploration and production, and for other purposes. the first read of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-15.

that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points ofed offer against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report by the committee on rules in this resolution. each may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equailly divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or the committee of the whole house on the state of the union. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand is a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original tech. the previous question shall be considered in order on the bill and amendment thrts to final passage without intervening megs except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, a, at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union 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 first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, pe the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2

of rule 21 are waived. b, during consideration of the bill for amendment, 1, each amendment other than amendment prossvided for in paragraph 2 shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in paragraph 2. 2, no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate and three, the committee of the -- the chair of the committee of the whole hay accord priority on whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. c, when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3. on any legislative day during the period from june 27, 2014, through july 7, 2014, a the journal of the proceeds of the previous day shall be considered as approved and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, afrl 1 of the -- article 1 of the constitution to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. section 4, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the dureation of the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. section 5. it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjourpment during the month of july. section 6. the committee on appropriations may, at any time before 5:00

p.m. on thursday, july 3, 2014, file privilege red ports to accompany measures making appropriationers in fiscal year ending september 30, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop is recognized for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for purposes of debate only i yield the customary 0 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for purposes of debate only and i further ask that all members have five legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: thank you. this resolution this rule, provides a trucktured rule for the consideration of -- a structured rule for the consideration of h.r. 4899, the lowering gas prices to fuel an america that works act of 2014,

makes 10 amendments in order four republican, six democrat. and the rule provides one hour of general debate with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on natural resources. it further provide for consideration of h.r. 4923, the water appropriations act under a modified open rule and provides other technical and clerical purposes. the energy and water development related appropriations act is a bipartisan measure that provides for the essential funding of several federal agencies during the next fiscal year, including department of energy, u.s. army corps of engineers, bureau of reclamation. this measure would also fund important federal science research in the fields of energy, high performance computing systems, and next generation energy sources. it's appropriate that this measure providing this nation's energy needs also be included with this rule. in addition, mr. speaker, i am

pleased to stand before the house today and speak in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, h.r. 4899, lowering gas prices for an america that works act of 2014. american families, mr. speaker, are hurting. every time you pull up to the gas pump, you have to wonder whether there will ever be any relief to the family budget for these ever-increasing gasoline prices. it means simply whether you support or even like the guy or not, since president obama took office in 2009, the average national price of a gallon of unleaded regular gas, before he took office, was under $2 a gallon. today, it's nearly double to around $4 a gallon and the prices keep rising almost every day. this administration touts its growth in energy production, not recognizing that that production increase has all come on private

and state-owned property. but if we are to have sustained growth of our economy if we're not having peaks and valleys if we're not having boom and bust, it is important that the resources that we have in great abundance that are on federal lands also be include sod there can be a sustained growth to our economy. unfortunately, since president obama took office, total federal oil production has dropped 6%. total federal national gas production has dropped an a a-- an astounding 28%. at the same time, offshore oil production is down 15% andoffs shore gas production is down 47%. unfortunately, 87% of all the area that's allowed offshore of acreage of potential development is currently offlimits to oil and natural gas production. like we have policies that are really -- look, we have policies

that are really harming our progress forward. they need to be change thsmed act that would be put before us if we pass this rule does indeed to that -- does indeed do that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank youing mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman -- thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. mr. speaker, i join my good friends on the energy and water committee, representatives lowey and kaptur new york applauding the chairman's con -- and kaptur, in applauding the chairman's concerted effort to work on h.r. 4923 in an inclusive manner. i'm supportive of the bill and many provisions within it, however, i'm not without my

concerns. all these phrases that my friends on the other side of the aisle bandy about, and i quote, increase over this, unquote, quote, funding above last year's levels, unquote. all of this sounds great, but as always, we need to see what is lurking in the shadows. for example, h.r. 4923 is completely uninspired when it comes to renewable energy. its approach new york my view is a myopic one -- its approach, in my view, is a myopic one, one that if we follow it too far, leaves us trying to play catch-up with our competitors like the chinese and other countries that have turned their attention to renewable energy. as china continues its now decades-long trend of increasing

investment in its renewable energy sector, footnote there, it invested $56 billion just last year, we take the truly uninspired step of cutting funding for renewable energy by 6.4%. i'm aware of the studies that conclude our nation will be able to meet 97% of its energy needs through domestic production by 2035, and i consider that to be great. . this nation has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign oil since 2003. this is a serious national security vulnerability, and i think we can all agree that lessening this dependence is a desirable goal. i also know that for many in this day of twitter and facebook

d i.n.s. at that gram -- instagram, 2035 seems like a long way off. those of us in this chamber do not have the luxury of thinking that way. we have a responsibility to look past 2035. we have a responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren with an energy portfolio that will keep them in good stead for the years after 2035. we abdicate this responsibility when we underfund research and development in the renewable energy section. we abdicate this responsibility when we skew applied energy programs at the department of energy too heavily toward nuclear energy and fossil fuels. and increased investment in renewable energy makes good economic sense. it makes good environmental

sense. and it makes good national security sense. the time to make this investment is now. we need to be careful even where we see funding increases. though these funding increases may seems impressive and prudent, we need to be reminded that all that glitters is not gold. they may merely mask a continuation of the status quo for my friends across the aisle. they'd have you believe they are increasing funding for environmental protection while reducing spending on defense for alas, if my view, this is an illusion. in reality, this bill represents business as usual for the republican party. slashing funding for research and renewable resources while doling out more handouts to dirty energy and environmental

pollutants. it seems like every other week we are voting to drill off our shores, in our parks, or on federal land. to that end h.r. 4899, the lowering gasoline prices to fuel an america that works act of 2014, we are the greatest naming people here in the world here in congress, is just the greatest hits record. rehashing two measures the house has already voted on. ne of which itself was already cobbled together from a number of separate bills. and like all greatest hits albums, it, too, is stuck in the past. those past attempts rightly died in the senate, and there's no reason to expect a different result this time around. yet here we are again tossing

legislation into the void while our country's very real problems fester. my friends across the aisle have no idea. evidently, for energy independence and security beyond more drilling. they'd rather score political points than propose real solutions. i'm sure they'll go home to their districts next week for one of the biggest driving weekends of the year, and yesterday if the rules committee i commented that the oil industry manipulates us every year in the summer prices go up on gasoline. and i just don't think that's coincidental. when gas prices historically tend to be high, and they are going to point to these votes as evidence that they tried to lower gasoline prices while it may make for a good feel-good

story, that's all it is. putting more oil out there won't move prices. domestic production is already at a 25-year high in this country. up 60% since 2008. imports are at 29-year lows. despite my friends' claims, offshore oil production from federal land is up 30% since 2008. and i can never pass up an opportunity to say that i will continue to resist offshore drilling off the coast of florida beyond the accommodations that have already been made by this body. yet gas prices remain unchanged. the u.s. holds only 2% of the world's oil reserves. even tripling current offshore drilling capabilities by the

year 2030 will lower gasoline prices only five cents per gallon more than if we continued at the rate we are going. or if we increased oil production all the way to 50%, which is more than drilling in the arctic, increasing public lands, and offshore drilling, and the pipelines would provide, prices would decrease by only 10% at most. global riced on the market, which is far more complicated than my friends let on. record demand for fossil fuels in this country and places like india, china, singapore, and japan, have far more impact on the price of gasoline than anything my friends here hope to do. the liquid natural gas export bill the house passed yesterday shows they understand the nature of the market.

they just choose to ignore it whenever it's convenient. my friends across the aisle have no plans for addressing the demand for the kinds of policies that actually could help reduce energy costs like increasing our energy efishen -- efficiency. improving the fuel 3450eu8age of our cars, and -- mileage of oufer cars, and developing renewable energy resources. i was visited by one of our college presidents, new at florida atlantic university, visited with me today, and that university has a new grant dealing with currents which may very well at some point add to our understanding with reference to renewable energy resources. so it won't be the american people that benefit more from drilling, it will be the bottom lines of the companies that own the wells.

hardworking americans will be left to bear the risk. this drill everywhere all the time plan isn't a serious energy strategy, it's a cash grab by the fossil fuel industry. it's not a path to energy independence and security, it is a road to environmental and economic collapse. this isn't a game. the threat is real, mr. speaker. we haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the deep -- b.p. deep water horizon spill. let me repete that. we haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the b.p. deepwater horizon spill. footnote right there, b.p. has not paid for all of the damage that they did in that area, and i defy anybody to show me how it is that they did, and i ask anybody getting ready to eat

seafood that comes out of that bay to look at the damage that was done and the continuing sentiment that -- sediment that continues to rise from that area that was polluted. what happens to all those floridians whose livelihood depends upon our oceans and beaches? if you want to know, ask the oyster people what happens. ask the shrimpers that come out into the gulf what their product looks like nowadays, including the deformed product they are seeing from this awful disaster. florida's g.d.p. from its living resources, which includes fishing, hatcheries, aqua culture, seafood processing, and seafood markets is worth nearly $300 million. additionally, the state's g.d.p. from ocean based tourism and recreation is nearly $16.5 billion. on top of that, florida generates millions of dollars in commercial fishing, including

shrimp, mackerel, blue crab, and swordfish, and stone crabs which we are finding diminishing in numbers. we have 350,000 jobs in tourism and recreation, and nearly 120,000 direct jobs in recreational and commercial fishing. but you can't eat contaminated fish, and who wants to spend their hard-earned dollars and vacation time lounging on a beach covered in tar balls. when i lifted up on monday in the u.s. airplane and looked down the shore of florida, i saw what amendments to about a mile-long oil slick, and i saw people walking and i knew that in a matter of time they would be walking on tar balls. how bad does the next spill have to be? climate change is not even pending anymore. it's here and its effects are conspicuous. downtown miami, for example, floods whenever it rains and so does hollywood, florida, and

areas that i live around. people can't get to work, businesses can't open. historic droughts have now ravaged the west, and my friends say there is nothing to concern ourselves about as it pertains to climate change. the risky business report just released by president george w. bush's former treasury secretary, henry paulsen, and mayor bloomberg, and other former cabinet officers, lawmakers, and scientists says climate change could cost the country billions of dollars over the next two decades. this bill fully ignores the reality of the world we live in. i do want to say one thing. yesterday's rules committee mile friend, who is managing this rule, mr. bishop from utah, did

make to me a compelling argument regarding education in the state of utah. and the fact that on some of the federal land in utah that if they had an opportunity to do further oil exploration, it could have an impact on utah's economy. i think that in many respects a lot of that is reasonable and i'm hopeful that at some point some of his views in that regard will prevail. but i hope for the most part that his overall views do not prevail. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, reserves his time. the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, is recognized. mr. bishop: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. mr. hastings from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, my good friend, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes.

my colleague thank for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. h.r. 4899 is yet another example the majority's backward energy policy that doubles down on dirty fossil fuels instead of investing in a clean energy future. and the bill also specifically targets my congressional district, requiring new oil drilling leases off the central coast of california. this is the fourth time in as many years that the house leadership has tried to override the will of my constituents and california voters who overwhelmingly oppose new offshore drilling. even if drilling in these waters could start tomorrow, it would certainly have no impact on gas prices. and why is that? because the low quality oil off

the central coast of california can't be used to make gasoline. it is used to make asphalt. while i certainly support investing more in our nation's roads and bridges, this is certainly not the way to do it. so i find it incredibly disingenuous for my colleagues to pretend that this bill would lower gas prices for consumers when in reality it's just another big give away to big oil. . i also oppose this rule because it blocks the inclusion of two amendments i had filed. one of those amendments simply required a study on the environmental impacts on -- of offshore fracking. we depend on our oceans for such varied needs and values. the least we can do suns how they're impacted by offshore activities. our constituents sent us here to get things done, not to stifle debate. but this rule won't even allow

us to discuss this important issue. the rule also blocks a vote on my amendment to protect the central coast from additional offshore drilling. may i ask -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: this amendment is identical to one made in order tore considered on the floor last year when the house last considered this redundant legislation. perhaps the majority believe it's a waste of time to consider something that's already been voted upon. i only wish they'd apply this logic to bills they bring to the floor. because if they did, we wouldn't be here wasting our time with the bill the house already voted on last year. stapling two old bills together doesn't make it a new idea. h.r. 4899 is still a bad idea

and it's still a waste of time. i urge my colleagues to reject this rule, to oppose the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, reserves, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop -- continues to reserve. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 1426, the big oil welfare repeal act of 2013. representative tim bishop's bill to end the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies given to the largest, most profitable oil companies each year. to discuss our proposal, i'm pleased at this time to yield to my good friend three minutes, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise to urge defeat of the previous question to allow consideration of the big oil welfare repeal act to finally end subsidies to oil companies. for too long this congress has perpetuated corporate welfare saying that job creators need incentives to grow this country. but last year, the oil companies had a bottom line profit of $93 billion. $93 billion and yet this republican-led congress continues to lavish subsidies and tax breaks on these highly profitable companies. we cannot overlook the cuts to good programs continued -- continued during this second year of sequestration and as we face the ever-present imperative to cut the deficit, congress should rethink preferential treatment for big oil that burdens millions of hardworking americans and small businesses which foot the bill for these subsidies.

for instance, we can save $9.2 billion over 10 years by repealing the outdated section 199 tax break which designates oil production as a manufacturing activity and gives bill oig a 6% reduction from their income. this could be better spent on real efforts to create jobs, increase revenue, and support local economies. we could direct that funding toward infrastructure construction, or education, or keep it in the energy sector to further incentivize renewable energy technology development rather than perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels. these are real job creation efforts congress has supported in the past and are still needed to ignite economic growth. or we could use the save frgs the bill to help fill the immediate need to pay for the shortfall in the highway trust fund which will run out of money only weeks from now. this means the house could leave this week without a solution to this impending crisis, threatening to freeze construction projects and lay off workers, further imperiling

our nation's mick recovery. there is no -- economic recovery. there's no shortage of goals congress needs to reach this career and many of them have steep price tags. my colleagues can use a source of funds companies won't miss to offset our to-do list. with no signs from the majority about whether the house will ever move to consider tax reform, it remains unclear when if ever, the opportunity will arise again to reform the tax code to reflect the needs and aspirations of working families and small bys. mr. speaker i urge my colleagues to join with me in better prioritizing taxpayer funds by defeating the previous question. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from utah continues to reserve. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i would advise at this time and ask if you would -- learn from my colleague if he's ready to

close? i have no further speakers and i'm prepared that the time to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: you have only from me yet to hear. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings to is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very manufacture -- very much, mr. speaker. i'm afraid these bills just leave us spinning our wheels. while we could be making actual profwrezz in helping hardworking americans across the nation. it's outrageous that three million americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in december, 2013. i might add, we learned sterday that 300,000 of that three million are american veterans. we've also had, along with the expiration of tax extender

provisions that helped vims that have expired -- that helped individuals that have expired, they help families and small businesses invest. republicans and democrats should be working together to move our nation forward on comprehensive immigration reform, and i might add, i agree with everybody that says that the border needs to be secure and one good way to do that is to do comprehensive immigration reform and tax reform. and we need to raise the minimum wage in this country and we need to protect voting rights and secure equal pay. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, before i will urge my colleagues to vote no, i just want to make it very clear that the measures

we are considering today have already been voted on by the house and did not go further to become law. the likelihood of this measure reaching that same fate is very strong. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question, vote no on the underlying bilks and i yield -- on the underlying bills and i yield become the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm an old history teacher and one of the things i've always claimed for my students is that you should try to look to the past to see how you can plan for the future. when ronald reagan became president of the united states, country was faced with a crisis of double digit inflation and double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates.

as president, after so many years of a congress that try to have had a policy of spending ourselves into economic growth that failed, his issue was, which of those do you attack first? i think it's interesting to realize, to grab hold of each of those issues, his first act was to increase the supply of affordable energy. that became the basis of growing an economy in which he could then attack each of those problems of unemployment and inflation and interest rates which were plaguing this country. we have to realize now that a strong foundation of affordable energy is extremely significant. from whatever source. but especially from what will be workable now. high gasoline prices and the price that is increasing in every form of energy we have today hurts the middle class, and it especially hurts the working poor. many of whom have to decide every time they go to the pump

whether they'll put food on the table or fill up the mini van. we have to deal with something. in my area of the west, where we live and part of the country where the distances between communities are extremely large, as opposed to back here in the east where everything is still lumped closely together, the increase in fuel costs hits home with a real inflicting pain. i'm sorry, the policies of the past that we had that made the desert bloom are being reversed by the policies of the present. whether you're at the pump, realizing the pain it's inflicting, or whether your concern is what kind of energy costs will it take when you go into the room and flip on the light, or when you decide to cook food, we have to realize, these are real problems facing middle america as well as the working poor of america. we can either come up with policies that move us forward, or recan implement policies that allow taos freeze in the dark. and so far, we have done a good

job on the latter and not the first. republicans in the house of representatives have passed several bills over the past few years and this year as well aimed at increasing u.s. domestic fuel production, only to have those bills sidelined into the deliberative body on the other side of this building. reminds me of the great quote, when thomas bracken reid, the old speaker of the house, went to the senate and watched them debate and announced to the body, thank hetches we are not a deliberative body. there are problems we have that can be involved -- solved. i appreciate the fact that the gentleman from florida mentioned that china and others are putting money into renewable energy programs but they're also going around the world and gobbling up whatever coal and oil resources they can get hold of while our administration is taking the united states in the other direction, by self-inflicted artificial limits, policies that have hurt

our economy, killed high paying jobs and increased the cost of consumer goods for all including the middle class. there are reasons why, mr. speaker, the last six years our economy is simply limping along. and we should learn the lessons of the past to recognize that what we can do from that. our economic malaise can be attributed to a lack of attention to a commonsense energy program on federal lands. so what would this bill, h.r. 4899 actually do? it would establish and demand a new five-year plan for leases in those areas with the concept of going after where the resources actually are. we can talk about all the lands that are leased but it's an important -- it's totally unimportant if there are no resources there have the plan that focuses on where the resources are. produce a revenue sharing plan with the coastal states. instead, come up with three distinct agencies which would

replace the new structure that has been put upon since the oil spill and make them actually functioning. that's the -- that's the problem. i agree with things you have said, we haven't done much with report but we have done a lot with regulatory reform. that hasn't worked as well. to establish a policy that the npra is for the purpose of providing oil as a resource for the united states and to establish some kind of internet-based auctions for these programs. look, we're not talking about taking over everything and drilling everywhere. this federal government owns somewhere around 4 million to 450 million ache d around 400 million to 450 manage acres of land. of that, many can't be touched. there are 50 million acres have that development potential. those are the areas in which policies of this administration are strangling the ability to move them forward. i will, because i hadn't planned on this, i don't have my charts,

i appreciate the gentleman talking about education. i want to finish off with that in just one second. i appreciate his sentiment that someday my position can prevail but unless we change the overall federal position, i can't get that moving forward. and that's why it becomes extremely important. we're not just talking about gas at the pump and the cost of electricity and the cost of cooking your food. there are also tradeoff effect which is specifically deal with education. if one looks at a map of the states, there is overwhelming control by the federal government of ownership of the land, the public land states of the midwest and the west coast. you look at the state which have the hardest time increasing their funding for public education, it is an amaze accordinglation between the two. which means that over the past 20 years, those who do not live in public land states, those areas east of denver which average about 4% of their states being controlled by the federal government, have rizz -- have grown their educational fund big

68%. those of us who average over 50% of our land controlled by the federal government in these public land states have grown our education budget by 35%. it is simply a matter that my state cannot improve its education funding alone. unless we are allowed to develop some of the resources we have in huge abundance but are tied up in the policies of the federal government. so yes, it is true, we are growing petroleum activities in this country, we are growing exploration, we are growing what we're developing, what we're exporting but it's all coming from private lands and state lands that are not part of the west. and if you want to keep that growth on a continuous basis, and not have spikes when you have to go after the resources we have in public lands and if you want to do that -- if you were to do that, not only would we get royalties from those resources, but it would spin off all sorts of jobs to yen rate the income tax we need and the

sales tax revenue to replace the fact that we're not getting property tax from lands controlled by the federal government and were promised to us a long time ago when we became states. this bill provides a plan. this plan is something desperately needed if we want to move forward. if enacted it would encourage a plan on how you can accomplish it and how to do it and it may actually, give my chance a fair shot of an education because they desperately need it, and the status quo is not providing it, and that has to stop. mr. speaker, i would only urge members to support this rule. it's a fair rule. it's a good rule, and then i would hope afterwards they would support the underlying bills which would provide our nation's critical energy needs and promote jobs at the same time as well as funding for my

schools in utah. and with that i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields back his time. the question now is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 636 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 6. will the gentleman from texas, r. poe, kindly take the chair. the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 6 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas to world trade organization for other nd purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, june 24, 2014, all time for

general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the ext of rules committee print 114-48. -- 113-48. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be ordered except those printed in part a of house report 113-492. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for

division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-492. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. gardner: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-492 offered by mr. gardner of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 636, the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, again, for the opportunity to debate h.r. 6, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act, something that in this congress we don't do that often, a bill to address both job creation here at home and also to provide our trading partners, our allies with energy security abroad. the amendment before the desk right now is the manager's amendment brought to this chamber in a bipartisan fashion

with representative gene green from texas who has been a gracious and patient in this effort to work through this process, to make sure we have as broad base support as possible for this legislation. it recognizes that despite some of the concerns our side has with the recent d.o.e. changes to their process, including the expanding scope of d.o.e.'s public interest analysis to include laments unrelated to d.o. -- elements unrelated to d.o.e.'s priorities, we need send a strong as message possible to our allies that the u.s. is prepared to answer their call and enter the market as a major exporting nation. it is equally important we send a message that we are bringing certainty to the applicants and the jobs currently awaiting in limbo at d.o.e., and that d.o.e. will indeed be held accountable to do its job once ferc finishes its facility review and nepa process. again, this legislation has the potential to lift 45,000 people

off of the unemployment rolls. daniel jurgen testified before the energy and commerce committee that we could move from 1.7 million jobs in this country to three million jobs in this country in energy by 2020, and h.r. 6 and this amendment help advance that job creation. but because d.o.e.'s recent changes didn't put a final deadline for the department to act on applications, this amendment has them to issue completion within 30 days. we're doing this because some of the applications have been languishing for two years and it's time to insert accountability back in the rocess because d.o.e. says that increasing exports is a net positive. this is too important, too important to domestic job to ion and the u.s.

expand. this amendment addresses many of the concerns that those on the other side have voiced with previous versions of this legislation, including completing full environmental reviews and maintaining d.o.e.'s test. i hope this gashers broad support and i thank the gentleman from texas for his support, and i would offer the gentleman from texas one minute of time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: i thank my colleague. i rise in strong support of the manager's amendment. i want to thank mr. gardner and my colleagues on the other side for their hard work. this is the result of hard bipartisan work. of -- the department energy is responsible for xpanding imports and they have

received applications to export liquefied natural gas. only one project has received final approval. e.i.a. estimates that by 2035 the united states will produce three trillion cubic feet more than we consume of natural gas. but in order to export the gas, rather than harm the environment, projects need permits. the process is not working well. why is only one project received final approval for three years, why did doe d.o.e. just this month change proposing the -- propose changing the process? it's because it isn't working. the proposed changes are a step in the right direction. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. green: unfortunately, after three years, we need to ensure that d.o.e. issues timely decisions. the manager's amendment places a 30-day deadline after the environmental review process. i want to ask my full statement

be placed in the record, mr. speaker. the chair: without objection. mr. green: and say this amendment is a cooperation of bipartisan from our committee. again, i urge members to adopt the manager's amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the statement of the gentlemen will be covered under -- gentleman will be covered under general leave. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition for purpose of debate. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that congressman gardner's proposing some changes in an effort to address some of the problems with his bill. the base bill would require the department of energy to make final decisions on almost all of the pending l.n.g. export applications in 90 days without the benefit of complete environmental reviews. now they look at their bill and they appear to understand this would be bad policy.

the amendment would establish a different deadline. now d.o.e. must issue a final decision on an application within 30 days of completion of the nepa environmental review. that's an improvement because it at least ensures that major l.n.g. export projects are not approved without an environmental review. however, this amendment, if adopted, the bill are main unnecessary and problematic. the bill is un-- will remain unnecessary and problematic. the bill is unnecessary because it doesn't have any legislative action for l.n.g. exports. hey proto streamline their review. that's already happening without this bill. so if we adopt this amendment, the bill will still be unnecessary because it truncates d.o.e.'s public interest review. we should give d.o.e. the time

it needs to weigh the pros and cons of granting an application. instead, the bill sets a 30-day deadline that would rush that process. to me that doesn't make sense, especially since rushing d.o.e. isn't going to get l.n.g. exported any faster. l.n.g. can't be exported without a terminal, and nothing in this bill gets terminals permitted or build any faster. i'm not going to oppose this amendment because it's probably better than the base bill, but it doesn't solve all of the problems with the bill. it illustrates how this bill, which is being touted as bringing about domestic prosperity and global freedom, is being worked on the go. i think it hasn't been thought through. this makes it a little better, but i don't see how the bill lives up to its title. i won't oppose the amendment, but i still think the bill is not worthy of passage. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado has 45 seconds remaining and is recognized. mr. gardner: i thank the chairman for support, ranking member waxman for support of his amendment but remind him that secretary and ambassador from hungary, ambassador for energy security said it's not true lifting the export would not have an immediate effect in europe. it would immediately change the investment and send an extremely important message of strategic reassurance to the region which feels threaten at anytime than the cold war. passage would send an immediate signal to our allies and our enemies that the united states is serious about energy security and aiding those of our friends most in need of energy security. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i know the ambassador from hungary and other countries that are looking at the possible aggression of the russians are concerned about

t having to rely on russia alone for their natural gas supplies and they're desperate and we need to help them as best we can, but let's don't fool anybody. it will probably not allow, even if this bill were passed, to get -- for us to get l.n.g. to some of those countries until 2017, 2018, and if we allow export of l.n.g. exporters here in the united states are going to send it primarily to those who will pay the highest prices. and they are not in europe. they're in asia. so i wouldn't want the people to be under any illusions that this will help them immediately. i think the statement by that ambassador shows more desperation than anything else and hope we send a signal we're going to do the best we can to

get l.n.g. to them as quickly as possible, maybe they can withstand a possible russian action, but on the other hand, the ambassador from hungary knows that they're part of nato and if hungary is attacked by the russians, we have an obligation to help them under our nato agreement, so i think that is their base security, not this legislation. but they have high hopes, especially when they hear this is a bill that will bring about domestic prosperity to the united states, which they would presumably like for us to have prosperity. so would i. and it's called not only domestic prosperity but global freedom, and they certainly are hoping that we will do what we can for global freedom. i certainly want to do everything we can for global freedom, and voting against this bill does not mean voting

against global freedom. -- gardner: >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. waxman: yes. >> as my friend from california makes clear it would not be a signal that help is on the way anytime soon, the natural gas would not come soon, but the signal that would be heard loud and clear is the price of gas ould be going up. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: here's an article, selling l.n.g., selling u.s. l.n.g. to europe, italy's contract. and here's another one i urge adoption of h.r. 6 -- of the amendment to h.r. 6 and thank the gentleman for the time.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number two printed in 192. a of house report 113- for what purpose duds the gentleman seek recognition? mr. holt: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113 ht 492, offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 636, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank the chair and i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: i rise in support of this amendment that i'm offering

along with mr. quigley of illinois. the effects of the natural gas boom have been felt throughout our economy but before we hurry to ship our energy advantage overseas, we should ensure that we are not exporting our ability to create jobs, keep energy prices low, and to fuel a resurgence in american manufacturing that is so badly needed. the holt-quigley amendment will ensure that the department of energy, before approving l.n.g. exports, adheres to unambiguous congressional guidance about how such exports will avet our community economy, our communities and our environment. h.r. 6 would approve all pending l.n.g. applications, in addition to those that have been approved. all approved and pending export facilities add up to an ability to export 36 billion cubic feet of lick the fied natch -- of lick we fied natural gas per

day. -- lick we -- licky fied natural gas per day. it has resulted in shortage in some areas and price spikes resulting in up to a 250% increase in natural gas prices from the previous year. we know that exporting more l.n.g. will raise price bus we don't know by how much. we know it will create problems for u.s. manufacturing and homeowner heating but don't know how badly. we should take the time to consider what greater volumes of l.n.g. exports will mean for prices, jobs, manufacturing, the environment and the economy. as with all the bills on the floor this week, h.r. 6 is about supporting the oil and gas interests at the expense of american manufacturing, american families and the environment. so our amendment as the support of both america's energy

advantage and the industrial energy consumers of america. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. gardner: i rides in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman sec reck -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. gardner: the holt amendment is a rewrite of the entire natural gas act that's been drafted without the benefit of the full debate of this chamber or committee in regular order of this process. the amendment would reverse the proposal that it is required and would determine whether an export of nap ral gas to a foreign country is in the public interest. the moratorium on processing applications resulting from the holt amendment could last years. the d.o.e. has already spent more than three yearsest tablying the process for reviewing the public interest. d.o.e.'s public interest

analysis is already well informed by numerous economic and environmental studies and in prior decisions, d.o.e. has looked at a number of factors, including economic impacts, international considerations, u.s. energy security, and environmental considerations already among other things. to conduct its reviews, d.o.e. looks to the railroad of -- record of evidence developed in the application proceedings. applicants and intervenors are free to raise concerns that may not have been addressed in prior cases. even though the d.o.e. has repeatedly denied such arguments they are delaying decision on new export applications the department of energy has continually stated that the public interest generally favors authorizing proposals to export natural gas that have been shown to lead to net benefit os -- benefits on the u.s. economy. i believe the holt amendment would disrupt the process that

d.o.e. has develop and result in further delays. with that, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the current amendment to h.r. 6. the holt-quigley amendment requires the secretary of energy to consider how proposed natural gas exports will affect the domestic natural gas prices, jobs, manufacturing, when making a public interest determination. i rise in opposition to the amendment because it codifies requirements that are already existing in the public interest determination. that's what the department of energy under current law is supposed to do. hen conducting a department of interest, they consider economic, geosecurity and other factors. it would be redundant to require d.o.e. to look at issues they are already considering. i urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment and yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois a co-author of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized for two minutes. mr. quigley: the debate about our nation's energy policy is happening here in congress and around the country. we're debating the merits of natural gas extraction with many of us arguing to prevent the contamination of drinking water and pollution of the air. we're debating building the keystone pipeline with many arguing it would harm our environment and jeopardize the health and well being of our communities. in each of these debates the argument may be contrary but both sides are focused on one important question. is this in the national interests? it's essential that today's debate about the exportation of natural gas be framed in the same height. the amendment i'm offering with my friend from new jersey is

based on a simple premise. before hurrying to export as much as 36 billion cubic feet of l.n.g. per day, we could take time to consider what this will mean for energy prices, jobs, manufacturing, the environment, and our economy. current law assumes it's always in our national interest to export natural gas even though studies confirm that exporting our natural gas would increase the price domestically. we're providing a rubber stamp review process that expedites l.n.g. exports without considering its potential effects. our amendment would simply flip this assumption and require by law that d.o.e. take into consideration the impact on consumers, the economy, energy this t, before making decision. we can make sure we benefit our consumers and economy while protecting our environment. i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i reserve the balance of my time, penning word fwr the majority. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i would add that the national association of manufacturers on april 9, which claims to be the largest manufacturing association in the united states, representing manufacturers in every industrial sector and all 50 states supports h.r. 6, the domestic prosperity and global freedom about system of the largest association of manufacturers supports h.r. 6, the domestic prosperity and global freedom act. i would also point out the risks if we don't have an outlet for american production. as a result, shutting wells which would lead to increased prices for consumers. t the fact that d.o.e. has studies that state it adds billions of dollars to our g.d.p., adding tens of thousands of jobs to our nation's work forest, removing people from the unemployment roles, something

this congress ought to adopt today a way to move forward on energy security a way to move forward on jobs that are ready to be put to work. let's pass this bill today and i oppose the gentleman's amendment for the simple fact that it's unworkable and rewrites the law without adequate discussion and debate. amongst this body. i reserve this -- my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. holt: i thank the chair. groups representing a diverse group of businesses and manufacturers support this amendment. groups that believe we should proceed with caution when making decisions about vast quantities of domestic energy resources. the department of energy has already approved l.n.g. facilities capable of exporting 9.3 billion cubic feet per day and we irresponsibly, hurriedly expedite the approval of up to 36 billion cubic feet, nearly

four times as much of l.n.g. exports per day, i believe we should consider the effect this will have across our economy. mr. gardner says this amendment of ours might slow exports. well, it might. because the idea is not to do it as quickly as we can, but do to -- but to do it as wisely as we can. our responsibility is not just to look after the oil and gas interests. our responsibility is also to look after american workers, american manufacturers, american consumers, homeowners. no one in this chamber should want our domestic natural gas prices to increase on a par with those in europe or asia. and a vote in support of the holt-quigley amendment will ensure that that is not the case. i urge support for this amendment. i yield back our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i yield such time as remains to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the remainer of

the time. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding. i represent a a -- i represent an area that's a come by nation of both the customers of the natural gas boom that we have but also the export opportunities in the state of texas and louisiana. we are concerned about running up the price of natural gas because i want it to be used more for electricity production. i have a chemical industry in the eastern part of my district i want to make sure we keep adding jobs like we're doing so much. but i also know that we need to keep those folks drilling in the field. and in south texas where flaring natural -- we're flaring natural gas right now. in north dakota we're flaring natural gas. it's not good for the environment. but we need to have customers for that that's why this legislation is needed and we will be able to have customers. i know yesterday i used it in the bill on pipelines. in texas we love blue bell ice cream, i know the speaker does too their adds say -- ads say we

eat all we can and sell the rest. let's use all we can but we can -- but what we can't use, let's sell it. i thank my colleague for the time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. -- expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 113-492. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 113-492 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 636, the gentleman

from oregon, mr. defazio, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. we just had a debate over the potential impact of export of l.n.g. on domestic prices. there's no arguing that the low domestic prices for natural gas have been a boom for our country. some manufacturers are actually moving operations back from overseas. others here are being advantaged in the markets. much to our concern to our competitors in europe and elsewhere. so we can say that's good. we're not going to settle that issue in my amendment. i'm going to bring up another issue. the reason, you know, natural gas companies want to export is to realize higher prices, and some of these terminals will require new pipelines to

connect to domestic natural gas supplies, particularly some of the new supplies. and here's the problem. in 2005 congress passed the bush-cheney energy plan, which gave the federal energy regulatory commission, a group of nameless, faceless, obscure bureaucrats the authority to grant eminent domain to pipeline companies. that means companies have eminent domain authority, generally received for the greater public interest to build pipelines to export natural gas. i had three amendments, this one is simply requiring disclosure. now, i just want to bring more focus during the expedited, should this bill become law, application and approval process for persons in the area whether there's a prospect that a natural gas pipeline will exert eminent dough nain over

their -- domain over their property. now, it's just disclosure, because as i say, my amendments weren't allowed. if eminent domain is going to be used to construct a pipeline to export a terminal. now, earlier this year i voted with, as i have every year, every single republican in favor of h.r. 1944. that is legislation to overturn he supreme court's decision in 2005, key low vs. the city of new london, where the city of new london was found to have the authority to use eminent domain on behalf of private development interests. the republicans, as i mentioned earlier, brought up a bill to overturn that decision. the private property rights protection act, which passed with every republican vote and a number of democrats on our side of the aisle.

the same principle applies here. i'm not challenging, because that's not allowed, the issue of eminent domain for a private pipeline for the export of natural gas, but i am saying that at least persons who are in proximity to that or actually in line of that proposed pipeline should have the opportunity when the company applies to know it may be used so they can address their point of view during the application process. now, there's some industry talking points saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, this eminent domain isn't in section 3. they're right. i agree with them. they're absolutely right. however, section 7 regulates pipelines, and pipelines in some instances will be required and will be used to access these natural gas terminals. and i'm simply saying persons in those areas should know that eminent domain is intended to

be used. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. gardner: seek recognition, mr. chairman, in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. i have spent a great deal of my time, both here in this chamber, actually working in the state legislature as well, to protect people's property rights, particularly private property rights in the state legislature where i remember the decision coming down from the supreme court making sure we could do everything we could to prevent the abuse of eminent domain. but it's that state legislative experience that taught me that the legal process of eminent domain is largely a state and local issue, which should have no bearing on the department of energy's public interest determination. again, this is about the public interest determination for the export of l.n.g. to nonfree trade countries. by law, the secretary of energy plays no part in approving the construction of l.n.g. export facilities or the pipelines connecting the gas to the facility.

by law, the secretary of energy plays no part in the pipeline or construction of the facilities. this bill only addresses the department of energy's process, and this amendment would expand the role of d.o.e. into an area where the d.o.e. is not currently involved and has no expertise. excuse me. the purpose of h.r. 6 is to expedite liquefied natural gas export applications that have been stuck in limbo, awaiting a decision for far too long, in some cases for two years. this amendment would put unfairly new requirements on these already-pending applications, and i believe we should oppose the amendment because it is something, again, left to the states and local determination factors. and with that i would ask for a no vote and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: well, unfortunately, isn't left to the state. the gentleman is wrong. the bush-cheney act preempted the states, preempted the

state's authority. it gives a faceless, nameless federal bureaucracy, which on every other day is opposed by the other side of the aisle, the authority to grant eminent domain for private company for private profit for the export of natural gas which may drive up the gas prices of the property owners adjacent to or who have been penetrated by that line. this amendment doesn't delay anything. it doesn't give any significant new authority. it just requires the simple disclosure that if this terminal is built, a new pipeline is going to be required and that pipeline, under section 3, with the faceless, nameless federal bureaucrats behind it will be granted eminent domain authority to take people's property. that's the bottom line. you can try and dance around it and say, well, i'm against kilo, because that was another kind of development, but, no, i'm against this amendment because we didn't want people to know they'll lose their property rights to eminent

domain because of faceless, nameless bureaucrats. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: i thank my colleague for colorado yielding. the 2005 energy bill may have been called bush-cheney, but it came out of our energy and commerce committee and had 77 democratic votes when we passed that bill on the house floor. mr. defazio's amendment, with all due respect, requires an applicant to disclose any intention to use eminent domain on any construction necessary to support the l.n.g. project. i rise in opposition because it looks like an attempt to unnecessary complicate l.n.g. exports. l.n.g. facilities require pipelines, however pipeline construction and operation is the whole separate -- is a whole separate issue. yesterday in the house we had a pipeline bill. unfortunately, my colleagues submitted l.n.g. facilities to the pipeline bill yesterday. h.r. 6 is a pipeline -- if we were on h.r. 6, how can we honest about the debate? as a matter of fact, we need

more pipelines in our country. right now north dakota and south texas are flaring natural gas. h.r. 6 is not a pipeline bill and is not to address the issue of eminent domain which is predominantly under state law and i'm proud of our state law in texas. i ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: mr. chairman, i say again, there is no eminent domain authority for an l.n.g. facility. that's what h.r. 6 is addressing. the export permits for l.n.g. facilities. there is no eminent domain authority for an l.n.g. facility. mr. chairman, i urge opposition to the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: a recorded vote is requested. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed.

the chair understands that amendment number 4 will not be offered. mr. gardner: mr. chairman. mr. gardner: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 6 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 6 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your cable or splite provider. >> what i have right here is a partially processed plant that i've cut down into sections that are the right lengths for hanging and i take off all the

big fan leaves and they are sent to the kitchen for he hadibles. they have a small portion of t.h.c. which they get a good price for us. the tight trim can be dried into made into joints or it can be sent to the places that make extractions and made into hash and that sort of thing. and then right here we have finished bud, and this is sent over to cure and hang to dry and then cured in bucket for a couple of weeks before they sell it in the dispensery. >> journal journal looks at the legal sell of marijuana in colorado with guests from denver and your phone calls live friday morning, 7:00 to 10:00 eastern on c-span. >> among several decisions today, the supreme court rule that startup internet company aereo without paying licensing fees. aereo is a company that uses

tiny antennas to capture broadcast signals to airwaves and streamlines it to user's laptops and phones for a fee. the ruling does not endanger other technologies like cloud storage providers. here's the oral argument. 14461, argument case in american broadcasting companies vs. aereo. >> may it please the court. aereo's business model is to enable thousands of paying strangers to watch live tv online. aereo's legal argument is that it can make all of that happen without publicly performing. congress passed a statute that squarely forecloses that rather counterintuitive solution. because although the internet and the thousands of many antennas are new, the basic service that aereo is providing is not materially different from the service provided by the cable company before this

court in 1969. >> why aren't they -- looking at the -- everybody's being arguing this case if for sure they're not, but i look at the definition of a cable company and it seems to fit. a facility located in any state. they have a warehouse or building in brooklyn. the receipt -- that receives signals transmissions or programs broadcast by television broadcast stations. they're taking the signals off of the -- >> sorry, they are. >> right, they are. makes secondary transmissions by wires, cables or other communication channels. seems to me that a little antenna with a dime fits that definition, to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service. i mean, i read it and i say, why aren't they a cable

company? >> well, justice sotomayor, if you are already at that point you probably understood, just like a cable company that publicly performing and maybe they qualify as a cable company and maybe they could qualify for the compulsary license. >> that gets it mixed up. do we have to go to all of those other questions if we find they're a cable company? we say they're a cable company, they get the compulsory license. >> well, the first place, the reason we haven't been debating whether they're a cable company, they don't want to be a cable company. they have a footnote. they are not a cable company in their view. they don't want to be a cable company and i think that's because with cable company it might potentially get you into the compulsory license but it brings with it a lot of obligations that come with being a cable company. >> that's why they don't want it. >> exactly. >> that isn't the question. .

>> here's why if i could, i think the reason they don't want to be a cable company is because i think the basic business model would not allow them to qualify for compulsory license anyway. >> i'd still like to know the answer to the question, in your opinion. of course if you want a reason i'll give you my reason. if we take the public performance maybe we run into professor as a problem. why isn't it? a phonograph record store that sells phonograph records to 10,000 customers, giving the public performance. it seems to fall within that definition. if it is, there's no first sale doctrine and it's a big problem. we could avoid that problem. that's why i'm very interested in the answer not just what they

want. >> i don't think they are ultimately a cable company, and we can debate that question. that's not yet before you. so i maybe can give you some comfort why you can't -- >> my reason for wanting to decide it is what i said. what you read in their briefs is they in their supporting have strung up a series of serious problems not involving them. like the cloud, which the government tells us to ignore. and many others which make me nervous about taking your preferred route. that's why i was interested in this question. >> justice breyer, i think it's very important to understand even if they are a cable company, it doesn't make these problems go away because they would be a cable company that by very virtue of what they want to point to, their user specific copies, don't think they would qualify for the compulsory license. i also think a better way to avoid the concerns is take them on directly. the reason that the record company is not involved in the

public performance is it's not involved in any performance at all. that's different from an online music store which not only provides a download of something, but actually performs it and streams it and allows it live. that is a basic distinction that's not only recognized by the second circuit, but also recognized in the real world by the way these different services are structured. if you provide down loads of music, you get a distribution license or reproduction license. if you provide streaming of music where you also have a contemporaneous life performance, you also get a public performance license. >> is your definition, justice brier -- breyer said -- he's troubled about the phonograph store and the drop box and icloud, i'm also worried about how to define public performance with the performance of the word publicly, which is the better

way to do it according to you, how do i define that so that someone who sells coaxle cable to a resident of a build something not swept up as a participant in this? or someone who -- sort of passive storage advisors, this is really hard for me. what do i do to avoid -- what do we do, not me, but what does the urt do to avoid a definition or an acceptance of a definition that might make those people libal? >> let me try to take -- those are two different examples and i think the answer to both of them is somewhat different. the provider of coaxle cable, which if it's just a simple sale, is not performing at all. if you're somebody and take a piece of hardware and you sell it once and for all to a user, then the user might be performing with the equipment, but you're out of the picture.

that's different from an ongoing service like a cable company or aero who still owns these if a sits and they are providing these perform -- >> before you get to justice sotomayor's second half of the question, but something more along the lines of providing hardware, suppose a company just gave the antenna and hard drive, that's what they sold to the user, and the user was able to use the antenna and hard drive in her own house or apartment in order to get all these broadcast programs. what would the -- would that be a performance? >> i think the end user would be doing a performance, but it would be a purely private performance, and i don't think the person that sold them the hardware or anybody else would be involved in the performance. the answer to these -- something i'm making up on the fly, it's right there in the text of the statute. >> it does depend where the hardware is. in other words, if aeoro has the

hardware in its warehouse as opposed to selling is the hardware to the particular end user, that will make all the difference in the world as to whether we have a public performance or not a public performance. >> glen, i think that goes to what -- again, i think that goes to what i was about to say. not to say we like one better than the other, it's because of the text of the statute the congress wrote. they start -- the singer at consequencer hall, they sole tickets. it's also public performance if you take the singer's perform abc and transmit it, over the airwaves, and other ways, if you transmit it for the public. and the definition of transmission, then, is to communicate it from one place to another. there is a geographical aspect, if you will, right into the statute that if you sell somebody hardware and all they are doing is transmitting it to themselves at their home, there's not going to be a transmission that's chargeable for the person who sold you the

hardware. you provide an ongoing service -- >> there is a performance but it's a private performance. and then you move the hardware and it becomes a public performance s. that it? >> it becomes a public performance on behalf of the sent sender, but it still would be a private performance on behalf of the receiver. that's one thing that's important to get in mind. in this statute as to the public performance right, there's nothing particularly anomalous about the transmission that from the sender's perspective is a public performance, but from the recipient's perspective allows private performance. if you think about the classic cable context, which is what congress was trying to address in 1976 with the transmit clause, you have the cable company and their taking performance off the airwaves and transmitting it to the end users. the cable company is clearly performing for the public, but that same transmission is allowing etch end user to turn on the television set for a private performance. >> a license for no reason.

>> sorry? >> they sold me a piece of equipment -- >> don't know all the details of that particular piece of equipment. i'm not sure whether they are paying a license or not. there was really a transfer and nobody else providing a transmission, don't think operating the hardware in the prifesiff your own home will result in anything but a private performance. >> the icloud. >> there is a different situation. here, i think the ultimate statutory text that allows you to differentiate a cloud lock or storage or something like what aeoro does is language to the public. i think there are all sorts of place, including the real world, there is a fundamental difference between a service that allows the provider new content to all sorts of end users. and service that provides a locker, storage service. i think if you want a real world analogy off the internet, it's the basic decision, difference

between car dealer and valet parking service. if you look at it from 30,000 feet you might think both these things provide cars to the public. but if you look at it closely, you would understand if i show up at the car dealership without a car i'm going to be able to get car. if i show up at the valet parking service and i don't own a car, it's not going toned well for me. >> i didn't mean to interrupt -- >> so i think there is a very real way in which you would say at the end of the day car dealers are providing cars to the public. the valet car service is not. >> why is that like a public garage or your own garage? you could park your car in your own garage or park it in a public garage. can you go to radio shack and buy an antenna and d.v.r. or rent those facilities somewhere else. they have an antenna. they'll let you use it when you need it. and they can record the stuff as well and let you pick it up when you need it. >> mr. chief justice, that's not

an impossible way to look at this, but that's the way the court looked at it in the knightly decision. but congress decided it would look at it differently. it said if you are providing a service, even if you provide one one as renting out antennas, the person that provides that service on an ongoing basis and in the process exploits the copyright works of others, is engaged in paub lick performance. that is clearly what they were trying to do in the 1976 act by adding the transmit clause. >> the second circuit analogized this to its cable decision. maybe you could explain to me what is the difference in your view between what ae. > ro does and remote storage d.v.r. system? does the difference have to do with the way in which the cable storage s the remote d.v.r. system acquires the program in the first place? does it have to do with the number of people who view this program that's been recorded? what is the difference?

>> i think the potential difference, this is both the cloud locker storage and this example, i think you can be confident they are different. here is -- >> not very satisfying. i need to know how far the rationale that you want us to accept will go. and i need to understand, i think, what effect it will have on these other technologies. >> i had the same question. just assume that cable vision is our precedent, i know it isn't, let's assume it is. how would you distinguish the cable vision from your case? that's a hypothetical. >> justice kennedy, i'd like to answer both your questions by assuming the results of cable vision is right but i don't have to buy the reason. i think the reasoning of cable vision is profoundly wrong. but the reason there is a fundamental difference between the d.v.r. issue and cable vision and what aeoro provides, the fact that there is a license

in the cable vision context to get the initial performance to the public. and so then i think appropriately the focus in the cable vision context becomes just the playback knee ture and just the time shifting that's enabled by that. and in that context if you focus only on that, then the r.s.-s d.v.r. looks like a locker service where you have to come in with a content before you can get content out and you only get back the same content. here's what aeoro's like. like cable vision, having won in the second circuit decides, we won. guess what? going forward we'll dispense with all these licenses. we are just going to try to tell people we are just an rsdvr. that's all. never mind we don't have any license ability to get the broadcast in the first instance. we are going to provide to individual users and it's going to be because they push buttons and not because we do. if that were the hypothetical, i don't know how that wouldn't the -- >> i assume it is. i'm hearing everybody having the same problem and i'll be

absolutely prepared at least for argument sake to assume with you that if there were ever anything that should be held to fall within the public performance, this should be. why? i'll assume that. not saying it is. but then the problem is, in the words that do that, we have to write words, are we somehow catching other things that really will change life and shouldn't? such as the cloud. you said, well, as the government says, don't worry because that is isn't a public performance. when i read the definition, i don't see how to get out of it. a here's the way to get out of it. ultimately the court has to be the interpreter to the public. >> the public is a separate? at the same time? or different times? or together? >> 1,000 people store in the cloud the same thing as can easily happen, and call it back

at varying times of the day. >> just like the valet car parking service, is get back what they put up there, i think you could easily say that is not to the public. that's not just me covering up with a clever distinction. that's the distinction that's been drawn in the real world. not all cloud computing is creating equal. there is' some that use technology to get new content to people that don't have it, and they get licenses. there's other cloud computing that just has locker services and they don't think they need a license. i'm not saying you have to bless what the market has done, but i think it's a profound -- >> it's not so simple as the become that just allows you, yourself, to put something up there. how about -- there are lots of companies where many, many thousands or millions of people put things up there. then they share them. and the company in some ways agree gates and sorts all that content. -- agree gates ash ash

aggregates and sorts. >> that's why i'm asking you not to decide the cloud computing question once and for all today. it's not all eat created equal. the details might matter. if i can take my valet parking service one more time. if they start renting them out on the side while we have a car and somebody else needs a car, we'll rent it out. i reserve the rest of my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court, i would like to begin reinforcing two points that mr. clement made. the first is what aereo was doing was the functional equivalent of what congress in the 1976 act wanted to define as a public performance. one potential way of looking at this is that aereo and companies like it are not providing

services, they are providing equipment that does a more sophisticated way of what the viewer himself can do. it's a plausible way of looking at the world. that's what the court said. the congress acted to override that and make clear that cable services, services that used one big antenna to pull broadcast signals out of the sky and reroute it to their subscribers, they were engaged in public performances and ought to be paying royalties. second thing that i'd like to reinforce in mr. clement's presentation is there is no reason the decision in this case should impale cloud locker services generally. as mr. clement was pointing out, the term cloud computing -- >> how about nimble tv? not quite a hybrid. >> i'm not familiar enough with the precise details of the operation. let me say in general terms there are obviously surface that is provide television

programming over the internet. some of them are licensed because they recognize that they are publicly performing. if a particular company, for instance, recorded television programs and offered to stream them to anyone who paid the fee or offered to stream them for free and made its money off advertising, that would be a public performance because those companies would be providing content to people who didn't have it. i think the basic dings, the one that defines the extremes, is the distinction between the company whether it be internet based or cable transmitter, that provides content in the first instance. and a company that provides consumers with access to content that they already have. if you had a cloud locker service, somebody has bought a digital copy of a song or movie from some other source, stores it in a locker, and ask that it be streamed back, that the cloud locker and storage service is not provided in the content. it's providing a mechanism for watching it. >> my same question to you i

asked mr. clement, how about if there is a company that allows sharing and aggregates all the content that different individual users put out and that in some sense sort of sorts and classifies the content in different ways, how about that? >> i think would you have to know both the details of the service and you would have to be making a harder call there about how to draw the line. i don't pretend there is a bright line between providing a service and providing access to equipment. if you look, for instance, at the extremes of a person putting a rooftop antenna at his own home, everybody agrees that the rooftop antenna manufacturer is not performing at all and the individual is engaged in a solely private performance. the other extreme is the cable company, one big antenna makes transmissions to a lot of people. congress clearly intended to find that as a private performance. somewhere you could come up with lots of hypotheticals that look more or less like one of the other ention treatments -- extremes or somewhere in the

middle. it's a hard call where to draw the line. i don't have a good answer for you. >> how do we get out of the example? what words do i write to get out of this -- throwing into this clause a music store via federal express device or u.s. postal service or even some over-the-counter dribts 10,000 people a copy of a record which they will take and play it. they have the same degree, transmitted something that will electronically make a performance of the music. are they, when they sell the ecord, violating the display clause? >> no. >> because? >> because the definition of to transmit goes on to transmit a performance or display is to communicate by any device or process whereby images or sounds

are received beyond the place from which they are -- >> the sounds are received beyond the place it requires the person to take the record, put it on a machine, and then play it. >> there is a separate exclusive right in the copyright. >> of course there is. and that separate exclusive right has such things as first sale document attached. but if they also flow here, if this covers them, which is why the paragraph was written, if this covers it, there is no for sale docket. that has a lot of consequences. >> anyway -- >> you haven't got something right there and haven't is thought about it you're not going to think about it in two minutes. >> i have thought about it. the transmit something used in a particular sense. are you correct there is some context in which we would say c.d.'s rson who sells or vinyl albums over the mail is

transmitting those. that's not the sense in which the term transmit is used here. it's talking about transmitting in a way that causes the sights and sounds to be received. transmission through radio waves, cable, etc. if there were any doubt about the word transmit, remember that it's part of a definition of the word perform. and ambiguities in the definition should be construed in light of the defined term. nobody would say in ordinary parlance that a person who transferred a copy of a record was performing it. is the point that we would -- if we took the position that the petitioner argues, the incapibility with our international obligations, that is aereo's view of the public performance right is incompatible with our

obligations from the burn convention and under if -- what he says that aereo's view of what the public performance right is runs straight up against our international obligations. and takes the case from the european court of justice. >> we haven't made that argument. we believe that existing u.s. copyright law properly construed is fully sufficient to comply with our international obligations. that doesn't mean that we think that whenever a court misconstrues a statute we'll automatically be thrown into breach. it's certainly possible, but if this case were decided in aereo's favor, some of our international trading partners might object, but i'm not going to take the position we would concede those objections had merit. we are not making that argument.

the other thing i would say to reinforce the point that mr. clement was making about the phrase, to the public. using his example of the valet parking, using a comparable example of a coat check room, there are situation all the time in which people place property momentarily at the disposal of another and then restreeve it later. it's distributed to them at that later date, not in their capacities as members of the public, but as the true owners of the property. and i think some kind of distinction along those lines is eextension in much more mundane applications of the copyright act. for example, if i invite 10 friends over to watch the super bowl, that's a private performance. it's not a public performance. that's not because my friends are not members of the public, they are in some other capacities it would be important to regard them as such. if the theater down the street had a screening of "casablanca"

and it happened those 10 people were the only 10 who attended it would be a public performance because they would be in their capacity as members of the public. i think in a wide range of situations stealing with public performance, distributes shun to the public, it's essential to ask not only are these individuals members of the public in some sense, but are they acting in their capacity as such? if you have the pure cloud locker service, the service that doesn't provide content, it simply stores content, and then plays it back at the user's request, that service would be providing content to its true owner. >> how do you want us to deal with cable vision, the second circuit assumes it's a binding precedent. just assume that. >> my answer would be the same as mr. clements. the reasoning of cable vision, if you really adhere to the idea that the only performance that counts is the individual transmission and sk asks does

that go to more than one person, then it's hard to see how you can rule in our favor heemplet but as far as the outcome of cable vision is concerned, you can accept the government's position and still say cable vision was decided the correct way. precisely because cable vision had a license to perform in real time to broadcast the program to its subscribers. the only thing that was an issue s the supplemental rsdvr service. and the court held appropriately that the recording of those programs by the subscribers who were already entitled to view them in real time was fair use under sony and the playback can reasonably be characterized as a private performance of their own content. thank you. >> thank you, mr. stuart -- stewart. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, if it please the qurt i want to

address the cable question, before do i that can i just say the three points i wanted to make is the text is very clear for aereo. the interpretations of the text they offer absolutely threaten cloud computing. and third, this case really is a reproduction right case masquerading as a public performance case. now, we are not a cable service. the reason we are not a cable service is because cable takes all signals and pushes them down. there is a head in, defined by statute, there is a vell particularized regulatory structure that -- very particularized regulatory structure that takes a lot of content and pushes it to consumers. aereo is an equipment provider. nothing happens on the equipment until the user negotiates the system. the user negotiates the system by logging on and pressing, this is the program that i want to watch. that then tunes the antenna, activates the recording that will be made, and then the user is then able to playback the recording.

>> i always thought, and i'm trying to be careful about it but not often enough probably preach it like every other ember of the public, that if i record, tograph of a and duplicated a million times the way you're doing it, and i then go out and sell each of those copies to the public, that i am violating the act. so why is it that you're not? it's not logical to me that you could make these millions of copies and essentially sell them to the public because you're telling the public when they want to buy it they can call it up and hear it. so why aren't you? >> implicates the reproduction right. that is the exclusive right of the copyright holder to restrict the number of copies that it's made. that is not a public performance

right question. they abandoned their challenge in the preliminary injunction proceeding to the reproduction issue because it runs right into the sony decision. in sony, this court held that consumers have a fair use right to take local over-the-air broadcasts and make a copy of it. all aereo is doing is providing antennas and d.v.r.'s that enable consumers to do exactly what this court and sony recognized they can do when they are at home and moving the equipment, the antennas and d.v.r.'s, to the internet. ing was the judge right when said, reason to use these multiple antennas, the only reason to that was to avoid the reach of the copyright act. both from a technical reason,

they have these dime sized antennas -- >> this is a very complex question, justice ginsberg, let me answer it at multiple levels. there are technical reasons why the individual antennas provide the same utilityity at lower cost and functionality than one big antenna. there are very practical concerns, too. as a start up business, aereo is attempting to entice consumers to replicate on the cloud what they can do at home at lower cost and efishency. as a pracktk particularal matter -- practical matter, the judge had no basis to make that statement. efficiency not a consideration of the copyright act. you can't do multiple channels over the internet anyway. you can only do a single video stream at a time. so whether you have bun big antenna or whether you have lots of little antennas, you still have to compress the signal and only one can go over the internet at a time. however, justice ginsberg, as a

start-up business there is a very real consideration for why multiple antennas make sense. if you're in new york city you want to put an antenna on top of the building, you got to get baileding permit. if you want to construct it, you got to get a construction permit. if you want to put it with the crane, you have to get a subway permit before can you do all of the things to put a big antenna on a building in new york city to get broadcast signals. >> is there any reason you need 10,000 of them? if you modeled this -- your moddle is correct, can't you just put your antenna up? there is no technological reason for you to have 10,000 dime sized antennas other than get around the copyright laws. >> it shouldn't turn on the number of antennas, it comes on whether the person who is receiving the signal that comes through the internet is privately performing by initiating the ack at this vision of that antenna, getting a data stream, having that signal compressed so it can be

streamed over the internet. through an end user specific, user initiated copy. >> that may be, but it doesn't contradict the chief justice's question. you're just saying by doing it this way you don't violate the copyright laws. his question is, is there any reason you did it other than not to violate the copyright laws? >> we understood -- yes, there is a reason, justice scalia. we wanted to tell consumers you can replicate the experience at very small cost. you know you have a right to put an antenna on your roof and d.v.r. in your living room. we can provide the same for a fraction of the cost by putting it over -- >> it's not. you give them space that's available when they call in. they don't have -- this is my little dime thing and this is my copy that's going to be here. they are there and when they want something you provide the service of giving it. they don't have a dedicated antenna in brooklyn. >> some of the consumers do.

the record is clear some are statically assigned to particular users. mr. chief justice, that doesn't answer the question. the statutory interpretation question which is as in cable vision, as justice kennedy noted, there is a user specific, user initiated copy that when viewed by the user is a private performance. that operation of the system works exactly the same way. and the fact that cable vision is able to compress its signals to make them internet accessible to a single antenna and aereo chooses to do it to provide the hassles that go with having a big antenna should not matter for the copyright laws. we are still talking about renting equipment that consumers have a right to get over-the-air signals that are free to the public using public spectrum that the government has allocated -- >> suppose aereo offered a service so that the viewer at

home could compress three different buttons but it takes only 45 seconds. he could get the prast without advertising -- broadcast without advertising. you could watch the entire football game or baseball came out the ads. >> that would probably violate the reproduction rights. >> would aereo be a perform aerer? >> they would not. the question would be -- this does go into the technical details and here, they say the facts don't matter. we have a well developed factual record. justice kennedy, the fact that would matter in your hypothetical would be whether or not the initiation of the advertiser free had been somehow done by the consumer or whether it had been done by the cloud. >> the consumer makes the choice, with the ad or without the ad. push button one or two. i understand why performer in one case and not the other.

>> because the action of who is a performer turns under the statute on who is making -- who is acting to make this sequence of sounds and images perceiveable. where you're talking about taking out advertising, what you're doing is altering the copy and you are bridging -- infringing the rerougs right. that is not something that can you do in the aereo technology. i have no brief to defend that. that would be a very difficult rerougs right question, but it doesn't matter in terms of who is exercising a private perfect normance -- performance because that is being done in the home with a user initiated user -- >> mr. frederick, your plan is just using for local signals. >> yes. >> but if we approve that, is there any reason it couldn't be used for distance signals as well? >> possibly.

>> possibly what? there is possibly a reason? that it could possibly be used? >> it can be used for distance signals -- >> what would the difference be? you can take hbo, you can carry that without performing. >> no. because hbo is not done over the airwaves. it's done through a private service. but justice scalia, let me answer your distance signal hypothetical this way. that would implicate again the reproduction right. it does not replicate the public performance distinction. because even if you take distance signals available through the home, it's through a user initiated, user specific copy of distance programming. the question then becomes, is there a fair use right to be able to do that? what sony said, because they were dealing with local over-the-air broadcasting and making a copy of local over-the-air broadcasts, it said that consumers have a fair use right to make a copy of that.

sony did not address the distance signal and the question then would become in balancing the various factors whether it is appropriate for a consumer to be able to get access to that programming without being able to otherwise implicate the free public spectrum. the way congress has addressed that, congress has addressed that by saying that when there are distance signals that then get pushed through a cable system, there is a copyright royalty that gets paid. but i want to make absolutely clear, satellite, cable do not pay copyright royalties for local over-the-air broadcasts. why? because the local over-the-air broadcast channels wanted it that way. they didn't want to be in the situation of having to figure out how to divvy up the copyright royalties to the various holders. when they talk about how congress supposedly overruled knightly, what they ignore is that in section 11-d and section

122-c of the copyright act, congress said the retransmission of local over-the-air broadcasts through satellite and cable shall be exempt from the copyright regime. so when they talk about the retransmission issue, they are ally trying to conflate -- >> every other transmitter does pay a royalty. maybe it's a compulsory license. it doesn't pay any royalties at any stage. >> justice ginsberg, a person who -- ginsburg, a person who sells an antenna to me doesn't pay copyright royalties, either. can a company that provides a rental service for me to put an antenna in my home and install it, they don't pay copyrights, either. the question it boils down to is

how significant should it be, how long the cord is between the antenna and d.v.r.? >> the answer is very significant. the reason very significant is because what the local antenna person doesn't do that you could do, even if you don't, is with the same kind of device, pick up every television signal in the world and send it, almost, and send it into a person's computer. that sounds so much like what the system does. or what a satellite system does. it looks as if somehow you are escaping a constraint that's imposed upon them. that's what disturbs everyone. and what disturbs me on the other side is i don't understand what the decision for you or against you when i write it is going to do all kinds of other technologies. i have read the previous fairly carefully. and i'm still uncertain i understand it well enough. that isn't your problem but it might turn out to be.

>> let me try to make it their problem. i think the distance signal and you can reserve that case to say it might raise a different issue but on the facts here would not entitle a company to an injunction from providing the service. with respect to the second aspect of this, the reason why their interpretation of the transmit clause causes so much problem, so many problems for the cloud computing industry, is that it's twofold. number one, they want conflating performance with work in the transmit clause. what they are saying is that so long as the work is already perceived in some fashion through a performance that is privately done through the playback of a recording, that that, because the initial work was disseminated to the public, that implicates the public performance right. what that does, it means every

time somebody scores something in the cloud, whether it's a song, a video image, or the like, if it happens to be something that somebody else has stored in the cloud, the fact of one person initiating it and proceeding is going to implicate the public performance right. that's why the cloud computing industry is freaked out about this case because they have invested tens of billions of dollars on the notion that users pecific, user initiated copy perceived by that person is a private performance and not paubwlick performance of the the second thing they do that's wrong with the statute is they aggregate performances. instead of where the statute says transmit a performance, they say transmit performances. because they acknowledge that the way the technology works for aereo is it's an individual user specific initiated copy, but they say no matter, if you add

enough together, can you aggregate that to become a public performance. >> just to make shumplete there is no rhine it's a user specific copy, is it? 10,000 copies, it would be easier for you to have to make one copy, everybody could get a copy. >> that's where the issue about replicating what happens in the home matters, mr. chief justice. if i'm in my home and start the program two minutes in, using aereo's technology, i miss the first two minutes, i never get to watch it. it happens to be when i push the button to initiate the copy, just like if i'm at home watching on a d.v.r., the same principle. that copy will always be different because i have control over it -- >> surely you can make a program where you have just one copy and starting it at different times. you don't need every viewer to have his own copy. >> that is the key distinction between video on demand and the service that aereo provides.

the kind of technology we provide. we don't have a brief to defend the master copy, because the mast every copy situation that's indisputably public because there is no right to exclude anyone else. with aereo's technology, if i'm making a copy using their system, no one else can look at it. even if you happen to have watched the same program, you can't watch my coppy. i can't download -- >> you're saying your copy is different from my copy. there's a reason you call them copies because they are the same. >> all i'm trying to get at -- >> i'm just saying, technological model is based on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. lawyers do that. i'm just wondering why -- whether you can give me any technology -- technological reason apart from the compliance of the legal issue for your -- >> it is much simpler if your

start up to add components, to add modules when you are starting up or ramping up, and what we are talking about at any cloud computing industry is you're starting with one glup of servers and you add them almost like lego pieces as you are adding the number of people you are using that as a technological reason why the cloud works the way it does, mr. chief swrusstiss. with aereo's antennas and d.v.r.'s, we can with about the length of the size of the counsel table here serve as tens of thousands of people in the new york area. we can provide the antennas and provide the d.v.r.'s and it's a very compact, small space. then if we expand and we are able to continue to be in business and we get more subscribers in brooklyn, we might add another road that would be the size of the counsel tables behind me. that aspect of the technology goes to the modules that are used for cloud computing where you basically can add additional servers, additional hard disk

space. and new consumers activate, let me be clear about this, when they sign up, their system is completely empty. there is no content being provided. there is equipment that's being provided. so when they activate the system and they say i want to watch the news at 6:00, they then start the process that instills their individually assigned storage with the :00 news. but until that happens, there's no content being provided so the notion that they have that they are somehow a condent provider, would mean everybody who provides an antenna or d.v.r. is a provider f that's true, the impli case force the equipment industry are obviously quite massive and you can understand why that would frighten the cloud computing industry, because that he turns them into public performers whenever they re handling content.

>> the sub scriber, -- subscriber, you can get any of these things. it's not as though the subscriber negotiates it. tough choices. those choices have content. >> it's no different, justice ginsberg, if -- ginsburg, if i'm at home and have -- >> no different from a user's perspective. the same as if i'm watching cable. right? you just have a different content selection. but it looks the same to you. somebody else is providing you with a menu and you pick off that menu. >> but the menu, justice kagen and ginsburg, is what's technologically available. there are broadcast signals available in a local area and they are limited because that's what the broadcasters make available. simply providing a user guide that says can tune to this

channel or that channel if you want to pick up one program or another can't be the difference between a content provider and nearly facilitating the use of your equipment. >> would you explain in a sentence or two, which would sound as if i'm going with you but i want them to have a chance to reply, the thing that frightened me somewhat in your brief was i think of the cloud storing everybody's music. and now they then send it down perhaps to a million people at a time who want to view the same song. what you said was if i understood it, but explain it if it is, that there is a provision of the copyright law that says when that happens it's subject to a compulsory license. if it's subject to a compulsory license, then of course people can get it and it's paid for by somebody, but if we side with them, there would be a different provision that would come into play, namely the performance, and it wouldn't be subject to

the compulsory license. there is no point telling me i'm right if i'm wrong. have i got your argument correctly? if not, what is it? >> i think your argument -- >> it's a parody perhaps incorrect version of yours. >> there is no compulsory license with respect to music or video. there are different compulsory licenses with respect to satellite and cable that capture all signals and push them down to everybody. >> that would be the saying, that isn't going to be the problem. >> no. where it's going to be a problem with the cloud is if you say if i'm watching a particular program and you're watching a particular program, and justice sotomayor is watching the same program, we are engaging in the company that has allowed us to make a copy of that, is engaging in public performance, where you have to deal with infringement violation.ept of and who is doing the act? if i'm making the equipment

available -- >> it should work out in a parallel way. when i look at the program i'm making a copy of the program and therefore i'm vie lathe the non-- exclusive right to copy. if that's fair use and therefore i can do it, it should also be fair use if exactly the same thing happens but comes from the cloud. >> let me further answer your question about music because i omitted a key distinction. for local radio broadcasts there is a music distribute shub license under section 115. >> 115-c-3. >> that's the whole -- that's exactly the same way satellite and cable work well. if you're broadcasting in the local area, for free, like a copyright free zone, the reason for that in the music world is they want local radio broadcasters to play songs because that drives sales of the record. that's a totally different business model than the

television world. the reason why this matters for your perspective is that what the court -- second circuit in cable vision did user specific, user initiated copies are reist performance. they are not public performances. the only way -- >> now' saying that at&t's system, hulu, all of those systems get their content and they don't push it down to you. they do exactly what you do. they let you choose what you want to see. >> the difference is they do not exclude anyone. the difference the public-private distinction between property law is whether or not there is a right to exclude. if i have private property i exclude others. if i have public property i'm not excluding others. hulu, netflix they are not excluding anyone. so they are making their product, their content available to all without exclusion other

than than the subscription you pay. what we are doing is providing the equipment that enables people to access it. the only distinction -- of subscribers, i don't understand that. some selective in that eople want to use the service? >> if we went around to 1,000 or 10,000 homes in brooklyn and put up antennas and installed their d.v.r.'s for them and sent them a monthly bill every month to pay us because we had performed that service and provided that equipment, it would be the exact same position, justice ginsburg, and that can't be a copyright violation. the only distinction the government has offered for why cable vision decision in the second circuit in respect to your question, justice ken dirks should be different here, is in the supposed lawfulness of the first instance in which that content is received.

that distinction can't work and would imperil the loud. here's why. when a person is accessing local over-the-air broadcast television is doing so because that is free public spectrum. and sony says we have fair use right in order to make a copy of that free use. the government in the fort knightly case argued there is an implied in law license when a person accesses local over-the-air telecasts in that way. it can't be the distinction between our situation in cable vision that there is somehow some difference because film' watching local over-the-air broadcast tv in my home, don't have to pay a royalty for it. that's exactly the analogy that would be appropriate there. how would that feakt the cloud or if you turn every type of perform -- affect the cloud or if you turn every type of performance that gets down louded or transferred from the cloud, the cloud provider can't tell what's legal or not legal.

some stuff could be up there piloted. some could be perfectly licensed. what the position of the other side in this case is, those people are libal for direct infringement of the public performance right. that's why the cloud industry is very concerned that if you have too expansive an interpretation of what is the public performance right, you are consigning them to potentially ruinous -- >> mr. frederick, why isn't it sufficient to create them on such as the one mr. clement said, which said, did you on the one hand supply or provide the content that puts you in one box. on the other hand, if you're not supplying the content, it's the user supplying and providing the content and you are providing the space, platform for them to do that and them potentially to share the content, that puts you in other box. >> justice kay began, i note -- actually agan, that's

quite important in order to get there you have to make up words to put them in the transmit clause. even if were you to think that was good for a policy reason, you would still have to explain why the hundreds of thousands of people that are subscribers to aereo service don't have the same fair use right to get over the air broadcast comment. all those people who are not subscribers but happen to have a home antenna and d.v.r. those people have every bit as right to get that access. the fact that they are doing it doesn't make their antenna or provider a content provider. as i said -- >> why did people pay for aereo services? >> he if you don't have to buy a tv, d.v.r., an antenna and sling box, which might cost you thousands of dollars, you might pay $100 to rent it. or if you want to just look at programming selectively, you pay $8 a month.

it's a rental service, justice ginsburg. that can't change the copyright analysis. just because you rent equipment does not transform the person that is providing that equipment into a public performance. particularly when you're the one who negotiates every set of signals that activates the programming and the content. if there are no further questions, we'll submit. >> thank you, counsel. mr. clement, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. a few points in rebuttal. first i have to correct the fundamental difference. mr. frederick said he did it in his brief that if you only if you are a cable company and only retransmit locally you don't have to pay a royalty. that's just wrong as we point out in the reply brief. there is a minimum royalty that every cable company pays whether or not they transmit distance digals in. that's just wrong. second, this is not a case as mr. frederick would like to say where the user pushes a button and then after that point aereo

is a hapless bystander. if you want to know what happens behind the scenes, the district court used, look at page 64-a to 67-a, because it is explained that all the things that aereo does after the consumer presses the button and after it comes on their phone screen. they are not just a pacified bystander. maybe the reproduction context, pushing a button, there is only one person that reproduces. the conswheacht is the requisite conduct is answered by the transmit clause. congress specifically looked at this and said there are going to be lots of situations where the send sender using the cable company, sends a transmission to the user and the sender of that transmission f. it allows a contemporaneous performance unlike the record company, they are a transmitter, they are -- >> tell me the consequences of our decision today.

do you put them out of business? do they have to go and negotiate the license with every copyright holder? are you not a cable company. they are not a satellite company. so they can't go into those systems of payment. what happens then? >> the consequences get back to the chief justice's question. if they provide something that is a net benefit technologically, there is no reason people won't license the content. on the other hand, if all they have is a gimmick, then they probably will go out of business and nobody -- >> once you take them out of the compulsory licensing system, they are going to have to find copyright under who owns james' pictures. who owns something written by like a silent film in 1915. the problem is that they might want to have perfectly good things that people want to watch and can't find out how to get permission. that is a problem that worries me. it worries me again once you

kick them out of the other systems. >> it's not a problem that should worry you. if they need a pulse will i license -- pulsery license, congress can revisit it for cable and satellite. but there is other ways to get content. they can approach -- >> some other rebuttal points. >> one gets to this hbo point which is they want to say this whole case is about reproduction and no public performance going on at all. to understand how crazy that is with all due respect, if they approached hbo and said we'd like to carry your content and provide it, they would tell hbo by wait, we don't need a public performance license, all we need is a reproduction license. we don't involve ourselves in any public performance at all. that's why at the end of the day this argument simply breaks reality. they don't publically perform at all. it's like magic. >> thank you, counsel.

the case is submitted. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> justice breyer's writing for the 6-3 ruling, he makes clear the ruling does not endanger other technologies like cloud storage proviresd. in another ruling the court ruled unanimously that police generally may not search the cell phones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants. cell phones are unlike anything else police may find on someone they may arrest. chief justice john roberts wrote for the court, they are not just another technological convenience, but increasingly powerful computers that contain vast quantities of personal sensitive information. with all that they contain, cell phones, with all they contain, they may reveal that they hold for many americans the privacies of life so the message to police about what they should do before rummaging through a cell phone's

contents following an arrest is simple, according to judge rob -- justice roberts, get warrant. that from the supreme court. a ruling today from the supreme court. back on capitol hill, the house will gavel back in at 3:30 eastern to finish up work on a bill that would expand expedited permits for liquefies natural gas exports. they will also later today square in -- swear in a new member, curt clawson, who won the 19th district in florida yesterday. a look at him and his supporters from the florida.com website. he won that with 66% of the vote. he will serve out the term of trey radel. we'll have the house coming back at 3:30. until then we bring you comments by house intelligence committee chair mike rogers, he said today, talked today about the earl will i warnings he received about the threat of identifycies in iraq and -- isis in iraq and how the u.s. should respond. and the committee's relationship with the white house and future of the republican party.

he spoke today at the "christian science monitor" breakfast. we'll show you as much of this as we can until the house gavels back in. . >> representative mike ronellers, chairman of the house select committee on intelligence. this is his first visit with our group and we appreciate him starting his morning this way. we rue -- he grew up in michigan, went to college there after serving in the army he became an f.b.i. special agent, specializing in public corruption cases in chicago he returned to michigan in 1994 and was elected to the state senate the next year, rising to become majority floor leader. in 2000 he, won bia hotly contested race for the house at being vacated by debbie stabenow he became chair of the house intelligence committee in 2010. this march he, announced he will be leaving congress at the end of the current term to host a

radio program for cumulus media. so much for biography, now on to the ever popular process portion of the program. as always, we're on the record here, no live blogging or tweeting, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us a chance to listen to our guests, there's no embargo when the session ends. if you want to ask a question, nonthreateninge, signal, a subtle eyebrow raise or finger wiggle, be careful there. and i'll call on one and all. now we turn to our guest. >> i appreciate the invite. thank you for low urg your standards and letting a house member in. i thought i'd quickly go around the world, briefly, just to let you know the challenges that i think face the u.s. intelligence services but our defense and what that -- those of us who are

often crying about our security matrix, the threat matrix, being so varied and so deep and so wide that makes us, all of us, not sleep at night. look at me, i'm only 25 years old, look what this job has done to me. one of the things, if you look at strategic and immediate threats. on the strategic side, you have a north korea pursuing nuclear weapons, very clearly it's doing that it's working to perfect its missile systems in a way that's very, very concerning. you recall, it was about a year ago when they stood up a missile and were bragging about the thought that they had the capability of hitting the western united states. pretty serious, i think, threat to the united states that got washed over by all the other threats we face. china has been very, very aggressive, militarization and space. and they are very aggressive about investment in technology,

certainly to try to mute the strength of our u.s. naval forces around the world. and then, one those things happen, you watch what their aggressiveness in the south china sea. and that is clearly something that is concerning and i think it's a growing tension. i still believe that between vietnam and japan, there will be some maritime skirmish within the next 24 months and i don't think it will be huge, but i do think there will be a maritime skirmish between either vietnam or japan with china in their pursuit to push out their boundaries in the south china sea. that's significant, about 40% of the world's trade goes through the south china sea. we have been, as the u.s. navy, we have been there since we've been a country. so when china starts telling us that the u.s. navy can't be in the south china sea, that's a huge, significant strategic threat to the united states and certainly our economic prowess in the world. clearly russia is, you can turn

on the tv and see where they're at. they've spent the last 10 years in that rise of oil money, investing in their military, modernizing their military, professionalizing their special forces. that has, as you can see, has proved to be a valuable investment for them when it comes to ukraine. so the fact that they were able to glide through and annex crimea and their activities in eastern ukraine are certainly troubling and it shows you that the payoff of their investment and they know it and they understand it. they continue to invest in their navy modernization, they've dropped some submarines in the water that are very, very sophisticated, very high tech. we haven't seen that since the early 1990's. so they're making an investment in their ability to project power around the world. when you look at where we are on al qaeda, this is the one that worries me most. s the one, the most immediate

threat is this proliferation of al qaeda affiliates with capabilities and intentions to strike outside of their areas of operation. so clearly when you look at what's happening in iraq, and it started in syria, by the way, we need to be clear about that, we watched this development of al qaeda in eastern syria for three years. we watched them pool up in ways that we had never seen before. we watched them recruit in ways we had never seen before. and when i say recruit in ways we have never seen before, i mean, successfully. they were gaining strength. really by the day, by the month. and the longer it went where there was no disruption, the more aggressive they became. and about -- and about a year, year and a half ago, you saw the tension start between the islamic state in iraq in the levant and the al nusra front and many argued it was because they thought they were so brutal they couldn't be part of al

qaeda. it's hard to argue that an organization that has participated in beheadings and stoning of women and flying airplanes into buildings would find anyone more brutal than themselves. it was really about control. zawahiri was trying to assert control over the leadership and having a difficult time doing it. they believe if you're going to e in this fight, you want to hold toward a caliphate. at that point, the disagreement was zawahiri telling them, we want you to focus in iraq, not sir ark and don't do external operations. the concerning part of that conversation was that the reason isil wanned to do, term operations is because they had such a large number of foreigners with western passports working with them. they saw that as a huge opportunity to conduct, very easily and quickly, operations

in europe, in the united states. zawahiri thought it was too soon and he wanted them to focus in iraq. so now what you see is, they apparently decided to focus in iraq. that split where they desert fied al qaeda, i would look at it as two organized crime families in chicago. at the end of the day, their goals and intentions are exactly the same. if they can work together, they're going to work together. if they're going to fight about it, they're going to fight about it. at the end of the day, they are brutal criminal organizations, terrorist organizations, functioning the same way. so al nusra now is reaching out. i think there's been some public reports about them reaching out to aqap in yemen. yemen is looking for the yes, a'am these -- the -- the yemenese leadership, not the government, but is looking for ways to have success.

they believe that's important. they were the first ones to hold territory in the south of yemen that they believed was the initiation of their ability to create and hold a caliphate. 10 you have all of these new relationship -- so you have all of these new relationships happening in a way that's really concerning. al shabab, we were table establish the relationship between them and aqap, they were trying to get their branch down in northern africa and you see the activity across northern africa. i won't go into all those activities. but you get the picture that the threat getting worse by the day, not better by the kay day. the fact that they hold $1 billion in cash and gold bullion, 9/11 took about $249,000 -- about $200,000 and about a year of planning, that's a lot of dangerous cash in the kitty. they aren't worried about building schools and roads and taking care of public services. they're worried about killing and trying to dominate

individuals across iraq, sir ark they'd love to take lebanon, now they're on the border of jordan, they're on the border of israel. this is as bad a situation as you can possibly imagine. with that, i think we should all have a drink. >> have a stiff orange juice, in the "monitor" paradecision. let me ask you one or two, and then move to my colleagues. you're a member of the house republican leadership team. what lesson or message do you take from the triumph of t hambings d cochran and the loss of tancredo. does it say anything to you about where things are going or is it just poll techs and local and there's no message? >> listen, despite what you might see portrayed, the republican party is a big tent party. parties are coalitions. if you travel overseas and you see parliaments, those are made

up of these wildly different co-ligs of cobbling certain groups and philosophies together to form a government -- coalitions of cobbling certain groups and philosophies together to form a government. here we have two parties but those two parties are tremendous amounts of coalitions. that's the way our parties have operated for a long time. what you're seeing now is a healthy debate and struggle about with which of those coalitions gets more seats in the republican party than other coalitions. i thought it was, at the end of the day, i think americans are ready for governance. this last five years has been so devastating to the middle class, devastating to energy price, devastating to our national security, it's been devastating to their own health care. they're looking for some leadership and sometimes that means people forming a coalition, that means you're going to get something done. i think the elections showed across the country that people are ready for that. they're ready for a change in the way the country is being governed. i think that's what you saw happen last night and over the last few months.

>> let me ask you one other, that's about intelligence. your counterpart in the senate, senator feinstein, has been critical about the level of detail and quality of briefings -- briefing that has been provided by the administration. , sterday on a conference call an intelligence official said that the american intelligence agencies provide, quote, strategic warning that isis was growing. is it your sense that you've been well served in terms of the isis intelligence you've been getting? >> you know, about two years ago, i was -- i and others were ramping up this notion we had to do something in eastern sir yasm i did an op-ed on it, i talked on it. i came to those conclusions based on the intelligence afforded to the committee as a consumer of intelligence. we get it all. sometimes it's raw.

it doesn't draw the conclusion that, you know, isis on this day is going to do this we get all the raw intelligence. we can come to those conclusions ourselves. it was very clear to me that years ago, isil or isis was pooling up in a dangerous way, building training camping, recruiting, drawing in jihaddists from around the world. we saw all of that happening. then we -- we talked for a long time, nothing happened to disrupt that. then we saw them cross the border and go into fallujah. nothing happened. that was six or eight months ago. so some notion that we wouldn't have seen this coming means that you weren't paying attention to the intelligence that was afforded us. now, you know, could they have come up and said, hey, this is -- we're going to give you the fallujah update? maybe, maybe not. nothing happened when they crossed the border, nothing

happened when they took fallujah, nothing happened when they took mosul, nothing happened when they took tikrit. then they said, oh, we've got a problem. that's an unfair assessment of what we knew and how we watched it develop. we knew what their intentions were. they clearly were arming and training. we saw that. so you know, maybe they didn't say they were crossing on this day but you would be hard pressed if you paid attention to the intelligence, that something bad is going to happen here. >> so your complaint isn't about the intelligence, it's how the administration responded. >> not responding is a decision. not making a decision is a decision. i have been pretty vocal in the last two years about trying to bring this problem to the attention of the public on why we need to do something in syria. because of the potential. now did we know they were going into iraq? i'm not sure. but they clearly want lebanon. they want jordan. they want israel. they want all of syria.

and they do want iraq. and so, it was very clear they were going to try to expand their interests from eastern syria. there's a safe haven for 2 1/2 -- they were a safe haven for 2 and a half years. -- 2 1/2 years. >> a couple of senators said yesterday after the classified briefing that the threat to the homeland is more urgent than it seemed last week and one senator said if you -- anyone who walked out of the briefing could not quibble with the fact that there's an urgent, dire threat to the homeland here. do you agree and how urgent is that threat? >> i do. now, remember how we come to this conclusion. we knew, remember, the fight a year and a half ago was do we do external operations against the united states in europe or not? zawahiri said focus on iraq. the very fact that they're having the discussion sends a chill down my spine. that means somebody is in an

operational status trying to put together something that would look like something that could get the green light. including access to people who had western passports. that's the most dangerous thing. you fly to germany and you're a german citizen, you're flying to the united states you don't need a visa. that's a problem. that's a big pob for us. or fill in any country in the e.u. or vice versa. so what we've seen now, they're a little drunk on their own success. they understand, as a matter of fact, an interesting -- i read an interest regular port they were talking about the fact that zawahiri, if he were going to come to syria or iraq, would have to pay deference to him, to baghdaddi because he's the only one establishing a land-based caliphate. that's a scary mentality. they both want the same thing.

they both want to attack the united states. they're going to go about it in different ways. with access to these western passports and their stated intention to commit acts of terror beyond their areas of operation, that is why i wasn't in the senate briefing, but i imagine that's what the senators walked out thinking, this is pretty bad. and they have complete safe haven. there's nothing to disrupt their activity. they can plan it, finance it, train for it. the training camps have been ain betted for years. they've let it go. that's how you get to this place where you wonder, you know, we're in some trouble. and of course the most recent court ruling that says you can't have a no fly list, perfect. that's a great recipe for disaster. there was a federal ruling, i think, yesterday, on that. >> in oregon. >> orge? >> it was the federal district court for the district of oregon. we might as well get you to say a little more about it.

the procedures for putting someone on the no fly list were inadequate, violated the right to due process, called on the homeland security department to provide more information to people about why they're on the list and ways for getting off the list. so you would disagree with that? >> so we have, according to public reports, an organization trying to build bombs that circumvent security. they're working with another organization, according to reports, that -- in syria that expressed an interest in showing their chops by having an international terrorist attack, and now you just had a judge rule that you can't put someone on a no-fly list you tell me why i can't sleep at night. that makes no sense whatsoever. and by the way, the international community has no fly lists that just means you'll be able to fly domestically. congratulations. that's the worst of all worlds. that makes no sense to me at all. if they want to refine them,

maybe they can do it and they ought to look at refining them fairly quickly. i hope the decision is appealed and it's stayed to make sure we have an opportunity, if you have an idea that somebody has an ill intention on an aircraft that you can keep them off an aircraft. > we're going next to maureen. >> the republican party and the whene going on about that, you're doing your radio show is one of the things you're trying to accomplish in that show, trying to push the party in a particular particular direction and get one group to be more successful than the other, and if so, which one? >> my goal is a productive conservative, which means you actually accomplish something. when coalitions are tearing themselves apart, it's hard to form a governing majority. i look back at some of the fights that have happened within

the republican conference and how much money we let get spent because we couldn't agree on the exact amount. so rather than get half of what you wanted, buzz of the way the conference was fighting amongst itself, we got zero. so we couldn't agree that there were 42 job training programs needed to be 26. people said 26 is too many. so you know, how many -- so you know how many we ended up with? 42. governing productive conservatism in my mind. i think there's a way to focus our efforts to get the government to look a lot more the way i think most conservatives want it to look, which is lean and mean, you know. not mean in that term. but lean in the sense that it's functioning, not wasting money, that it takes care of people who need it but doesn't do things the federal government shouldn't be doing. and, you know, if we're together as a force, i think there's a lot of that we could have

accomplished in the last two years that we just left on the table. and that, to me, is unfortunate. we fight about some of the things in my mind that are small potatoes if we could come to an agreement on bigger, broader limited government issues that we couldn't quite get consensus on. for this notion that we're going to have a perfect score. you have to have a perfect score. i don't know anywhere in life that that works, including the u.s. government. >> i think you just alluded to this, but can you say more about the intelligence that suggests that bomb making expertise from yemen has my grated to syria and they're working on bombs that can get past security. that seems to be driving the threat that jeff was asking about. how much of a threat is that, have they perfected a bomb that's better than the underwear bomb? and are aqap people in syria right now? >> if you look at this -- i

can't confirm any specific report bus here's what we can look at that's in the public domain and i think it's fair to draw a conclusion from what's in the public domain. you have aqap, who has desthinde ink cartridge bombs, remember those, that they were going to detonate, i forget how many now, eight or 11 or whatever it was, nine, in different airplanes over the oceans. that was their goal. these cartridges were designed to circumvent security. some good intelligence work, we were able to shut that particular operation down. but we know they never stop trying to do -- to design explosives that circumvent security system of the underwear bomber was a great example. that was another iteration on december 25 that they thought they could get through security and set off on an airplane. and candidly, but far quarter of an inch of a syringe pull, that plane would have blown up and we

would have killed thousands of people in their homes. it flies over a very populated area of detroit into its landing zone. you'd have had all that equipment falling thru houses while people were sleeping in their beds. this was not just the airplane itself, which would have been horrific, but the ground damage would have been significant. that was their second iteration. we know they haven't given up on the notion that they're going to develop something that circumvents security and gets on an airplane. that's just the fact of the matter. so now you see those things and you see this relationship that started very early in 2013 and some of it, by the way, was to mediate. in the beginning, before this decision came down to desert fi isil as an al qaeda afill yalt, they tried to mend their fences. all the al qaeda leadership was say, you need to fix this. they didn't want to lose aggressive fighters who shoot people in the head. it's a value to them.

scares us but it's a badge of honor for them. they wanted to keep those folks in the fold. couldn't work out. now you have al nusra who has also expressed an interest in creating, that's the other gupe in eastern syria, that is an al qaeda affiliate that express and interest in external operations and you know there's a relationship between aqap and al nusra, including what we think intermediaries and the like. that in and of itself i think would allow any logical person to come to the conclusion that we have a problem. we have a definite problem and we know that al qaeda in the past shares technical expertise on i.e.d.'s, thousand circumvent security, surveillance, and all the things that come with those conversations, how not to be a target of the u.s. or our allies. you can draw your own conclusion with that bit of information. i'll tell you, this is worrying me a lot. >> why does the public have to

draw their own conclusion? -- just if it's a fact, state it's a fact. >> we want -- there are the ways information is obtained, we want to protect ways to find out information that would stop an event, it would be important to protect those ways so if there is a threat information, and by the way if you remember the leak that happened with the bomber that, remember the aqap bombing thing, there was a pretty significant leak about the bomb? we saw real changes in realtime about that leak that really did disrupt u.s. and our allies' ability to collect information on aqap. it cost us a long time, as a matter of fact, we may never get back. and so those things are, it was just the procedure about who, what what, when, and how got

leaked. and it changed the way they operated. to the point where we lost our ability to see some things. that's dangerous. i just think we ought to try to protect it so we have the ability to get somebody that, if they're going to get on a plane or not, hopefully you catch them earlier. if we have to catch them getting on a plane, there's a fill your -- failure in the system. >> just a second, go ahead but normally people ask to be called on. >> sure. so there's no clear line yet between isis and aqap? we can speculate they may work together? >> we know that they have -- they all relationships. they had intermediary exchanges. we know that. remember, once they were desert fied, they became, they decide they were going their own direction. again, their goals and intentions are exactly the same. there isn't a fraction of a

difference. the tactics of how they get there may have been different. zawahiri's position with them was if i can't control you, i'm not going to have you as part of our group, and he did that primarily because being part of a.q. gets you financing, gets you status, gets you recruits. what i think he underestimated is, that these folks were winning on the battlefield and when you're winning on the battlefield that in and of itself attracts other jihaddists, they want to be part of the winning team if you will. so they're the same, exactly the same, they still have this kind of funny respect for each other, , if they t as disagree, they'll fight, but they want the same thing. >> a couple of mechanical things. we're about halfway through,

we're going next to john. anyone who came in late and wants a question, wave your hand at me. >> thank you, dave. mr. chairman, picking up on your analogy of oh -- of the organized crime family, it's been said that some of america's friends in the mideast that we depend on, saudi arabia and qatar, are akin to merchants in the city paying protection money to don corleone when it comes to isil or other terrorist groups. do you have any solid theaveed qatar, saudi arabia, are indeed also paying isil or other terrorist groups and what can be done about it? when they talk about a winning coalition, you're calling -- your colleagues on capitol hill talk about those countries, not iran. >> well, i think we, and again,

this is a product of indecision in a very difficult neighborhood. so when you see a problem in the mideast, you have to deal with it. end of story. deciding we're not going to deal with it as some notion of a foreign policy framework, this is what you get. so let me talk you through that. early on in syria, our ashe league partners came to us and said, we want the united states not -- this is not about boots on the ground, it's not about big military but we need your help. we need your help with some command and control. we want you helping guide any support, think of this, any support that the ashe league is producing, so that we do this in a way that's vetted properly and doesn't come back to bite us. wow. very reasonable offer. and the united states' response was, nope, that's too hard, we're not going to do it. so what happened was, other parts of that ashe league started to fracture.

which is why you needed the united states showing the leadership role at the table. that would have been a very, very important role for taos play. and so we know, for a fact, that some of the supplies that some of those ashe league countries were supplying were getting in the hands of extremists. and it also caused, because of the way that was ramped up, even our ashe league partners started fighting amongst themselveses or disagreeing amongst themselves because they realized one country was more aggressive than the other country and some of those materials were ending up in a place that was bad for even their own national security interests. and so that's how this problem got started. and the united states never quite weighed in. i have had significant appeals from our ashe league partners to me personally i feel know other members have as well about their frustration with the lack of the united states -- with the welcome of united states

engagement on these issues. buzz of it, we watched a lot of that money and weapons did migrate its way to the most violent extremists operating in eastern syria. that empowered the very problem we have today. as frustrating as that is, i think there's an opportunity to reengage and candidly, having the secretary of state just show up for a chat isn't going to do it. they need to see something. and as one ashe league leader old me about two years ago, -- and as one arab league leader told me about two years ago, if you're not going to sit at the table with us, you don't get to lecture us what the table looks like. that's what you saw happening. >> we'll leave this as the house is gaveling back in for a series of votes. postponed. ordering the previous question on house resolution 641 and adopting house resolution 641, if ordered. the first electronic vote will

be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 641 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 116, house resolution 641, resolution providing for nsideration of the bill h.r. 4899, to lower gasoline prices for the american family by increasing domestic onshore and offshore energy exploration and production, to streamline and improve onshore and offshore energy permitting and 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, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 238, the nays are 180. the previous question is ordered. he house will come to order. the speaker: on this volt the yeas are 238, the nays are 180678 the previous question is ordered. the house will come to order. members will please take their seats.

the house will be in order of. -- will be in order. he house will be in order. members will please take their seats. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit here with a facsimile copy of a letter received from ms. maria matthews, director of elections,

office of the secretary of state of florida, indicating that according to the preliminary results of the special election held june 24, 2014, the honorable curt clawson was elected representative to congress for the 19th congressional district, state of florida. with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk. the speaker: the house will be in order. will all members please take a seat. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida reis? -- from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from florida, the honorable curt clawson be permitted to take the oath of office too. his certificate of election has not arrived but there is no contest and no question has been raised in regard to his election. the speaker: without objection. will the gentleman from florida,

representative-elect clawson and the members of the florida delegation face the chair. will all members rise. will the representative-elect raise his right hand. do you solemnly swear that you'll support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god. congratulations.

without objection -- without objection, the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. as dean of the florida delegation, it is a great honor to welcome our newest member of this proud body, congressman curt clawson. like all of us here, the congressman believes in a bright economic future for all of america and i'm sure that with his extensive background as a former c.e.o. this will help us in our pursuit to make that future a reality. curt, from the basketball court to capitol hill, you have proven that no obstacle is too great and that with your dedication and skills, you will be able to accomplish whatever you set out to do. your journey to get to this point has been a long, storied, and successful one, gathering knowledge and understanding of our state and our nation's needs and developing a clear vision along the way. i'm confident that together,

along with the entire bipartisan florida congressional delegation -- the speaker: will the house please be in order. the gentlelady may resume. ms. ros-lehtinen: i'm confident that you will be able to represent our great state to the highest degree and join us in a constructive, insightful debate to lead our nation to domestic and international prosperity. last night was surely a joyous night for you, for your family and for your community. it was a culmination of months, years, and a lifetime of hard work. we hope you can't your efforts for the good of the people who shared your vision with you last night and for our entire state and country and before i yield to my distinguished colleague, i would like to once again welcome congressman clawson as our newest addition to the florida delegation familia. congratulations, curt, and welcome. the floor is yours, i yield to

the gentleman. mr. clawson: it appears there are too many point guards in this hall. i start by bowing in humility to my god, hoping for wisdom and inspiration on a responsibility so big on my shoulders that we all share, of course. my second point today is that i am committed to represent those in my district, and not only those that voted for me, but those that did not. young and old. male and female. white, african-american, or hose that speak spanish. [speaking spanish] i am committed to representing all my constituents in a fair way. my grandfather was a gardener in his spare time and he had a

long, dark closet. at the end of that closet was a picture of a judge in long, flowing robes, and at the bottom of that picture was written the following words. we call him your honor to remember our own. i've always felt that my father and grandfather didn't need that reminder very often, but i come to you today hoping to bring just a small measure of honor to this chamber and hoping that we can honor our constituents and honor each other by the way we treat each other. i'm so humbled and greatful to be here and ask for your support. thank you.

the speaker: under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentleman from florida, the whole number of the house is now 433. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on coppings of -- on adoption of house resolution 641. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 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 228, the nays are 189. the resolution is adopted, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 636 and rule 18, the chair de-claires the house in the committee of the -- chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house for the further consideration of h.r. 6. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 6, which the clerk will report

by title. the clerk: a bill to provide domestic prosperity and global freedom act to world trade organization countries and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-49 offered by the gentleman from -- 113-492 offered by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 28, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 113-492 by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3. offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been

requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 196, the nays are 221.

he amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hairman. the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 6 and pursuant to house resolution 636 reports the bill

back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole , under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment -- to the amendment reported in the committee of the whole. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for approval of exportation of natural gas to world trade organization countries and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. please remove all conversations from the floor. please remove yourself from the isles.

the house will come to order. please take all conversations off the floor. please, members, remove yourself from the aisles. find a seat. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. garamendi: i am opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. garamendi of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 6, to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. page 2, after line 22, insert the following new section, section 4, prohibiting higher natural gas prices for united states consumers and protecting our national security. in reviewing an application for

authorization to export natural gas under section 3 of the natural gas act, 15, united states code, 717-b, the department of energy -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- >> i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the bill. mr. garamendi: i object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california objects. the clerk: shall deny such application if, a, the export would increase the price of natural gas, electricity or home heating for american seniors on fixed incomes or, b, the natural gas would be exported to any nation that is a state-sponsor of terrorism or otherwise threatens america's national security or to any nation or corporation that steals america's -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. the house will not proceed until the house is in order. gentlemen and ladies, please take your conversations off the floor. please remove yourself from the aisles and along the back of this chamber. the house will not proceed

until the house is in order. the clerk will continue. the clerk: military technology or intellectual property through cyberattacks and, two, shall require as a condition for approval of any such authorization the applicant to ensure that united states flag ships and shipping containers re used to export the l.n.g. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed for a final passage as amended. my colleagues, america's blessed with many, many resources. all of you, for example. america's blessed with great natural resources, among them

natural gas. week of seen a terrific increase in the availability of natural gas and it has provided this nation with the opportunity to have the lowest price energy among the industrial nations. an incredible advantage that we have received as a result of god's gift of natural gas. the question for all of us to ponder for a moment is, how will we use that natural gas and to whose benefit? this bill will provide for the protection of americans who have for these number of years enjoyed a reasonable price for their energy. but if this bill moves forward as presently written, we will be talking about seniors who will see higher prices in their natural gas and in their energy. if this bill moves forward, as

it's currently written, we will be seeing our natural resource, this strategic asset, wind up in the hands of countries who support terrorists or countries who are engaged in industrial espionage through cyberattacks on our industry and on our government. if this bill moves forward, as it's presently written, we will not see american ships under our flag, with our sailors, taking this natural resource, this strategic asset, across the oceans. however, however, ladies and gentlemen, if we approve this amendment, we will be protecting our seniors from higher energy prices, because this bill says that in determining the public interest, we will make sure our seniors are protected.

if we adopt this amendment we will see that none of our natural resource, natural gas, strategic asset, will wind up in the hands of countries who have supported terrorists, we will find that no country who engages or allows people in their country to engage in cyberattacks against our industries or against our government will have our precious natural resource, and we will see american ships with american sailors and american flags on the ocean exporting this strategic national asset. the question therefore for each and every one of us is this, with whom do you stand? the gas companies, who will have billions and billions of dollars of profits exporting, or do you stand with our seniors? who do you stand with?

do you stand with countries engaged in cyberattacks in countries supporting terrorists? who do you stand with? do you stand with american sail saylors and shipbuilders? that's what this amendment is all about. it's about protecting america. i ask for your aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i claim time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gardner: we recognize that motions to recommit are procedural motions that are not substantive proposals. they are offered by the minority party, republican or democrat, with the goal of undermining or stopping the underlying legislation on the floor. mr. garamendi: would the gentleman yield? mr. gardner: you've had plenty of time to speak. i'll address your concerns here. the department of energy looks

at the concern you raise in this procedural motion. they look at the factors you talk about in this procedural motion. no lick fied natural gas -- no lick we fied natural -- no liquefied natural gas will go to these countries this administration said this will provide a net ben toyota fifth to our economy. this administration said it will noit raise prices. this administration says studies demonstrate benefit across all economic areas. this administration said that the manufacturing renaissance is unlikely to hurt the manufacturer -- unlikely to be hurt by this. vote against the motion to recommit. let's oppose the motion to recommit and do what we need to for jobs. mr. garamendi: would the gentleman zeeled the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of the recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device pursuant to -- -- electronic device. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 20, this five-minute vote will be followed by a five minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. s that 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: have all members voted?

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 192, the nays are 225. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yes have it.

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of the vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 266, the nays are 150, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, h.r. 4899.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 641 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house for the consideration of the bill. the chair now appoints the gentleman from georgia to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4899 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to lower gasoline prices for the american family by increasing domestic, onshore and offshore energy exploreation and production, to streamline and improve onshore and offshore energy permitting and administration and for what purpose does. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, will each control 30 minutes. the house will come to order.

please take all conversations off the floor, please clear the isles. the house will come to order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the committee is not in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. please remove all conversations from the floor. please clear the aisles. please clear the back aisles. the committee will not proceed until the committee is in order.

the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, americans are all too familiar with the economic hardships caused by $4-a-gallon gasoline prices. i routinely hear from families in my central washington district whose buppingts are already being stretched thin -- budgets are already being stretched thin and can't afford the rising prices at the pump. commuting to work, running the kids to after-school activities, and putting food on the table are all becoming increasingly difficult to afford. but the pain is not only being felt during trips to the gas station. high gasoline prices are a drain on our entire economy. that means that school districts juggle to operate bus routes, that cities grapple with the cost of sending police cars on patrol, and that businesses adjust budgets that can affect the hiring of new employees. the good news is, mr. chairman, that $4 gasoline does not have

to be our reality. the u.s. is blessed with an abundance of oil and natural gas resources that can lower energy prices and grow our economy. h.r. 4899, the lowering gasoline prices to fuel an america that works act, is commonsense legislation to responsibly harvest the american energy resources that we have right here at home. mr. chairman, the obama administration has spent the last 5 1/2 years replacing our energy resources on federal lands and waters under tight lock and key. offshore areas have been placed off limits. scheduled exploreation off georgia was canceled and over half the national petroleum serve in alaska or npra, has -- n, has been closed to energy production. that's why it's no surprise that since president obama took office, total federal oil production has dropped 6% and

total natural gas production has dropped 2%. that's on federal lands, -- 28%. that's on federal lands, mr. chairman. meanwhile, gasoline prices have doubled during this presidency. h.r. 4899 would reverse this trend and unlock our american energy. the bill would implement a drill smart plan that would expand offshore energy production and safely open new areas that contain the most oil and natural gas resources. such as the midatlantic, the southern pacific and the arctic. it would require the secretary to conduct specific oil and natural gas lease sales, including offshore virginia, that was delayed and then canceled by the obama administration. the bill would also establish fair and equitable revenue sharing for all coastal states and improve safety by reorganizing the interior department's offshore energy agencies. in addition, to increase offshore energy production, the bill would also help expand onshore oil and natural gas

production on federal lands. it would reform the leasing and streamline the permitting process to encourage the development of u.s. oil shale resources and expand production of the npra and much more. while these policies will help lower gasoline prices, it will also create, mr. chairman, over 1.2 million new american jobs and generate over $1.7 billion in new revenue. in other words, mr. chairman, this bill is a win for the economy and a win for jobs. but it's also important for our national security. the current turmoil in iraq has already caused the price of gasoline to increase and serves as an important reminder of why we need to increase production here at home. the best way to protect ourselves from price spikes caused by international conflicts is to increase production of american energy

resources. as the "wall street journal" reported last week, the recent energy boom here in the u.s. is, and i quote, putting slack in the global oil market, end quote. a senior petroleum analyst noted, regarding the recent conflict in iraq, and i quote again, if this were 2005, we would have seen a 20 cent to 30 cent jump increase in gas prices, but it's lower today because domestic oil energy production is much higher, again, end quote. however, all the increases in u.s. energy production is happening on state and private lands. mr. chairman, let me repeat that. all the increase in u.s. energy production is happening on state and private lands. as i previously noted, oil and gas -- and natural gas production on federal lands has declined under president obama. we can and we should be doing so much more when it comes to

america-produced energy and doing so will strengthen our national security and reduce our he will relies on -- our reliance on foreign imports and on opec. finally, we need to take action now because the obama administration just announced the start of work on the next five-year offshore drilling plan. with this bill that we are considering today, congress can advance a responsible plan for developing america's resources. the president's plan on the other hand closes over 85% of offshore areas to energy production and includes the lowest number of lease sales ever offered in a five-year plan. the administration's restrictive policy should not continue for another five years. that's the why -- that's why there needs to be a new plan as outlined in this bill on the floor that opens new areas and help to put more than a million americans back to work. mr. chairman, h.r. 4899 it ease

the pain at the pump for american families and small businesses and eliminate federal government hurdles that keep american energy locked up. it's good for our economy, it's good for jobs, and it strength s our national security. so i urge my colleagues to -- strengthens our national security. so i my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: to yield myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. well, we have before us two bills that have previously passed the house, merged into one bill that will again pass with the republican majority. it mandates offshore oil drilling from maine to the southeast coast, mandates offshore oil drilling off of south carolina. this would all be done under expedited or potentially

nonexistent environmental reviews, if they didn't meet extraordinarily brief time lines. and they would not be allowed to evaluate any options that did not include drilling. this would also, you know, as the republicans are extremely fiscally conservative, this would double the revenue sharing for offshore oil drilling, creating a $30 billion loss to the federal government and benefiting a few southeast states. the onshore portion of the bill , every permit for drilling on federal lands in the united states would have to be issued within 60 days and the concept of multiple use, that is hunting, fishing, recreating, mountain biking, horseback riding, go on down the list, and other activities, are all subsumed to energy development which becomes the big -- oh,

wait, wait, what, what? i mean, really, they gave me -- this is my june, 2013, speech. i mean, this is last year's speech. i mean, what -- who gave me last year's speech? really? ugh. guess what, it really doesn't matter. because this is the same bill from last year. two bills into one. exactly the same bill passed the house the last year, the year before that, the year before that. every year gas prices spike up, they pass imaginary legislation and pretend they're tackling high gas prices instead of real causes. many people have heard about christmas in july. we now have a new tradition here which is groundhog day in june for energy bills in a faux, you know, sort of attempt to pretend we really care about the extortion prices that people are -- -- that people are paying because of big oil