speculation on wall street but god for bid we should take on those forces. so, you know, let's, you know, does anybody believe this? i guess there are a few people who believe nilling. but since they first brought this -- anything. but since they first brought this bill to the floor in 2011, u.s. oil production has gone om 5.6 million barrels a day to 8.4 million barrels a day. not shabby, basically a 50% increase. . let's look at another chart. exports. now we have a new theory. this isn't about lowering prices in america. it's about avoiding even higher prices in america because we're stabilizing the world markets. well, i've had a lot of complaints from truckers. look how much diesel we're exporting since the republicans started this campaign. the combined exports of refined

gasoline. remember the shortages? that's why we're paying higher prices. supply and demand. have gone from 400 million barrels a day to 1.5 -- we've doubled our export of refined product and the truckers are really getting stuck here. you want to know why diesel prices are up? because diesel exports are up phenomenally. phenomenally. so we can blather on, gee, all we need is more production, more production so we can export more. now, the oil industry is pushing to end our ban on the export of crude oil. at least we get some value added and we get a few more jobs by exporting refined products. now, the industry wants us to lift the ban and say that we will export crude oil from the united states of america. i guess so we can prevent bigger price spikes if there are future crises because this

s the new theory promulgated by "the wall street journal." now, we hear a lot by the president. now, here's a reality check on that issue. federal onshore production is up 30% on president obama. in fact, president obama is presiding over record production levels and plummeting imports while the exact same opposite happened under the bush-cheney policy which made us more dependent on foreign oil and that did happen in spades during the bush-cheney administration. and the energy information administration, they're right, there was a blip in our production offshore. had to deal with a little oil spill called horizon deepwater, and there was temporary suspension of drilling and new permits. that's history now, but that makes your average look lower over time. but the energy information administration says offshore production will reach record

levels. that is all federal offshore oil production will reach record levels by 2016. that doesn't -- that's reality. that doesn't matter. now, we have a really nifty title and that's something we spend lots of money on consultants, both parties coming up with nifty saying. lowering gasoline prices to fuel an america that works act of 2014. well, since we started this argument with the republicans on this issue about increased oil production leading to lower gas prices, well, 2008 when we had drill, baby, drill in order to lower gas prices that were $3.50 to $4 a gallon, and guess what, they haven't gone down. so that argument kind of doesn't work anymore. they say, well, they would have

been higher if we weren't producing more oil and if we produce more they might have even been more higher or it might be lower. that's what we're saying the last four years. we're paying a world of price for oil. now they want us to pay a world f price for natural gas. so the prices don't go down. there's such an abundance of oil, as i said earlier. the american energy institute wants to lift the ban, lift the ban on the export of crude oil from the united states. wouldn't that be great, the u.s. can export crude oil to china? china can use it to run their electrical generator facilities which supply their manufacturing facilities which will produce value-added products, things we formerly used to make here in the united states and they'll sell them back to us. so we get to sell them a raw material and they sell us back sophisticated materials.

kind of like we fought a revolution over a couple hundred years ago. now that's ok with some on the other side. now, this is both coasts and alaska and tremendous degradation of environmental protections on the inland areas. the inland areas, i mentioned earlier, this will really do away with multiple use. now, we heard from the chairman , esteemed colleague, that despite in iraq would have been worse if we weren't producing so much and exporting so much. now, actually i just saw the statistics yesterday. oil production hasn't dropped at all. the other opec companies are putting more oil out and iraq is at 95% where they were before this. so actually there's been no

reduction anywhere, but somehow prices are up about 20 cents a gallon at the pump. now, if we just produced more oil that wouldn't happen, no, we are producing more oil. if we exported more oil, refined oil, diesel and gasoline, well, that wouldn't happen. no, what happened? wall street is speculating on the price of oil. we had sworn testimony from the c.e.o. of exxonmobil 2 1/2 years ago before the united states senate when gas was around -- getting to $4 a gallon. he said, don't blame me. this isn't exxonmobil doing this. it's wall street. because of the deregulation of wall street, the fact we haven't yet implemented position limits on speculators, on commodities as we were supposed to do under dodd-frank which they want to repeal, he said 60 cents a gallon. drive up to the pump and you're sending 60 cents a gallon to wall street speculators. so if they wanted to do

something today or tomorrow or yesterday or last year or maybe next june about spiking oil prices, it would be to go after the speculators on wall street. that's the quickest relief that we could provide. mandate position limits or even better, repeal the positions of trading dities futures modernization act, which i voted against, which was a clinton bill, which allowed massive new speculation by nonconsumers, nonproducers, something we never had, don't need today. so next time you go to the pump say, oh, if we just drilled right here off of may be or right here off of massachusetts or right here i would pay less. or think, wow, if they want to really give me relief, then take on the big oils, take on wall street, but they won't do that. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman.

i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to a member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. duncan: well, i want to first thank chairman hastings for his work on h.r. 4899, a bill that will actually ease the pain at the pumps for moms and dads. no doubt about it. since president obama has taken office, gasoline prices have more than doubled. i'm not telling the american people anything they don't know, because when they reach in their wallet and take out money to pay for that gas, just to go back and forth to work or take the children to their sporting event or to school, they realize that more of their discretionary income is going to pay the fuel that runs the cars and the trucks that they drive. i drive a diesel truck. i'm paying, what, $3.69, most recently. i took this picture at a pump there in south carolina. $3.69 for onroad diesel fuel. now on na onroad diesel fuel is

factored in the taxes. there was another one for off-road diesel fuel. historically it's a lot less than onroad. why? because there's no federal taxes involved. where's that fuel used? it's used on farms. if you look at the prices, $3.549 a gallon, what does that mean? well, that means farmers that are just finishing putting their crops in the ground across this nation, pay $3.54 a gallon for off-road diesel fuel, their input costs have gone up. what does that mean? if this remains the same at harvest time, guess what, the commodity prices in this country will go up. we're already seeing historically high milk prices, historically high beef prices. you can try to blame the commodity prices on the drought in california, some of that will be the fact, but i can tell you the input cost for fertilizer, for diesel fuel, to put the crops in the ground are

definitely a factor. moms and dads know what's going on. you know, we can increase production in this country offshore and onshore through this bill. the president takes credit for increased production onshore, and i will give him this. production has increased onshore but it has nothing to do with the policies of this administration. has everything to do with the private and state-owned land in south dakota and places like eagle, texas. production has gone up. that has nothing to do with the administration's policies over the last six years. him taking credit for increased production is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise every morning. moms and dads in this country know you're spending more money for fuel cost. the other side seems out of touch for america, about as out of touch as hillary clinton is. the pain you're feeling when you go to the pump to fill up your tank to provide for your family going back and forth. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina yields back.

the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from oregon is ecognized. mr. defazio: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: five minutes to the gentleman from california -- the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as a nation we must work together if we're ever going to get a realistic energy policy that will provide clean, reliable energy for all america, that will reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources and preserve the beauty of our land. mr. costa: we need a comprehensive energy plan for our country that includes not only the conventional resources, like oil and gas, but also takes advantage of the new and renewable resources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy. at the end of the day, i don't believe we can simply afford to take any of these energy resources off the table. i, for one, am a firm believer that using all the energy tools in our energy toolbox is the

way we must go forward. for the san joaquin valley that i represent of california, we have shown we can take an all-of-the-above approach. we have oil production taking place just down the road from our solar fields and our wind farms. yet, of course, we're all concern of the rise of gas prices, and as the gentleman from oregon said, there are multiple factors causing the gas prices. i'm proud to represent the university in merced. it's crafting technology necessary for the next generation of solar energy production. conventional energy, together with renewable resources and a strategy for energy conservation, which we do quite well in california, i think will best serve our long-term energy needs. that's why i co-sponsored the american opportunity energy act of 2014.

we must acknowledge our short-term challenges but our medium and long-term challenges as well. we must enhance our path toward energy independence, which we have made remarkable progress in the last four years. from over 60% of importing their energy needs now down to less than almost 40%. but we can do more. expanding responsible domestic energy production on the outer continental shelf, advancing alternative energy, including wind, solar, biomass, wave, geothermal and our clean alternatives. developing clean coal technology, developing additional nuclear technologies, expanding the efficient products and alternative fuel vehicles, restoring and protecting our nation's wildlife refugees and national parks, lakes and waterways are not mutually exclusive with a good energy policy. and if we do this, we can also pay off our national debt. again, that's why i'm a

co-sponsor of h.r. 4956. this bill does all of those things. it could do them in different ways, though. because clean energy is a critical component of our future, and before we debate any energy legislation, i think we must acknowledge that a green energy supply is not happening as fast as we might like it to. however, this transition must happen in order to address the continuing impacts brought on by climate change. yes, climate change. and regardless of whether or not one acknowledges the human contributions of climate change, it is a fact. as a matter of fact, it's been changing for millions of years. a combination of energy -- a combination of increasing our domestic supply of natural gas and oil, reducing demands will also lower energy costs, create jobs and allow us to transition to cleaner fuels. and it also has another important factor. as we know our european allies are focusing and refocusing

after the events of the ukraine and russia that seems to be here and then and there about focusing as a responsible energy supplier. h.r. 4889 is an important measure that we are discussing. i agree with my colleague, representative doc hastings, when he said the best way to create jobs is to help address rising energy prices and provisions in this bill, such as expanding domestic energy production, expanding domestic energy production on federal lands, directing the energy -- the administration to complete an energy strategy every four years and reduce the federal debt are all good commonsense public policy. . the bill prioritizes, and i'm concerned about this, extracting energy policies that fails to take into account the need to diversify our energy portfolio.

i voted on the provisions of this bill because we need to expand out lization for domestic use. it is clear that this bill will not become law as it is. we have previously voted on these measures before other bills in the congress and the united states senate has failed to take similar bills. i ask for an additional 30 seconds. >> mr. costello: if the senate is not going -- mr. costello: if the senate is not going to take up this bill and make a tremendous impact, we cannot to push talking points. mr. costa: the only way for us to accomplish is for us to work together and stop talking fast -- past one another. that is what we must do and i thank you and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: i thank the chairman for his great leadership on energy, the natural resources committee. i rise in support of the lowering gasoline prices to fuel and america works act of 2014. onshore and offshore provisions will create americans jobs, contribute to economic growth and increase revenue. this will legislation takes steps to move our country forward on a path towards energy independence. this legislation will streamline the onshore permitting process and ensure energy products can be permitted in a timely fashion. it will instill regulatory certainty into the leasing process by ensuring that b.l.m. leases a minimum number of acres annually. and it will allow energy

developers to move forward with energy production. it also requires the secretary to develop a four-year plan for energy development, opens up the national petroleum reserve in alaska for production and modernizes the process by allowing b.l.m. to conduct lease sales through the internet. the regulations have become so burdensome that count r companies are avoiding this land. oil and gas production are down under barack obama under federal land by 6% and 28% respectively. in a state like my home state of colorado with a significant amount of federal land, this is a problem because less energy production means less jobs and less growth. this bill injects much-needed certainty into nearly every step of the energy production process. s will ensure timely approval

and prohibits the secretary from changing lease terms and ensures that our nation has a plan for an energy future. i urge all my colleagues to support this critical legislation. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i have no additional speakers. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield four minutes to another member of the resources committee, the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, chairman hastings for yielding time and time on this critical matter. i'm pleased that nime planning for energy act was incorporated to fuel an america that works

act. this final package seeks to put in place a responsible energy plan that reduces gas prices and other energy costs for consumers while spurring economic groith and job creation. unlocking our vast economic resources will lead us to closer energy independence. the legislation before us would unleash the potential of thousands of new jobs and establish a reliable, affordable and secure source of american energy through responsible production. as americans make plans to celebrate our nation's independence next week, they are noticing the gasoline prices rising. many people are facing $3.50 to $4 .00 a gallon. sadly, this upward trend has been steady for the last several years. fortunately, this does not have to be the case. nature and entrepreneurial ingenuity have created the potential for america to take

complete control of its energy future. this legislation will enhance the energy reserves by removing overly burdensome regulatory barriers that stand in the way of developing our nation's developing energy infrastructure. incorporated in this package, my act seeks to establish an all of the above energy plan. using federal lands to meet america's energy needs. under title 2, the nonpartisan energy administration will be required to provide the secretaries of interior and agriculture the projected energy needs of the united states for the next 30 needs years. the secretaries will establish environmentally responsible energy production plans. the bill allows for energy development on public lands in order to promote the energy and national security of the united states. in accordance with the standard

established by the federal land policy management act, requires that all energy resources including wind, solar, geothermal, oil, natural gas, coal, oil shale and others be included in the plan. these goals would be established and accomplished responsibly. without repealing a single environmental regulation or review process. energy production on federal lands has declined significantly. additionally, the drastic increase in regulations imposed by this administration is having a detrimental effect across the board. a recent study showed the regulatory burden on americans is costing our economy about $1.8 trillion. colorado and our western neighbors are home to vast energy reserves that are tapped responsibly and fuel our nation's recovery and ensure the

united states remains competitive. by promoting a commonsense regulatory framework and research and development and applying environmental and safety standards already on the books rather than adding costly new mandates we can meet america's energy needs at home. providing energy and economic security that will benefit american families. america's energy capabilities are being strangled and rising gas prices are one of the consequences. a true all of the above energy strategy that unleashes our resources will help our businesses and families to come. the nation and the prosperity of its citizens requires a plan that responsibly increases production on federal land. and while we are doing this on federal lands, it is going go to be streamlining the efficiencies and red tape as well.

this legislation puts people to work, putting people in america first, keeping energy costs low for families and businesses and strengthening our national security. i urge immediate passage of this bill. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: the gentleman is the last speaker? mr. hastings: i have no further requests for time. mr. defazio: i will close. fairly brief. nothing has refuted the points i made earlier. in fact, the gentleman from south carolina made the point about high diesel prices. well, if he would hashingen back to a time when diesel was actually cheaper than gasoline, now we are exporting in the advice vicinity of one million

barrels a day. the price of diesel is up because we are paying the world price. if we exported 2 million, the price wouldn't go down and you would have the problem with speculators, 60 cents a gallon, that would be diesel. and gasoline goes directly to speculators on wall street, those friday frequency traders that are so vital to our economy. and we do have a few statistics just to keep it straight, gasoline production was at a record high in may, but unfortunately gas prices were pretty darn high. nd this is from the energy information administration. and they quote the american petroleum institute, now this is a group that wants to begin to export crude oil. so if we produce more crude oil,

we'll put it into the world market or sell it to china so they can refine it, and that will somehow inflate us against price spikes because we will be flooding the world oil market with oil that is produced cheaply here but exported high but we pay the same price. but that's another problem. but any way, the chief economist for a.p.i. said, we have developed a good export market. so we produce more gasoline than demand warrants, yet the price is up. go figure. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: let me make a couple of points. my good friend from oregon is right, that we have debated these issues on the floor

before. we have passed these bills, the offshore bill and onshore bill with bipartisan support but there is a pattern in this congress that we are trying to break, because we know that any legislation cannot become law until the house acts on it and the senate acts on it and those bills are awaiting action in the senate. so hope springs aterge. maybe we put these things together and maybe have some reform on the offshore regulation, maybe, just maybe, the senate will come to some sort of resolution and say we will pass these bills together. that's the hope we have here and that's the hope that will happen. i want to make a couple of points that hasn't really been made here in the debate today. and we need to understand that crude oil is a global product. therefore, subject to global price pressures.

but there's also one other factor that is rarely mentioned and the global market is controlled by one cartel and that is opec and they control 45% of the world market. now we know from basic economics, whether you are talking about other commodities where there is a cartel holding prices up, the best way to beat cartels is to outsupply the cartels. when you do that's correct you have less speculation in the marketplace. that has been proven over time. the point we are making with the potential resources we have in america, we have the opportunity to start the process of outsupplying cartels. that is what is so important in this debate and that's why we should act on these bills and that's why the senate should act on these bills. and timely, the last point, when

we do have leases in this country, it takes a long time from the standpoint when the lease is let until you produce oil or produce any product whatsoever. at the start of this legislation, back in 2009, this administration had the benefit of the lease sales that went into place under the bush administration. so this administration had the benefit of high production on federal lands because of the work of the bush administration for eight years before that. but as i mentioned in my opening remarks. resales have gone down and production have gone down and despite the five-year plan introduced by the president, it will probably take more time. we will see more of a decrease on production on federal lands. that's why this bill is needed so much. mr. chairman, this is legislation that the house has faced in the past and passed with bipartisan support. we need to do it again because

with rising gas prices, this is an answer to the long-term rising gas prices and energy prices in this country. with that, mr. chairman. i urge adoption of the bill and i yield back. the chair: actual time for general debate has expired. mr. hastings: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the committee is on the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the committee ises. 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. 4899 directs me to report that it has to resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 4899 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 1681, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the united states government and the office of the director of national intelligence, the central intelligence agency retirement and disabilities system, and for other purposes. e speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. gingrey of georgia for today, mr. kilmer of washington for today and tomorrow, mrs. kirkpatrick for today and tomorrow, and mr. thompson of pennsylvania for after noon today and for the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. pocan: thank you, mr. speaker. i am here today on behalf of both the progressive caucus and the quality caucus as we are here today to talk about june being national pride month, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender pride month. we have had a lot of victories. one year ago thursday, tomorrow, is the year anniversary of the supreme court decision that ensured that people could have their marriages recognized by the

federal government. we've also had a number of states in the last year, bringing us up to 19 states and the district of columbia where you can legally be married in this country and several others that have approved it but are currently in the legal status, including my home state of wisconsin. we've had a big year in michael sam was the first openly gay person to be drafted into the nfl. so we've had a lot of successes in the last year since our last pride. and we're here today to talk about that and what an important contribution to this country we have from our gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgendered citizens. we've had a number of projects that we still have to get done until everyone has access to full equality in this country we have not provided equal treatment under the law to each and every person, as we would expect. we still have a number of

states where you can be fired simply for being gay or lesbian. michael sam, as much as he's filely made it into the nfl, could be fired in a number of states in this country under current law. we still have too many students and too many youth who attempt suicide, bullied in school. we have to make sure they have equal access to a quality education. and we still have too much uneven treatment, depending what state you live in, whether or not your family is recognized, whether you're in wisconsin or massachusetts, the law is different. certainly at the state level. we're here today to talk about this, the many successes we had and the challenges we still yet have. i am very happy to be joined by a number of colleagues today. i'd like to yield some time, if i could, right off the bat to one of my colleagues who has en an outspoken advocate for equality, mr. al green from the great state of texas.

. green: i appreciate your time and leadership to bring equality to all persons, regardless of who they are, where they're from or where they happen to be at a given point in time. believe that one god created all of humanity to live in harmony regardless of sexuality. i believe that human rights are not conferred by a state. i don't think they are accorded by a constitution. i think that human rights are birthrights, and these are rights that one acquires simply by being born a child of god. and as such i believe that all human beings deserve dignity and respect. all human beings deserve equality under the law, regardless of who you are, regardless of your race, creed, color, national origin,

sexuality. i believe that we, who hold ourselves as people of good will, should do all that we can to make sure that every person on the planet earth is treated fairly and with a great degree of dignity. to this end, i'm proud to have filed in the congress of the united states of america h.res. 416, which recognizes the month of june and celebrates it as lgbt pride month. i'm proud to say that this resolution has been co-sponsored by 25 members of congress, including all seven co-chairs of the equality caucus. i'm also proud to tell you that the honorable barney frank, who was an openly gay member of congress and chaired the financial services committee,

is an honorary sponsor of this legislation. and i'd like to, if i may, my dear friend and brother, i'd like to just give some indication as to what the resolution does so that persons who may not be familiar, who may not have an opportunity to per reuss certain records and documents -- peruse certain records and documents hear what this resolution does. this resolution specifically recognizes the proprotestors activists at the stonewall, june, 1968, as some of the pioneers of the movement. it celebrates the creation of gay rights organizations in major cities in the aftermath of the stonewall uprising. it highlights the importance of the american psychiatric association removing homo sexuality from its --

homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. it recognizes elaine noble as the first lgbt candidate elected to a state legislature and barney frank to come up as an openly gay member of congress in 197. it highlights the importance -- congress in 1987. it highlights the importance of eliminating the ban on hiring gay persons in most federal jobs in 1975. it celebrates harvey milk, making national news when he was sworn in as an openly gay member of the san francisco board of supervisors on january 8 of 1978. it praises the thousands of activists who participated in the national march on washington for lesbian and gay rights, to demand equal civil rights in 1979 as the national march on washington to demand

that president reagan address the aids crisis in 1987. it highlights the importance of 1980 democratic national convention where democrats took a stance in support of gay rights. it highlights the importance of the supreme court ruling in roma vs. evans in may of 1996 which found the colorado constitution amendment -- constitutional amendment preventing the enactment of protection for gays and lesbians as unconstitutional. it celebrates the vermont becoming the first -- celebrates vermont becoming the first state to recognize gay and lesbian couples. it highlights the importance of laurence vs. texas in june of twee which found that -- 2003 which found that under the 14th amendment states could not criminalize the private intimate relations of same-sex couples. it goes on to do many other

things, but i want to focus now on something that i think the resolution should do. it is my hope that i will live to see the day that this resolution will not only be spoken of in congress in the month of june, that it will actually come to the floor of the congress of the united states of america, that it will pass the united states of america because on that day we will have taken one more step toward equality for all of humanity. on that day we will have taken another step toward making real the great american ideal of liberty and justice for all. on that day we will have taken a step toward making real the concept that all persons are created equal and endowed by their creator by certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. on that day, when we pass this resolution in the congress of the united states of america, we will have said to the world

that the united states of america understands and recognizes the human rights of persons regardless of their sexuality. i thank you for the opportunity to give these expressions, and i pray to live to see the day that this resolution will pass the congress of the united states of america. mr. pocan: and thank you, representative green, not only because you've been a veteran fighter for civil rights for everyone in this country, but i believe that's the first time that that resolution has been introduced in the body of congress, to recognize this month as pride month. and we appreciate all the hard work you've done to make sure that happens, and i agree with you, i look forward to the day that we actually get a chance to vote on that in the month of june and make sure we recognize everyone in this country. so thank you for your contributions. mr. green: i thank you very much. i look forward to working with you and other members of congress to give us the opportunity to have a vote on the resolution. thank you very much. mr. pocan: thank you. it's interesting when he talked

about the historical aspect of why this month is so important, he mentioned the stonewall riots. in fact, this saturday, june 28, will mark the 45th anniversary of the stonewall riots which is often seen as the real birth of the movement for equality for the gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. he mentioned harvey milk who just this year was recognized on a stamp by the u.s. government, the u.s. postal service so we can recognize the many contributions that harvey milk made for this country so so many people can be out and run for office. i'd like to remind people in my home state of wisconsin, one of the things we talk about each coast and the many things that have been done for people for equality for those who are lgbt, my state of wisconsin, we were the state that sent the first person who ran out for congress, tammy baldwin, the u.s. house, the first person elected to the u.s. senate in tammy baldwin. with my election, tammy

baldwin, a republican, steve gunderson, who came out while he was in office, we have sent more openly gay and lesbian people to congress than any other state in the country. and that's from the heartland, the state of wisconsin. so we're really proud of this entire country from coast to coast and especially in the heartland. we are trying to do everything we can to make sure that everyone is treated with respect and dignity, and they have the liberty to live their lives to the fullest. and that's exactly what this month is about. i would like to yield some time to another one of my colleagues who has been a hard-working fighter on behalf of equality for every single person. in fact, i think he may have a distinction of being the first person to fly a rainbow flag outside of his office here in washington, d.c., have it outside of his door of his office. he's been a tremendous fighter from the long beach area of california and a very good friend of mine, i'd like to yield some time to my colleague from the great state of

california, representative alan lowenthal. mr. lowenthal: thank you, congressman. it's an honor to be here, it's an honor to work with you on lgbt issues and all issues before the congress. but you know, as you point out, this is an historic time we're living through. this month, as you point out, marks lgbt pride month, a time for all of us to come together and remember the struggles for inclusion and the steps we're taking together to promote equality today, tomorrow and for generations to come. also, as you pointed out, marks the 45th anniversary of the stonewall riots in new york, the riots in june of 1969, were a turning point for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community and also for its allies and friends and family. this is a moment when the

community came together and stood up and said, no, no to intolerance, no to homophobia, no to homophobic public policies. so much has changed since that night at the stonewall inn. today, the egregious defense of marriage act has been overturned by the united states supreme court, and marriage equality has come to 20 states, including my home state of california. . pleased to say i had been -- had the honor witnessing the marriage of a loving couple, lesbian, lgbt community. the momentum for marriage equality is continuing and we are living through a time where change is before us. i was listening to the discussions before the united states supreme court on doma and

proposition 8, and i was so caught up and offended by people not wanting to provide equality when they would testify, that i said i would fly the pride flag, from that day forward until equality is attained by all people, especially by the lgbt community and that flag still flies today. and equality, although, there have been great strides is still not here. there is no federal law that explicitly protects people from employment discrimination. congress now has the unique opportunity to change that and make history. the employment nondiscrimination 205 as now as you now over bipartisan co-sponsors and ban all workplace diss nation against the lgbt community.

this is the march towards equality that will change the way in which we deal with all of our brothers and sisters and will increase and provide the ignity that the lgbt community deserves. just recently, president obama indicated that he is soon to issue an executive order regarding lgbt discrimination, that he will ban all federal contractors from disscrame naturing against employees based on gender and sexual orientation. he has added protections that rotects the lgbt community and repeals old military policy of don't ask don't tell. these are great steps and living through a time of great change, but now it's congress' turn to go act so we can finally change

this inequality. we need to take the next step towards ending discrimination now and forever. i thank you for giving me this time and i yield back. mr. pocan: thank you so much. you have been an outstanding advocate for your constituents and including the lgbt community. as representative loan that will mentioned, we need a bill the enda. in 29 states in this country, you can still be fired simply because of your sexual orientation and 33 states, based on your gender identity. and this is 2014. our country has moved far beyond the fact that you can be fired simply because of who you love. in fact, most people assume this is already the law of the land, yet it's not the law of the

land. and depending what state you live in, depends on whether you can have discrimination against you and that is wrong. the enda bill has support of every democrat in the house, eight republican members have signed on as sponsors and if that bill were to come to this floor, mr. speaker, there would be the votes to pass this bill. the problem is, getting it to the floor of congress. right now, we are not able to do that. the republican majority has not allowed that bill to come to the floor. we know and we feel confident there are the votes to pass that in this house if we could only get it on the floor. we could join the 90% of fortune 500 companies that provide for equal treatment for their employees and the fact that 82% of the public, the u.s. public supports this, is far past due to make sure we protect each and

every person with these protections. another thing that representative lowenthal said, the obama administration, president obama and vice president biden have been outspoken advocates for equal treatment under the law for each and every single person. when year ago tomorrow, when the supreme court decision came out, i was outside the supreme court as the decision was declared and i remember going back to my office and that day we were on the phone with the president and his administration telling us how they were going to make sure that the supreme court decision would be implemented into law as quickly and as humanly as possible. and i can tell you that has certainly happened. just last week, the obama administration released a report, on the implementation of the windsor decision of how federal agencies have moved to implement the law.

we have had tremendous progress in virtually every area. and while we still have areas to move forward, specifically in social security and veterans benefits, we are making sure that the supreme court decision is implemented in the laws of the land so everyone is treated equally. the fact that president obama and vice president biden have made it such a priority that everyone is treated with respect and dignity in this country is amazing and why we have got the progress that we have. and if only this congress could get the employee nondiscrimination bill on the floor, i know this congress would pass in a very bipartisan need the very protection that we need. the president in the last two weeks made sure that some of those protections are in place. equality caucus has long asked the president, could we possibly do an executive order to make

sure that anyone who does business as a federal contractor provides protections for gay and lesbian employees just as should happen under the law. and the fact that this congress can't act doesn't moon this congress can't act. something has to happen to fill that vacuum and the white house said they will be drafting an executive order to make sure that any federal contractor does not discriminate based on their sexual orientation. we have to make sure every one of those states that doesn't provide those protections, does provide those protections under the law. another area in the federal government that we need to do more is specifically a number of bills that have been introduced by a number of members across this country to make sure that everyone is respected again under that court decision, no matter what you do for a living that you have that respect and dignity. representative nadler has

introduced a respect for marriage act that those who live in states that are not recognized can be recognize. my husband and i were married in 2006 in toronto. my state still has hate in its constitution but we are recognized for the thousand rights and responsibilities. but the 213 under state law are in limbo despite the fact that a federal judge ruled our marriage ban is still unconstitutional and until that decision gets made, people who have gotten married and before that, hundreds and hundreds more can still have those recognition of those benefits that we have consistency in the law. there are other bills i'm going to talk about as we go through this hour. but i would like to yield to another one of my colleagues, one from the state of rhode

island, first served as the mayor of providence and a member of congress and someone who is an outstanding advocate for equality for each and every person in this country, i yield to david cicilline. mr. cicilline: i thank you for yielding. and we certainly have a lot to celebrate in terms of progress for fully equality for the lgbt community. we are now living in a country where in 19 states and the district of columbia, individuals are afforded full marriage equality. we have work to do here, as you were just mentioning, by passing this and repeal doma and legislatively do what the windsor case requires and we have work to pass the nng employment discrimination act

and no one loses their job because of their sexual orientation and i compliment the president on his executive order that will ensure that this employment discrimination does not occur in the federal workplace. this president has provided extraordinary leadership on our collective effort to bring full equality to our community. >> this is an issue around the world where members of our community are subjected to imprisonment, physical violence, sometimes imposition of death sentences for certain criminal provisions solely because they are gay or lesbian and one of the things that we have to continue to do is promote the principle of equality around the world and ensure that no one is persecuted or imprisoned or beaten because of who they are

and places are all around the world and we are seeing in places like russia and other inces in the world an uptick anti-lgbt activities. and while we celebrate pride in our country and the accomplishments of members of our community, that we have to recognize that is not the case for our brothers and sister around the world. we have made extraordinary progress. you are a member of the equality caucus. that we now have seven openly gay members in the house. one member in the united states senate. in total, we have for the first time in our history, executive director, a paid staff member who is responsible for helping to promote our agenda for free equality of our community, educate our colleagues towards legislation that is important to our community. and that is historic progress

that would not have happened, but for the work of a lot of individuals, a lot of organizations like the human rights campaign and others who have helped to ensure that members of our community are elected to public office. and reflects the great diversity of our country and you are an important co-chair of the equality caucus and i would say to the gentleman that you take on more than your share of the responsibility for advocating for a leadership role. and thank you for the work you do in representing your constituents and i think we all come here with the first responsibility to our constituents and doing everything we can to represent the people that send us to washington and at the same time we come here with the characteristics and traits and life experiences and we work hard to be sure that everyone in america is treated fairly and we

have access to the same responsibilities and privileges as everyone else and that's what the equality caucus does. and this is a year for great celebration and i end by thanking our president who having more than any president in the history of our country, helped to advance the equality of lgbt individuals in the workplace, marriage and implementing the windsor case d advancing programs against bullying and ensuring that the lgbt community is reflected throughout his administration and i think there is no question that president obama will go down in history as the president who has done more to advance full equality to our community and we should be mindful of that and i thank him for his leadership. and with that, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back. mr. pocan: thank you,

representative cicilline. you are a point person in this congress and making sure we respect that those who may be lesbian or gay or transgendered. one of six people who had rights lost them because of countries like russia and india and other countries across our great globe and it's a great concern. while we are having progress here, it is leaving people behind. one of those countries that is a country that has not gone forward in area of equal treatment of their citizens is the country of burnai. it is part of the negotiations, a trade deal, that is offered to trade deals that we have something in common with, and not only have increased trade,

but you want to make sure they somehow reflect your values. and the country just implemented shari'a law, which includes the stoning of gays and lesbians in their country. and this is something that we have great concern. and there was a bipartisan letter recently signed by 119 members of this body that went to both secretary kerry and the u.s. trade republic specifically saying, why are we rewarding something that is considered such a prize to have status in trading with us as one of the countries we are going to put into a trade agreement when they have terrible human rights conditions. looks like we're maybe going backwards in india and some other countries. certainly they advocate the

stoning of gays and less boo -- lesbians. that's truly a backward idea and something this country needs to do everything we can to change. i'm glad that so many of our colleagues in a bipartisan way did that. some of the other bills that members of congress have introduced to try to address some of the issues that we need to move forward on, representive titus from nevada has interested the veterans houses equal treatment act -- spouses -- veterans' spouses equal treatment act. make sure that everyone has their family relationship recognized and that that treatment is ex tebledsed to their spouses -- extended to their spouses. representative walz also has protecting the freedoms and benefits for all veterans act. military spouses equal tweement act. all trying to make -- treatment act. all trying to make sure that if you serve this country and you are a gay or lesbian citizen and you have the same benefits and rights offered to your family as offered to the other members of the military. there's also a bill from

representative ron kind of wisconsin, the social security and marriage equality act, trying to address the other problem that we have within social security, to make sure that everyone has those benefits offered to their life partners, their husbands or wives, in same-sex relationships. right now that is not -- that has not happened yet since that windsor decision and it needs to happen and we're moving forward on that. there's a bill that i've introduced that specifically is looking to restore honor to service members act. one of the i think uglier parts of our nation's history when it comes to treatment of folks who may be gay or lesbian has been the fact that we had for so long a policy and previous to that outright discrimination against gays or lesbians who choose to serve this country in the military. under president clinton we implemented don't ask, don't tell. but that still didn't fix it so you could serve openly in the military. and finally when don't ask,

don't tell was repealed and anyone was able to serve in the military, regardless of their sexual orientation, we found that 114,000 people, since world war ii, in this country were discharged with something honorable -- different than the honorable discharge they should have received for their service to this country. because we so often let people go previously out of the military because they were gay or lesbian, with either a dishonorable discharge, other than honorable or some other status. don't forget, a dishonorable discharge in some states is the same as a felony, can take away your ability to vote. takes away your ability to have veterans benefits, even though you served this country well. so there is a process now that people can get that status changed to the honorable status they should have received. but it's a complicated process and while it's in place under this current president, a future president can change it because it's not actually in statute and often people have to go and hire a lawyer because it is a complicated process.

so we've introduced a bill to make sure that we really treat all those veterans with respect and honor they deserve for treating this country in the way they did, by putting their life on the line to do everything they could to make sure that we have the liberty that we all have, that they should now have the liberty that they deserve and have that record changed. and that's a bill that we're also trying to get done, that we think is very important in moving forward. but this is a historic month. when we have pride month, we try to recognize the many areas that not only have we moved forward on, but also what we still need to improve. and i think by talking about some of the bills that still have to move forward, to make sure that everyone has that equal treatment under the law, again, those things include equal treatment for employment, which is why we have the employee nondiscrimination act. 29 states in this country you can still be fired simply because of who you love. we have too many students who

are still being bullied in school and the suicide rate among lgbt youth is much higher than youth in general. and we have to help restore that. and it shouldn't matter what state you live in, whether or not your family is recognized. so if you live in wisconsin that unfortunately still has hate in our state constitution, the fact that i live there, with my husband, doesn't mean i should be treated any differently than if i lived in illinois or minnesota or iowa, neighboring states that all recognize the relationships, rarledless of who you love. these -- regardless of who you love. these are all things we still need to get done in this country and we need to do that in this body, mr. speaker, in this congress. we need to get these bills to the floor and pass them and move on from what i think at one point in this history was a certain way to get out certain voters. there's a certain constituency that was built around hate. we need to move beyond that. and i think many people have. and while the democratic party

certainly i think has been a party of inclusion and moved in a positive way, i think i'm seeing that happen among republicans, but we need to have the leadership of this house also moving. we had a republican member just yesterday who has been a strong supporter of equality for all people just win his republican primary. that's important. because he has been an outspoken voice for equality and, representative hanna, i'm glad you won your primary, you stood up for your values and your constituents supported you and i think it's time that more of our colleagues, especially on the republican side of the aisle, need to also stand up for what's right. because we all have colleagues and we all have constituents who are gay and lesbian, bisexual or transgendered and we can't pick and choose who we represent. you support and you represent every single person in your district. and when you don't support full equality, you're really not standing up for each and every constituent and that is truly

unfortunate. but, to end, i really want to focus again on those successes. we have had a tremendous year. we have had so much progress. from the supreme court decision depktly -- exactly one year ago tomorrow, where we have now had a number of states just in the last year move towards full marriage equality. where we've had a country where michael sam could finally be the first openly gay person drafted into the nfl. where we've been able to move forward in so many areas. this is because society has moved. a majority of people in this country support marriage equality. i think the last i saw was 58% of the people. but even more important, 81% of people 30 and under support marriage equality. that's where this country is going. we want to treat everyone with respect and dignity and allow them the liberty to live their lives and until we do that for every single citizen, we have

not reached the goal of treating everyone with equality and equal treatment under the law. but with this time that we've had, the progressive caucus, and the equality caucus, i wanted to share some time with our members so we could make sure we celebrate this pride month and all of our constituents who may be gay or lesbian, by sexual or transgendered and say thank you for all you do. we're going to continue to fight for your equality. not only in this body in congress, but throughout society and with that, mr. speaker, i would yield time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentleman from arizona, mr. guesser -- mr. gosar, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the one-year anniversary of the tragic yarnel hill fire which

took the lives of 19 firefighters in late june of 2013. the fire began when lightning struck approximately 30 miles southwest of prescott, arizona, off of highway 89 on june 28, 2013. the blaze burned approximately 8,400 acres and danieled more than 1,000 structures -- damaged more than 1,000 structures over a 50-day period. during the disaster 19 firefighters from the granite mountain hot shot agency crew lost their lives. the six deadliest -- sixth deadliest arizona wildfire overall. this historic day yielded the largest loss of fire fight life since september 11, 2001. to this day words cannot essex -- express my sadness and the depth of micon dolences to the families of these brave first responders. i will certainly remember this horrible tragedy for the rest of my life, as well as the

public memorial service that was attended by more than 1,200 members of our community. these brave men made the ultimate sacrifice fighting to protect our citizens and for that we will be eternally grateful. even though a year has passed, please continue to keep the families of these hot shot firefighters in your prayers. furthermore, i ask that the federal agencies responsible for actively managing our forests not forget this tragedy. and take the steps to prevent similar catastrophic wildfires from reoccurring. the citizens of yarnel, arizona, and the surrounding communities know all too well the importance of proactive wildlife management and while the wildfire that claimed the lives of 19 brave souls was one of the worst tragedies in the history of arizona, millions more across the country are also impacted by these disasters. looking back over the past year, it is important to highlight what progress has been made in finding commonsense solutions to preventing wildfires while still acknowledging the reality that most -- that more must and can be done.

we owe it to our local heroes who risked everything in order to protect our lives, our communities and our homes. congress still needs to consider additional legislation that will work to get the executive branch out of the way when action must be taken swiftly. this problem can be mitigated by empowering the private sector to create rural jobs and to resurrecting the timber industry as loggers spend -- thin millions of acres of badly overgrown arizona forests. although we are never going to prevent all forest fires, these legislative efforts will help make fires less frequent, less intense when they do occur. i remain optimistic that above all else, the heroic actions of the granite mountain hot shots will continue to inspire our leaders to make the necessary changes to prevent future devastation and destruction. we owe nothing less to these heros. more importantly, i will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that their legacies live on and yield substantial forest management changes. i would like to conclude my

remarks by reading the names and ages of these 19 firefighters in tribute to their service. andrew ashcroft, age 29. robert caldwell, age 23. travis carter, age 31. dustin ded for, age 24. christopher mackenzie, age 30. eric marsh, age 43. grant mckee, age 21. sean misner, age 26. scott norris, age 28. wade parker, age 22. john percin, age 24. anthony rose, age 23. jesse steed, age 36. joe thurston, age 32. travis turbyfill, age 27. william wornky, age 25. clayton, age 28.

evin roadway jeck, age 21. garrett, age 27. all these brave men were taken from us way too young, leaving behind families and friends. let us never forget their sacrifice. mr. speaker, with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from arizona, mr. swike earth, is recognized -- schweikert, is recognized for the remainder of the hour. shikeshike thank you. my colleague from -- swikeswike thank you. my colleague from arizona -- mr. swike earth: my colleague from -- mr. schweikert: thank you. my colleague from arizona who is an amazing leader, i appreciate him putting that into the record for all of us in arizona. i wanted to do something a

little different tonight. a few months ago we came to the floor here and sort of walked through what was really going on in the math. and one of the things that sort of enrages me is so much of the ebate we have here in congress are the noise. you actually -- we talk about this issue or that issue. when we have the 10,000-pound gorilla in front of us and that's what's happening to us fiscally. right now, and i'm going to be using a lot of numbers tonight, and we're going to try to put as many of these on our facebook page and website so folks can actually see these chart, thank you for the help here, first off, if this were one year ago, we were having discussions of what was the fiscal year for 2014 deficit going to be? and we had some folks making these optimistic projects -- projections that we were only

going to be in the $400 billion-some shortfall that year. still a stunning amount of oney. and it's only gotten worse. remember, we were to be on the way out. income was getting better. taxes are up. we just hit the all-time high receive news, ever, for the united states. so what could possibly be wrong? then this last april, the projection of the deficit for this fiscal year was $492 billion. hen in may, it was $648 bill ion. and with today's news that the first quarter g.d.p. was down, was negative, went down. growth in our economy went down, 2.9%. that is a stunning amount of g.d.p. to lose.

we were going to be giddy if we were over 2%. nd we had a negative g.d.p. of 2.%. i'm going to make you a projection and a prediction, that when we end the 2014 fiscal year, we aren't going to be much different than they were last year. all these discussions that it's getting better and with all these new taxes, the fiscal burdenen is going to get better, it's not in the math. it's not showing up. so this is important. so i wanted to actually walk through a little reality check here and to show you how disappointed i am on so much of the discussion that you will hear here in washington. bear with me as i grab some of these notes. see the chart next to me? if i came to you right now and

said, tell me what you think the debt and unfunded liabilities are for the country -- we can all go to these web sites with the debt clock and it will say the unfunded liabilities and the debt for the united states is about $127 trillion. well there was a study done, and it was done over at george mason, and it was done at the beginning of the year. the number is $205 trillion that we're about to dump on the heads of our kids and grandkids. what should terrify you about this number -- let's find a way to talk about this. if i said our unfunded liabilities are debt and the promises we've made in this government are $205 trillion, go

on a search engine right now and search what's the entire wealth of the world. and mr. speaker, you are going to pull up estimates that it could be $167 -- i saw one that it was 180, $180 trillion. what we have promised in benefits, promised in spending, which we already borrowed is greater than the wealth of the world today. process that. if you right now grabbed every penny of the wealth of the world, it would not put enough money in the bank to cover the promises we made as a government. got to understand this. this is -- this should be the discussion of our time, and yet it's uncomfortable. and look, i'm in my second term,

and let's have a moment of brutal honesty. what do most elected officials -- what do we focus on? being re-elected. when you stand up in front of a room -- you know the pollsters and the political consultants tell us talk about something that is easy because big numbers scare people and because of that, you lose votes. if you talk about what is happening in the entitlements and talk about $205 trillion ing the unfunded debt, schweikert, you are likely to be unelected. we have to tell our voters and constituents the truth, that the single biggest issue facing your government is the debt and the explosion of the niflets. i'm going to spend time talking about what's really driving this.

just how do you get to this? and part of this, this is what you would look like if you use honest g.a.p. accounting. if i said to you, the country, if you go on the debt clocks on the web, you see we are about $17.5 trillion of board money, trillion, we stole it out of medicare but $17.5 trillion. but let's do simple bhagget, social security. social security trust fund, with the benefits we have promised $23 trillion bout underfunded, ok. so my $17.5 trillion of hard debt right now and the $23

trillion we owe and if we were doing g.a.p. accounting, like we all learned hopefully in accounting classes, you are looking at $40 trillion that you would put on to this number, because that would be honest. but that drrs 23 trillion that we owe to social security areas that we do not have the -- beneficiaries, we just pretend, we owe it, but we aren't going to tell the public about it. that's the g.a.p. accounting. when we do accounting like every business, every charity would have to do, that's how you get to real numbers and to understand the real situation that the government, that people, the beneficiaries and those in congress should be dealing with today. . speaker, why is this not

working? why the problem? let's actually go to the next chart and maybe this will sort of help, because we have had so many discussions. you remember all the rhetoric that was around this place before the 2012 presidential race and the election, how much better everything was getting, how much better the jobs situation, these debts and deficits will start to become under control. well, it just wasn't true. the political class, probably for re-election, heaven knows the president did, we misled the people. we didn't tell the people about basic math. we are going to talk about what is going on in this these charts. think about the last year or two. what has happened out there, when even we have succeeded at getting good legislation, bipartisan legislation passed

through the house, getting our brothers and sisters in the senate to actually work with us, and getting the president's signature. something like the jobs act. passed it three years ago. think about this. little things that were going to help the little individual like crowd funding, some of the mechanics where we were trying to help capital formation like the little guy. where the upstart growing businesses. what happened? they got lost in the bureaucracy. some activists on the left said, oh, we are scared of this. and we took away the option atlantay of everyone out there to grow that business out of their house, out of their garage. it brikes my heart. something as simple as funding has had so many rules and regulations, even though we were

supposed to have the rules two years ago. think about it. even when congress has gotten it right. this president and the bureaucracies he has controlled he has appointed, continue to get y the optionality to this government out of their way and get this economy growing. i know how hard it is for those folks watching on television or those sitting in the back row, these are hard to read, but what's important about this? the blue line here is our projection a year ago. we were actually projecting that that debt -- exoose me the deficits and debt were actually going to get better. and then, when we hard to start doing our recalculation and realizing the economy is not growing. it is not producing the economic

expansion, the economic wealth that we need in this country to cover the promises we've made, that became the red line. but now we need to do the next part of the discussion of what really goes on in government math. you do realize the government math, the budget protections, the debt projections that are put out. i'm going to be fairly harsh here -- border on fraut. fraud. this red line is based on current law. you do realize in current law, something we call the s.g.r., doctors x, we expect to expect 73% less to see a medicare patient. that's the current law. that's the reason why this line goes. we expect this fantasy to take

place. the reality is how many you think a doctor is going to see a medicare patient? for 73% less? it's just not happening. we'll run here to the floor and say we have to make sure the seniors have access to their doctors and are covering their costs and we'll fix that d omp c fix in another year. and the reason it doesn't happen is because all of a sudden, the math changes again. fake get the benefit of math. we know we made the promise there is going to be this health care within medicare. and then we put out these fancy charts. and i see some of my brothers and sisters talking about the numbers that they are handed. and when you start to grind in

what's underneath those numbers we are given, you start to realize, then they say this is based on current law, you got to understand, inside that current law are things that are implausible. and look at the medicare's report and go to the last two, three pages and the head makes it very clear that the projections in the report because the projections in the report are based on current law are implausible and they used the word year after year that it is implausible. why isn't that not the headline? is it because it oms with big numbers? here's what happens. something our congressional budget office does, the alternative scenario. take things out of current law

and put things in what is going to happen. and other things that are current law that hit the wall, that are unfunded in the future, and we will step up, because the political pressure and adjusts them and raise that spending. what happens when we do that. you get a curve. i know it's hard to see, but just understand that what this means if we hit this alternative scenario, in about 14 years or slightly less, your country hits debt-to-g.d.p. ok, but that's debt-to-g.d.p. that's just what we are booking. we started the conversation, we tell everyone here's the money we are borrowing. that 100% of g.d.p. would not

actually have g.a.p. accounting and would not have the real numbers. because you would understand, if you take social security and our current debt, add those approaching $40 trillion. you do realize that is double your country's g.d.p. right now who are not at 100% g.d.p. if we had 100% accounting. just those two of 100% accounting. how often do you hear us talk about it? this is the issue of our time. and if we don't step up and start dealing with it, i have no idea -- i have no idea what happens in the future when we hit the wall, and we will hit the wall. oh, by the way, understand, if you just add up the debt we have and the unfunded liability in

social security, we are far beyond where greece was. greece was 1.7. debt-to-g.d.p., folks will learn. and that was one of my running jokes from my first year here. i started to realize many of my constituents thought the problem in d.c. was republicans versus democrats and i have grown to believe it's those who own calculateors and those who don't. . why do we seem to fight so much? seriously. why do we seem to fuss with each other so much? and i'm going to make you the argument, it's about the money. and in the next couple of charts i'm going to try to walk through what's really happening in the money and so you understand, if you're tired

with congress fighting with each other about the money, it isn't going away, it's about to get and will continue to get dramatically worse. another chart that's probably almost unreadable from a distance, but understand, here's what you're looking at. do you see the red lines there? the red lines are what we call discretionary. that's what i get to come to the floor and debate over and work on these appropriations bills, where we're trying to move money here, take it away from here, try to save here. that red line is discretionary. that red line is your military. it's your parks, it's the f.b.i., it's things that are not mandatory spending. things that are not entitlements. here's where we are right now. and we used actual 2013. in nine fiscal years, 2024, do

you notice something in the pattern on this chart? do you notice that what we vote on here in congress, the discretionary, is pretty much the same? nine years from now, 10 years from now, it's basically the ame. but what we call mandatory, which is mostly entitlements, and i know some folks -- i will get phone calls tomorrow of folks who are enraged that i used the word entitlements. it's what it is. it's an earned entitlement. but it's still a promise. it's a social contract we made as a government with our people. we just forgot to tell them we didn't have the money to pay it. from here, from , 13, to 2014, that increase we will now be sitting at $2.29

mandatory rease on spending and that's in nonfiscal years. they're huge numbers, but you've got to just follow the chart. what we spend. so someone's passionate about drug research, passionate about the national parks, passionate about securing our borders. passionate about the military. that's in this red line. it is being consumed by mandatory spending. so understand, the simplest way i can phrase this, your government is very quickly becoming a health insurer, an entitlement provider with a shrinking army. process that for a moment. that is where we're at. that's what's going on around us in our lives. so -- and we'll have these charts up hopefully in the next couple days on our website so you can look at them yourselves. but it's important, if you want

to understand public policy in the united states, if you want to understand public policy that's happening here in congress, everything's about the mandatory spending. remember the first board we put up where i was showing you the $205 trillion of unfunded liability and debt? it's important to understand, half that is medicare. medicare right now represents close to $100 trillion of promises we as a government have made and there isn't money to pay for it. and those are in today's dollars. next chart, and we're going to come back and forth through a couple of these so we better understand them. this is actual. this is actually the 2013. you'll notice the red. that's what we all come here and we debate over and we fight over and work through and come

up with ideas, but that's the discretionary. 2% of all of our spending. understand -- forgive me for one second, i need to look at this other board and see which one it is. oh. i was very worried i was about to do this presentation and didn't have the next pie chart. so, to staff, thank you, you guys are amazing. ok. social security, medicare, we don't have the obama subsidies in here yet, but that's one of our newest entitlements and remember we were almost promised that, hey this was ultimately going to be savings, wasn't the truth. medicare, income security, these are food stamps and other types of programs that are entitlements because of where you sit income-wise. veterans' benefits, other mandatory -- certain pensions, certain other requirements we have to meet, mostly in the

retirement side, and interest on the debt. i want you to pay attention, if you can see this, 6% of what we pent in 2013 was interest. i'm going to be retating back and forth, so this is going to get a little -- rotating back and forth, so this is going to get a little awkward with these boards, but this is important to see. oh, you want to come help? it's safer to let you do this because it would be embarrassing to knock everything over. so where will we be in nine fiscal years? so in nine fiscal years, now, this is important, remember, you just saw discretionary spending, this is your military, this is your drug research, this is the f.b.i., this is the border, is 32% of all of our spending. in nine fiscal years, it's 22% of all of our fiscal spending. social security becomes 24% of all of our spending. medicare becomes 17% of our spending. best guess, and this becomes a

moving target right now, the obamacare subsidies, in about nine years, will be about 2% of our federal spending. little different than we were told a couple years ago, right? medicaid, 9% of your entire federal budget. income security, 8%. veterans, 3%. other mandstory, 1% -- mandatory, 1%. and this is the most dangerous part of this chart, do you see interest? remember in the previous chart, we were saying interest is 6% in 2013. how many of you believe today's interest rates are normal? are real? what happens when we go back to normal interest rates? well, this projection is that nine years from now, we will be back at normal interest rates. at that point, 14% of your entire federal government pending is interest.

understand how fragile that makes all future discretionary spending, if we had an interest rate spike. what happens if we were in the early 1980's, late 1970's type of interest rates? this number explodes and it would consume what is sitting in the discretionary budget. as we continue to borrow, as we continue to add to programs and make promises and not set aside money for them, we're squandering our future. and on occasion i get to sit down with an audience where i'll see parents and grandparents and the grandkids and you'll turn to them and say, to the parents here, how many of you love your kids? and most of the hands go up. and then you'll turn to the

grandparents and say, how many of you love your grandkids? and all the hands go up. and then you start to show them these charts. and you turn to the parents and the grandparents and say, do you understand what you've done to your children? what we've done to our grandchildren and what we've done to a generation that's not even born yet? the math right now, just to cover the promises that are already done, this is baked in the cake, this is done, your kids, your grandkids, your unborn children are going to have a 60% mean tax rate and that's not even for the high income, that's for everyone. 60% of your income will cover -- will have to go just to cover this spending. and that's not your state and your local and your fica, , at's just 60% of your income

you'll have a 60% income tax just to cover the promises that are already made and that doesn't pay anything off. that just maintains where we're at. because you start to have things like the net interest that you have to pay. and what happens when interest rates move against us? so for those of us once again who care a lot about the military, care a lot about protecting the border, care about drug research, care about education, care about all these , ngs, if you really do care every time you speak to an elected official, every time you speak to someone with elected ambitions, every time you speak to a poll maker, every time -- policymaker, every time you speak to someone from the press, please ask the question, what are you willing to do about mandatory spending because the mandatory spending, the entitlements are consuming us as a people? and they're consuming your

republic's future. one more time. remember, this is basically nine fiscal years from now. so take a look. here's what actual was for 2013. this is the actual numbers. budget went our to discretionary. that means not -- you know, social security, medicare, medicaid, obamacare, these -- those are the mandatories. 22%. ctually crashes, and this is in nine fiscal years. o what's the solution? the solution actually is pretty obvious and it's really tough. we need the american people to understand, maybe not the math,

but what it means. it's hard to get in front of an audience and say, $1 trillion this, $1 trillion that. how many folks even understand what $1 trillion is? you know, the thousand billion and a million being -- you know, it's -- we -- so many of our brothers and sisters do not understand what these numbers mean. but they need to understand what it means to their future. and that what we're doing today isn't working. these numbers continue to get worse and worse, month by month, because we have policy from this administration and we have policy coming from the u.s. senate where they won't take the pieces of legislation hat we put out of this house that would actually help us tart start -- help us start to grow the g.d.p. so let me give you how simple and how tough the solution is. number one, we're going to have to step up and tell the truth and do something about

andatory spending. and how many politicians, how many consultants out there will say, well, if you talk about medicare you're going to get unelected? wouldn't it be mazing if the public started to understand -- amazing if the public started to understand this and said, if you don't talk about medicare you get unelected? the other thing is you have two things that to to -- potentially start to really grow our economy. the energy renaissance. mr. speaker, what's my time? the speaker pro tempore: 25 minutes are left. mr. schweikert: all right. . have one of my friends here would you like me to yield to you now? >> no, i can wait. mr. schweikert: ok. let me walk through. this is sort of a stream of consciousness, but it's really important. if i had come you to a decade ago, when you'd pick up the newspaper, when you pick up a magazine, when you'd go online, whatever you read, there was

this term called peak oil. do you all remember that? 10, 12 years ago. very simple. the next incremental barrel of oil was going to be less than the day we had before. the world was running out of energy. how many of you out there can tell me, what's wrong with that? seriously. the fact that it was absolutely wrong. we're not running out of energy. as a matter of fact, as of today we have more known fossil fuels than at any time in human history. we have been blessed partially through technology, substantially through technology, and be prepared, there's another wave of technology coming, particularly for natural gas. between now and the end of the decade. that may even make it better and more accessible and hopefully even cheaper. you have an energy renaissance happening in your country. how do i get -- keep congress,

the bureaucrats, the control freaks here in washington from destroying this energy renaissance? and the second thing that's happening is even more complicated to talk about, but i've grown to believe there's an economic renaissance around us, but it's unlike anything we've ever experienced. let's see if i can find way to make this work. we are entering the age of hyperefficient activity. who has used a side car? how many ever used that? you have this will little computer in your hand that on occasion works as a phone, but what about the other things it's doing in business? if i came to you and said, in

the count try, who is the largest pet groomer in the united states? i think it is petsmart? who is the second largest? it's an app on your phone and that's how you access your pet groomer. think about that, and they become the biggest if i came to you right now and you are a policy maker in new york city or hotel owner, would you consider something like r.b.b. a threat to your business? remember the discussions coming out of new york about what it is doing about the bed tax. when you worrying about incumbents who say you need to stop this economy, the incumbents aren't always the businesses but the tax system that is built on the way it is, not the way it is becoming. we had a presentation from one company, i think out of michigan

that had this idea, i think 1,000 tools, where you go online and instead of going down to your favorite hardware store and buying your favorite -- that is actually what i want for my birthday -- you hit it on your phone and rent it from your neighbor. think about that. that's a change in the economy. the sale no longer happened at the hardware store. the manufacturer didn't get to sell it. t you as the consumer, the rernter of that equipment still not have $1,200 in your pocket. do you spend it on other things, investments, your family. there is this rotation happening

all around us. many of them are things that you nd i have not even thought of. will the bureaucracies, will the incumbent businesses show up in legislative bodies, courts, around the country and do everything they can to stop that knew hyperefficient that is around us right now? will they try to put people out of business or the the thousand tools out of business and who knows what is out there. and every day, entrepreneurs in this country are coming up with ideas. but those ideas are restructuring the economy. so let's walk through some of the options we have. we have an energy renaissance and every week in our office we

have people coming to us saying, david, we want you to regulate hydraulic fracturing, it is ruining our investments because we invested in alternative energies and when there are $4.50 long-term investments. money, power, vanity. you would be shocked how much of the public policy so much think it is republican, democrat. it's comb the money. will this congress do everything in its power to maximize this future of the energy renaissance and the revenues that produces, both inbound-out-of-bound or like some of the discussions we saw earlier, let's come up with ways to regulate where we are bringing in revenues from our

own country and around the world. be prepared and think it through. it's so often about, the people supported me on so we need to stop this because it is hurting their investments and the number one thing most elected officials care about, it's their re-election. second half is today here in d.c., the taxi cab industry. spent an hour blocking the roads and honking. my understanding is that a substantial portion of that is the disdain from the competition, from rideshare competition. it's a changing economy. there's going to be displacement in it but with that comes opportunity and the new efficiencies that give us a chance to grow this economy. remember the first thing here. we are $205 trillion upside

down. if we don't get amazing growth, we are never going to provide the promises that we made to 176 million baby boomers that have now begun to retire. now a bit of trivia. my math may be a year out of date, a baby boomer will have put $100 into medicare. my understanding is they will take out $3 $320,000. take that shortfall and multiply it and you just in that one program, you start to see some of the demographic and math problems. how do we start to grow the economy. last part of this is the regulatory zeal that has come from this administration. please, president obama, turn to

your tokes folks and time to rethink this. how many more bad g.d.p. numbers do need? how many more misses on all the projections that the economy is getting better, oh, we are going still tter, oh, we are the same. regulatory overreach on things like waters of the u.s., so many other programs out there coming out of the bureaucracy are crushing the expansion of this economy. my closing pretty simple here. if you care about the future, have the conversation and be willing to open up your mind and understand the math, even though it's uncomfortable, that the

mandatory spending is consuming everything in its path. and if we don't deal with that, at the same time, we don't do everything we can to grow this economy, absolutely vigorously, it could be a very dark day in the future. yet, i'm incredibly optimistic at if we embrace the new hyperefficient economy and the new renaissance and start to understand the regulatory crur ing that has been going on right in front of us, if we deal with those and deal with them honestly, we have an amazing future and we are going to make it through this. with that, i yield to my friend. excuse me, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 3, 2013, the mr. bentivolio. mr. bentivolio: the i.r.s. has lost over two years of emails from at least six employees. and in a master stroke of unluckiness, the i.r.s. claims the only once affected belong to the top officials connected to the targeting of though those that had conservative beliefs. like the first amendment should be protected in order to have a lasting, free democracy. nothing is ever this convenient.

mr. speaker, are we to believe the same entity that can turn the lives of americans upside down to demand seven years of financial and personal records, just lost two years of data from its own employees? mr. speaker, what would happen to your constituents, my constituents or any of our constituents, democrats, republicans or independents, if they were investigating by the i.r.s. and lost two years of data? do you think the i.r.s. would say well, that's ok. i'm sure it was an accident. these things happen. we will drop our investigation now. of course not. and yet that is what the i.r.s. is telling congress. oh, sorry, we lost our data.

oh, well, let's move on. mr. speaker, how can we, as representatives, tell our constituents to cooperate with an entity to cooperate with congress? how can i tell my constituents to hand over personal information about their lives to the i.r.s. when the i.r.s. won't do the same? i will conclude with a simple question with my friends across the aisle, have you know shame? you are -- your entire political outlook is based on the idea that government can work in an unbiased and effective way snl yet when it becomes clear that something isn't quite proper at the most powerful agency in the united states, you simply obscure the investigation instead of joining us in a call for a special prosecutor. when it becomes clear that ordinary citizens engaging in

their natural rights were targeted by a major officer at the i.r.s., and when that official tries to take the fifth amendment to put up roadblocks, you simply play politics. you are worried about poll numbers, rather than the republic. i recently asked the current i.r.s. commissioner, whether or not he believes that i.r.s. workers could remain objective towards a group of american citizens who believe that the i.r.s. should be disbanded. he was come founded by the question. before answering that, they were professional. i have no doubt that the people at the i.r.s. are professionals. the way they attacked conservative groups could only have been done by professionals. let me open my question to all of my friends from across the aisle.

as members of the party of government, do you believe that any person can sustain objectivity towards someone that is a threat to their livelihood. if the answer is yes, join me in calling for a special prosecutor. prove your beliefs with objection and that government can be involved in most aspects of our lives by proving that nol criminal happened at the i.r.s. show the american people that bureaucrats can remain objective in the face of someone telling them that their job shouldn't exist. mr. speaker, our number one job here in congress is to protect the rights of the people, not take them away. it's time for everyone in this chamber to remember that. and with that, thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. do i have a motion to adjourn? those in favor of the motion to adjourn say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. today said he plans to file a lawsuit against president obama because mr. boehner says the president is not faithfully executing the law. despite this, he says republicans do not plan to seek impeachment of the president. speaker boehner's briefing with reporters today was almost 15

minutes. >> good morning, everyone. the situation in iraq continues to worsen by the day. the terrorists seized control of border crossings in syria and in jordan and their march toward bag -- and their march toward baghdad continues. the president has a number of options in front of him. which, if part of a larger regional strategy, i would support. but my concern is whether the president will a decision in time to reverse the terrorist momentum as it sweeps toward baghdad. the president's fond of saying that only the saying only iraqis can solve this problem but we can't pretend this isn't our problem as well.

we've got to be ebb gauged in iraq, it's in our national interest to help reverse the momentum and the spread of terrorism. retreating from the world stable, in my view, is not an option. it only undermine ours allies and leads to more chaos that puts americans at risk. this is part of a bigger problem. if the economy continues to struggle and the president has no plan for economic growth and won't push his party back on the good ideas we have passed here in the house. the i.r.s. targets political opponents, lies about it, and the white house won't lifflet 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 regularly ignore the law, he brags about it and brags about his willingness to change it

unilaterally. first this administration makes the wrong decisions then won't give the american people the straight answers. instead, his arrogance -- it's arrogance and incompetence down the line. i think the americans deserve better. we'll 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. all our solutions are to help family whors still asking the same question -- where are the obs. >> are you talking to president obama and the administration about the actions? can you explain why it's necessary and what you hope to achieve? >> the constitution makes it clear the 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 the executive brample, 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. >> could this lead to an impeachment proceeding against the president? >> this is not about impeachment, it's about him faithfully executing the laws of the country. >> over three days, there's been three separate hearings on the inch r.s. we've heard from the i.r.s. commissioner, the head archivist said it's clear to him they broke though law, still the administration has not responded or done anything about this. what else can or will the house of representatives do to pursue the i.r.s. case? >> i think the committees that have been looking at this, the ways and means committee and the government reform committee,

are, i think, at least one of the committees have put together a letter, trying to get into what i would call the forensics of what happened and who else may be aware of this and to track down any possible way those emails may be retrieved. that's the current thinking on it. >> beyond that, any type of court action or any suit on hat? >> we passed a bill calling for a special prosecutor, we've asked for a special prosecutor, those requests have fallen on deaf ears at this point. speaker boehner, you -- >> no, over here. >> mr. speaker, do you think the short-term highway funding extension stands a chance of passing the house? >> i have no idea what his

pay-fors are but 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 anticipate passing both chambers? >> we'll let the ways and means committee do their work. >> you opened up with iraq. i'm curious if you have suggestions for what the president should do this there? >> we should have an overarching strategy to deal with the threat of terrorism. rand corporation came out and outlined last a 58% increase in the number of terrorists that are out there, intending to inflict harm on americans here and abod. there's a growing problem. iraq is one part of that problem. that's why i've called, other the -- over the last couple of

weeks, for the president to outline a strategy to deal with he overall threat we face. >> some of your colleagues -- there's lism also tax breaks for reserling and development. how are those two issues different? some of the ou ask policy wonks that get into this but if you look at our tax code, those items used to produce goods typically are deductible in some fashion, whether it's the cost of materials or whether it's machinery that's depreciated over some period of time. and it's our tax code, by and large, over the course of the last 50 or 60 years, has encouraged more investment in our economy. so i can give you the tax side

of this. when you look at the export-import bank, it was originally designed to help us deal with unfair competition in the marketplace. and in some places, you look at government subsidies going to airplane manufacturers, as an example, and i think for a long time the export-import bank provided some equity to u.s. manufacturers. having said all that, there's a big debate going on in our conference an we're just going to have to sort our way through this. my job is to help facilitate the sorting thru of this. we get to it. >> is that sorting through happening prior to the re-authorization deadline? >> we'll see. >> 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, the train may have gone too far down the track and it might be hard to deal with this. don't you feel you have some responsibility here to say, here's what i think we should do, here's what the president at d do, giving counsel that point? >> i've 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 cawed on the administration to -- i called on the administration to act. 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. he's elected to lead.

>> mr. speaker, you said a few times now on the export-import bank that you wanted to find out the committee and things like that but several people in leadership and across your conference said what they specifically want to do. what, as the gentleman from southern ohio, yourself -- >> you try to do this or immigration for the last two years. it's the guy who is 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 frankly think, i don't want to do that. i want to get our members to a place where they're comfortable, whatever that is. >> yesterday, you said you were in a different position now from 2012 when you supported it. what different position are you snen that you weren't in >> i didn't recall the vote on

this but there was a bipartisan effort to do this, i think more than half our members support it and i support it. given where the export-import bank is today, given the accounts of what's gone 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. eaking of immigration, you appointed -- you appointed a working group to deal with the problem on the board we are 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 fiction is, to suggest to the administration things that 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, that we ought to get a better handle on it. >> have you asked them to report back to you at a certain time to start to decide what to do? >> i've given them some suggestions. 're going to help facilitate information for them and i would hope that they'd have some information for the members that week that we're back after the fourth in terms of outlining more specifically 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. >> mr. boehner, back to the

lawsuit. given how long it will take for a lout to make its way through the courts, the fact that we're a divided government right now, do you think that could change the president's behavior? or isn't this more about energizing your base before the election? >> this is about defending the institution in 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,erer us is the inherent powers of the legislative branch. what we've 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. >> how was tiger woods yesterday?

>> good. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> house minority leader nancy pelosi also brief red porters on capitol hill today. she said republicans want to sue president obama to hide, quote, that they are doing nothing. her briefing is half an hour. >> good morning. how are you all. here we are, the week before we leave for the fourth of july break, what a wonderful holiday that is the birth of our nation. we were all thinking about it yesterday when we 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. it's sad that we celebrate the passage of the civil rights act honor martin luther king, coretta scott king and we ignore passing the voting rights act. that's just one -- one of the items on the agenda we'll ignore as we leave for this break. it has 100 co-sponsors, it's bipartisan, it reacts to two -- reacts to actually the supreme court today, it's the one-year anniversary of the supreme court making its destructive decision to weaken the voting rights act. we shouldn't be leavinging 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 is having an anniversary this week. friday marks the one-year anniversary of the senate passing a bipartisan immigration bill. again, that would secure our border, protect our workers, unite our families and provide a pathway to citizenship. in that year, with eff seen no action on the pozz -- we have seen no action on the positive side for passing the immigration bill. i am 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, in the rest -- senator reed and i, in the rest of the week. another piece of unfinished business is the u.i., renewing of the u.i.

today, house democrats, led by dan kildee and stephen horseford, will introduce legislation taking up the new --horseford, will introduce legislation taking up the new legislation mirroring what's going on in the senate, extending unemployment insurance. hopefully -- we believe that that will be a bipartisan effort in the house as it is in the senate. so what do we have? no voting rights act, no immigration bill, no ex-tex of u.i., no serious jobs bill as we leave. one jobs bill that they could pass, it has bipartisan, strong bipartisan support, is the re-authorization of the x.m. -- of the exim bank. this is, it's -- of the ex-imbank. this is about thousands of small businesses, it's about over a couple hundred thousand jobs at stake unless we re-authorize the

ex-im bank. you'd think that would be one place we'd want to have a positive balance of payments, we'd want to grow our businesses in the united states, we want small bies to thrive in 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, the republicans are on the floor, pass manager giveaways to big oil and special interests. wedwd -- 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, have comprehensive immigration reform, and to pass unemployment insurance, extended, just to name a few nor week. easily done, bipartisan -- for this week. easily done, bipartisan. already passed in the senate. any questions? considered these

defense of marriage act it was a waste of money. >> it was. >> the speaker is considering suing the white house to enforce laws he said the administration collectively enforcing or selectively waiving. what do you make of that? >> i make of it as subterfuge. they're doing nothing here. so they have to give some aura of activity. the action taken by the house republicans to defend doe ma wasted over $-- to defend doma wasted over $2.3 million of taxpayers' money. usually something like that would have some level of bipartisanship but it was straight party lines, three republicans versus two democrats. we're going to defend doma. we knew it was a waste of time. you know why? 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 said that doma -- it was a court stripping bill that stripped the court of judicial review over doma. they knew it was unconstitutional. they did not want 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 at a waste. and here we go again with that. i don't know that the speaker has decided that. he said he's consulting legal authorities, is that the word? experts? whatever. i hope not. it's a sutter funal. let's do -- whatever the subject happens to be of the week, just go on the internet and you can see what they're screaming about now, you know there'll 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 is. i have great respect for the speaker. yes, sir. >> as we near the end they have supreme court session this year, the term this year, there's quiet talk among democrats and liberals about what is the future of the court? it also turns to, are there going to be retirements. the dean of the u.c. irvine school of law issued a public appeal to ruth bader ginsberg a while back to retire so president obama could appoint someone to fill her legacy. do you believe there's a worry that if there are no retirements at the end of this term the court is in jeopardy of switching hands if the white house is won by a republican? >> well, switching hands, the court is in a bad place as it is. but 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 on her to say, you should move so that the president can appoint someone else. i do hope that -- i would like to see -- 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? >> wouldn't it take even longer if the republicans happen to win control of the senate? >> they're talking about winning delofle senate? i thought you meant we'd lose the white house, which i completely don't subscribe to. no. >> even justice stevens said justices should keep in mind who comes after them. is that conversation inappropriate to sort of wonder

-- >> then just say in general, i don't know why they'd target one person. but i will say this, if they want to talk about the court, 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 interests to suffocate the air weaves are endless, unreported money. there are a lot of things that when you say you want to talk about the court that we can talk about. i don't know why they would target one person in that way. >> we heard a lot about, one of the things we talked about, screaming about on the internet, is the i.r.s. issue here. what issue, and we've heard from a lot of democrats who say, this is partisan, this is an attack on the administration, there's not any evidence of wrongdoing as the i.r.s. commissioner said yesterday. they testified yesterday that

there's a nonpart season individual that there seemed to be a problem here. do those criticisms that this is partisan hold water when the ar divist comes in and says something? >> you remember when president bush lost how many millions of emails -- it happens. and i'm sorry, i just wasn't familiar with what happened with the archivist yesterday. but i understand there's a process through which all this goes. i will just say this. my experience, whether it's what happened at the v.a., what happened with the rlout of the health care bill, the federal government needs -- rollout of the health care bill, the federal government needs work on its technology. i said last week, they've turned over 750,000 pages of information, tens of thousands of emails and the rest. so i -- and the characterization

and the traffic is that they were only targeting conservative groups. that's simply not true. so that -- so that's why i think the characterization of the charges against the i.r.s. are political because they're misrepresenting who was the target of the investigation. it was everybody who is engaged in those c-4's and most of those are conservative. >> how would you grade the administration's handing of this -- handling of the crisis of the southern border involving unaccompanied children from central america. >> how would i grade their performance? i think their performance has been according to the law. , the w passed in 2008 william wilber forest law, which was about -- wilber force law,

which was about protecting unaccompanied children that called for, when these unaccompanied children came across the border they would be received by department of homeland security, held for 72 hour, only turned over to h.h.s. and that's what's happening. i believe it is unfortunately there are some using it as an anti-immigration reform kind of piece of rhetoric but the fact is, is that this is what the law is. are there people who are exploiting the law by saying, come north and you will, row know, you won't be turned back. no the administration has turned back children who are here with adults, or adults who came in under that same, shall we say, auspices in sending them back. so i think they're complying completely with the law. what we have to do is to make

sure that in central america, because that's where most of these children are coming from, these people are coming from, some with adults, that the mess message is clear that when you go there, you're going before a judge, you may be sent back. if you're using, some coyote, those who, what's the word i would use, sell transit from one country to our border, if they're saying that doca, you can come and they'll stay because of daca, the deferred action initiative that the president put forth, they weren't here. that already has a date on it system of i think it's really important for people in central america to understand that -- don't come. now it's a sign of 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, into the united states. that would be safer than staying at home, whether it's honduras, gaut maw la or what's the third one? el salvador. so it's a terrible situation but think the administration is handling it according to the law. vice president biden went there and told them, don't come. unless you, you know, fit into 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 wilberforce act to protect kids coming into the country, to avoid trafficking. and that was really the main point. signed by president bush. signed by president bush. the president is obeying the

law. i think they've done a fine job. it's a terrible situation. it is a tragic humanitarian crisis. and it is -- there is an exploitation by some of our good intentions and that has -- that distinction is being made by the dministration. >> do you think the surnl of children across the border will make it less likely for president obama to use a -- an execive order to halt deportations? >> they are two different issues. there are those who will try to use that issue to say, they are coming here because the president may be employing prosecutorial discretion in terms of making judgments about who should be deported but one is a humanitarian crisis, these children coming. some of them don't even speak english, some don't speak spanish. they speak their indigenous

language. so we have to recognize that challenge for what it is. and i think it's irresponsible for some to try to frame it in a way that has anything to do with e other issue which is prosecutorial discretion on deportation. simply because of location. simply because of location. people don't understand what the basis of the law is and what these numbers are. it's what, 29,000 last year, could be 70,000 or 80,000 or more this year. and there's a cost to it, too and part of the cost is enforcement. enforcement to make sure that these people have their child, at 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 xploit it. >> in the financial services committee there's criticism of the export-import bank today. do you think this is an issue that's been taken hostage by the leadership struggles in the republican side of the house and what's the 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 -- we funded and authorized the -- well they authorized it in the authorizing committee but the ex-im bank. it's an important part of our -- of increasing our exports which is an important part of our foreign policy. promoting democratic principles abroad 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 fiver of the ex-im, but this right now, for the republicans to say they're 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 system of all of a sudden they're focusing on our exports. yes, i think you're right. it probably has something to do with leadership of the caucus. >> the majority leader-elect, mccarthy has had a change of heart -- >> you'd have to ask him. but i think that his statement

struck a blow and all the friends and corp. -- in corporate america and wall street, some of them sent a letter to the republicans saying, re-authorize this bill. and you see what the 41 or 42 republicans have signed a letter asking for the multiyear re-authorization of the ex-im bank. that's responsible. the votes are there. we could pass this. 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 the letter had been -- had had a small business before and said they probably just don't understand how this works. >> what can democrats do, though, to -- i mean obviously it's got to be brought up by the leadership and the new member of the leadership -- >> the speaker is the speaker. the speaker has awesome --

awesome power and can bring anything to the floor. 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-something democrats, we honored the full faith and credit of the united states of america. i can give you many examples of that, where there's violence against -- whether it's violence against wip, opening up government after they shut it down, overwhelmingly voted to keep it shut down, still the speaker allowed it to come up. this should happen, just bring it, get it over with, get it done. >> you've been criticizing the speaker's possible lawsuit on executive authority but many of your democratic colleagues have been publicly pushing the president to use his executive how -- powers on the issue of immigration. is it appropriate for the president to unilaterally decide immigration policy if he can't get what he wants in a divided

zphonk >> i don't know -- i don't know why you put those things 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. now 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 that he worked 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 work project to criticize the president on executive orders

criticizing -- and that 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've used as some of the their examples, what they call the enforce act on the floor. they said two of the reasons why you could sue the president for not enforcing the law is the issue, daca, 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 discretion as to making a judgment about who comes, who stays and what their culpability is. so not only 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 bill to . issa has a send -- to deport all of the children who came here when they were little. ll of the daca kids. that isn't a reflection of the republicans in our country. over 70% of the people think we should have comprehensive immigration reform and most of those think it should have a path to citizenship, you know. so to say they're going to deport -- this is sad. you know. america -- we celebrate america and fourth of july and the rest, we have to remember that our greatness springs from the fact that we are a nation constantly reinvigorated with newcomers,s that this is a country that talks about family values and

making the country better for the next generation, family values, community values and the rest. that's the invig ration we bring to america. when we do so, they make america more american. i don't know if these people are all sprung from the head of suze or maybe they're all -- of zeus, o maybe they're all native americans, but somebody -- or maybe they're all native americans, but somebody came from someplace for them to be here now but you'd never know it to hear them talk. i completely separate the subjects that 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 the 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 are -- they blend, i grant you that they blend because people mention them in the same context. if you -- the issue you bring up blends with the immigration issue because it's at the border. but it's a -- it's two different aws that we are -- laws that exist that we're talking about. so i hope you have a good fourth of july. fourth of july is a long way off but i hope you celebrate the birth of our country in a great way. i wish, i really wish so much that we could be leafing having passed the bipartisan -- leaving having passed the bipartisan voting rights act. that would have been an appropriate celebration of the civil rights bill.

it would be a necessary antidote to the destructive actions of the supreme court of the united states, to name another concern i have about the court. thank you all very much. >> have you seen the video around the internet of you, reed, mcconnel and boehner at the ceremony? what kid you think of it? >> somebody flashed it in front of my face. is it the one where we're singing "we shall overcome"? what's to think? you mean that i was smiling and singing. >> you were smiling and singing but the others didn't seem to be smiling and singing. >> maybe they were holding on too tightly. i just loved yesterday. i thought it was the best thing, really, because it brought so many things together about our country. and 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, then right in front of us, at the other end of the rotunda was abraham lincoln. here they were, looking at each other and here we were, in between, some of us really celebrating, others trying to ignore the issue of the voting rights act, but also that lincoln 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 all.

>> also on capitol hill today, senate minority leader mitch mcconnel called for a senate vote to approve the keystone x.l. oil pipeline from canada. majority leader harry reid responded, calling for a vote on comprehensive bipartisan energy bill. leader. mr. mcconnell: influence. influence. it's a word we hear a lot about these days, spicialg from -- especially from our friends on the other side who suddenly feel

the need to convince their constituents that their quote, unquote moderate -- moderate democrats despite the voting records that say just the oppose. these senate democrats can't stop boasting about how much supposed influence they have on energy issues, but it's really a baffling claim to the rest of us because it's so hard to point to what they've actually accomplished. so let's take the keystone pipeline. the senate democrats i'm referring to claim to have so much influence within their party to get it approved, but evidence actually leads to the opposite conclusion, that they really have almost none at all. when it comes right down to it, they haven't even been able to secure a serious gimmick-free floor vote from the majority leader to approve the keystone pipeline. that should be the bare minimum

here. the events that transpired yesterday only underscore the point. yesterday afternoon several of my republican colleagues again tried to pass the keystone pipeline. once again the democratic leadership blocked the bill and the so-called moderate democrats simply stood by while their own party blocked this important job-creating legislation. they didn't even put up a credible fight. it's disappointing, but it's no surprise. because washington democrats have blocked approval of this shovel-ready job creation project for years now. even though it would create thousands of well-paying american jobs. even though it would help our struggling economy. even though it would increase north american energy independence. and even though the obama administration has already admitted that constructing the

pipeline would have almost zero -- zero -- significant impact on the environment. in other words, senate democratic leadership is constructing construction of the keystone pipeline for one main reason, to please their patrons on the far left. and let's be clear about something. the only reason they're able to get away with it is because so-called moderate democrats let them. the same so-called moderates who claim to have so much influence around here. the bottom line is that these so-called moderates can't have it both ways. they can't credibly claim to have influence on issues like these even as they let their party leaders shoot down almost every effort to achieve the things they claim to want, like keystone. frankly, it's hard to see how we could ever hope to get a keystone bill over to the president's desk and to sign into law while democrats run the

senate, especially when the so-called moderates stand idly by as the president has yet another meeting -- yet another meeting -- with the antikeystone jobs lobby tonight. the president is meeting with an anti-keystone fund-raiser today and will be hearing with an administration to stop these important jobs. but he needs to hear from americans across the country who are desperate from work in the obama economy. preaching to the choir is not going to get that done. now, ironically enough, the president will be meeting with these same anti-keystone interests right after holding a pep rally with senate democrats. his reliable anti-keystone back stop here in congress. so i think it's time to put aside the charade. the american people have already had to suffer through more than five years -- five years -- of delay and obfuscation on this pipeline. the bureaucrats and the experts

have studied it to death over and over and over again. and every time we learn basically the very same thing, that there's a ton of up side to building keystone and minimal, minimal substantive down side. so it's time to end all the politically motivated delays and get serious around here. it's time for democrats who claim to support these important jobs to stand up to the party bosses and stand with their constituents. not just talk about doing it. we owe it to the american people to get these keystone pipeline jobs approved as soon as possible. unfortunately, it seems increasingly clear that that will never happen under the current democratic-run senate. but one way or another, we need to get this thing done. mr. president, i administration has been

particularly -- mr. reid: mr. president, would my friend allow me to ask a question through the chair? i was in the office and i heard the statement from the republican leader about keystone. so this question i direct to my friend from south dakota, who is a fine senator and understands energy issues. we agreed to have a vote on keystone. my friend, the republican leader, keeps misdirecting things. we can have a vote on keystone. that was part of the deal we made. we had a bipartisan bill, portman-shaheen. they worked on that for months, since last fall. they put in it amendments that people wanted. and so jeanne shaheen came here yesterday and said let's have a vote on keystone but just vote on energy efficiency. and you can have a vote on using

the mcconnell rule, 60 on both of them. so, mr. president, this is so transparent that my friend, the republican leader, is doing the bidding again of the koch brothers, who own the first- or second-largest tar sands that exist in the world. so i say to my friend from south dakota, why can't we just have a vote on both of those, energy efficiency and on keystone? mr. thune: i would say through the chair to the majority leader that the offer, as i understand, that was put forward by the majority with respect to the energy efficiency bill was, you pass this bill without amendment, no debate, no amendment, and then somewhere down the road you might get the vote on keystone pipeline. well, it strikes me at least, as many of my colleagues on this side has been pointing out now for sometime, that the way in which the majority leader is running the floor and calling up

legislation preventing amendments to be offered, to be debated, to be voted upon, denies the rights not only of us as senators but ignores the voices of the people we represent. so for the majority leader to say that you pass this bill without any amendment -- energy is an important issue in many of our states. it is important in my state of south dakota. it is important to a lot of members on our side, i would stowing a lot of members -- i would suggest to a lot of members on the leader's side who would like to debate an energy bill on the floor. the leader has come down, no amendments, no debate, you pass this. we'll jam this bill down without amendment, and then sometime you get the vote on keystone. well, we'd love to get a vote on keystone. the leader can call that up anytime. and we've been saying for sometime that we ought to have a vote on keystone. there's broad, bipartisan support for that in the senate. there are a lot of democrats who support the keystone pipeline.

but what the leader is suggesting again is, he's going to put a bill up, fill the amendment tree, prevent republicans from offering amendments. we don't think that's the way the senate ought to operate. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i say to my friend from south dakota, it is so transparent what is going on here. they're hung up on procedure. if this keystone rot vote is so important to them, let's have a vote on it. that's what i was told when we brought up, for the second time, the energy efficiency. in fact, i was told by a republican leader who was pushing that bill, go ahead and fill the tree. we've already worked out all the amendments. the bill is different from when we first brought it up. so again we get right where weeppedz to bweneed to be to pae legislation. if this keystone is such a big

deal, let's vote on t let' it. let's vote on energy efficiency. but, no, we can't do that. we can't do that because we wouldn't be able to offer more amendments. now remember, the republicans, who were part of that arrangement th, the energy efficiency bill of shaheen-portman, they thought it was a good bill. but i repeat, this this was such a big deal to the republicans, why do they get hung up on procedure? let's vote on both of them. let the cards fall where they may. mr. thune: i would say to the distinguished democrat -- the majority leader, that we on this side believe that when you bring an energy bill to the floor to talk about energy, we ought to be talking about energy. now, he may suggest that there were certain things incorporated in the bill that some of his members wanted, maybe even perhaps some of our members

wanted, but we have a lot of members on this side that have been shut out, who haven't been able to offer amendments for the past year. since july of last year there have only been votes on nine republican amendments. there's only been votes on seven democrat amendments, out of 1,500 filed. this is insanity. you know, we would love to get a vote on keystone pipeline, but we also think there are a lot of other energy issues foreign this country. if you -- other energy issues that are important to this country. if you bring a bill to the floor, it is offer to amendments. there are issues in addition to keystone pipeline there are critically important to jobs and the economy and to energy security in this country. and so the way that the leader has suggested that this ought to work isn't simply about an argument on procedure. this is about whether or not the senate is going to function in a way where the views of the millions of people that are --

that we represent, those of us here who would love to offer amendments on these bills, are being prevented from doing. so i would simply say to the leader that this is not simply about keystone pipeline. this is about the broader debate on energy, what it means for jobs, what it means for our economy. and you've gotten to the place now where we're not even getting votes in committee. appropriations bills are being pulled back at the committee level because democrat members don't want to vote on amendments that republican members might offer. that's not the way this place is supposed to work. and i would -- so i appreciate the majority leader's understandable frustration. but it is a frustration that's grounded in the way that he's runninrunning this institution,n anything our side is doing. mr. reid: mr. president, no one needs to take my word for it. take the word of one of the most senior republicans in this body, the senior senator from tennessee.

he came to the floor a few days ago and said, on the appropriations bills we hear this plaintiff plea, let's have some votes. so the senator from tennessee said, why don't we have the votes. because what has been established around here is that we have 60 votes on anything that's controversial and 50 votes on everything else. that's what the senator from tennessee said. let's just go ahead an vote through the bills. no better example of that than dodd-frank, the bill that the republicans hate. it passed. on the 24th amendment that we voted on on that bill, senator durbin offered an amendment on swipe fees, and he was told i.t. going to be 60 votes. -- and he was told it's going to be 60 votes. everything else had been 50. so he had to do his with 60 votes. that's how things work here. the republicans don't want to have votes. they want to have an issue on procedure. we should finish every one of

those aeption pro appropriation, every one of them, if we followed what lamar alexander said. so, mr. president, it is interesting. energy issues -- this is a buzzword for, let's take care of the energy companies some more. they want to protect bill oil. if they want to have all the appropriations bills passed, let's pass them. all we have to do is follow what i've suggested, what senator alexander has suggested. that's what we should do. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i would simply offer the consent agreement that the majority leader objected to when he pulled the shaheen bill a while back. it was pretty simple and pretty

easily understood. this was the consent that was offered when the majority leader, as i said, pulled the shaheen-portman bill a while back. this is what i said. "i propose a different unanimous consent agreement. i ask unanimous consent that the only amendments in order be five amendments from the republican side related to energy policy, with -- with -- a 60-vote threshold a doption o on adoptih amendment. i ask that the bill be read a third time, the senate proceed to passage of the bill as amended, if amended." now, mr. president, that gives the majority leader what he was asking for on the last bill, 60-vote thresholds. it gives them amendments from our side related to energy policy. and it would have led to a vote on keystone.

so i would propound that consent agreement again. it sounds to me like we may be getting somewhere, if the majority leader really wants to give us a chance to have a keystone vote out here on the floor. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president, reserving the right to object to my friend's suggestion -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would ask that it be modified to have a vote on keystone and have a vote on shaheen-portman. a 60-vote threshold, ofnlgt. the presiding officer: will the republican leader modify his request? mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object, we didn't get amendments on shaheen-portman, so what the majority leader is now saying is he wants to pass a kind of comprehensive energy bill deal waing with a variety f different subjects without any

amendments at all as a condition for having a vote on keystone with five amendments related to the subject. i can remember when we used to vote around here. in fact, his members have only had seven roll call votes in a year. he's got one member from alaska who's never had a roll call vote on the floor in his entire senate career. so i think, you know, rather than these u.c.'s going back around forth be, maybe we ought to start talking and maybe the senate can start voting on things again. i object. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. reid: yes. mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president, let's not have revisionist history. let's have real valid history. shaheen-portman was worked on for weeks last fall. shaheen-portman worked on this new version of the bill for months, and they worked out

many, many amendments in the committee, and they came to me and said, we've gotten all of this worked out. shaheen and portman and a number of other senators. and i said, great. so before one of our recesses, the day we were getting treed leave, they came to -- we were getting ready to leave, they came to me and said, what would be better is if we had a sense of the senate resolution. we already agreed what we were going to do. the bill is different. like the workforce investment act we're going to this afternoon. i came back and said, that's fine. we're going to do this as soon as we get back. we come back and then i'm told, we don't want a sense of the senate resolution. we want an up-or-down vote here.

i said, okay, let's do it. that's when that still wasn't good enough. that still wasn't good enough because they want the issue. the energy efficiency bill is a good bipartisan bill. it's like the one we're going to work on this afternoon. it's a complex bill. but the >> it's a complex bill but the differences have been worked ouplt. if they care about keystone and it if this is such a big deal. republican leader said we've been working on this for five years. the time has come. up to the bar before we vote and let's vote on it and process let's do the jeanne shaheenat has put her heart into. that's where we are. another obstruction, division to keep us from really voting on things. the issue. they're focused on procedure, mr. president, and what the

they want us to do things. hey want the minimum wage raised and unemployment benefits extended for the long term unemployed. for a man like it working doesn't make more than a who does the same work. they think it's -- american people believe they should not burdened with college debt which is larger than ein debt. it's $1.3 trillion. they stopped us doing that based on procedure. things that work on people?elp the american >> house speaker john boehner planning to file a lawsuit against president obama over his use of executive actions. waoepl hear from speaker boehner from nd then get reaction the white house to the possible lawsuit. iraq.ogers talks about later a congressional panel fund at whether to keep

bank.xport/inport speaker boehner's comments about filing the lawsuit against resident obama in their store writ unusual legal action would be named at reigning in steps taken that s republicans consider an overreach of his power. has notew the president faithfully exsuited the law, mr. boehner told reporters wednesday. the top house republican declined to specify which targetve action he would in his lawsuit though other lawmakers mentioned his delays affordable in the care account and the program deportation of young immigrants. "wall hat's from the street journal". briefing r boehner's from earlier today. morning, everyone. the situation in iraq continues

worsen by the day with border crosses in syria and their march toward baghdad continues. the president has a number of which isn front of him part of a regional larger strategy i would support. but my concern is whether the will make a decision in time to reverse the as it st's momentum sweeps toward baghdad. the president's fond of saying can solve this problem. but we can't pretend that this as well. problem hrouing terrorists to gain a safe haven in high rack in which to launch attacks on our and allies is serious. it's ve to be engaged and in our national interest and the spread of terrorism. from the world stage is not an option and leads nes our allies and

to more chaos. this is part of a bigger problem. continuing to y struggle, the president has no plan for economic growth and push this party to act on hereood ideas we've passed in the house. political s. targets opponent and the white house won't lift a finger to provide truth to the american people. the v.a.'s abuses continue to be and we don't see a long term plan for reform. only does the ignore the about it and his llingness to change it aoupb laterally. administration makes the decisions and won't give

the right answers. i think americans deserves better and the house will continue to listen to the american people and make their priorities ours. is a ergy focus this week good example. all of give the right answers. i think americans deserves better and the our solutions arp families who are still asking the same question, where are the jobs? >> are you planning to initiate obama it against the administration and president obama over his use of the executive action? am. >> you can explain why that is necessary and what you hope to achieve? >> the constitution makes it lear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws. in families who my view the presidt executed the laws. e have a system of government outlined in our constitution branch, cutive expect ive branch and judicial bran of.

exmr. are conflicts like this legislative branch and the administrative branch it's in my view our responsibility to stand up for institution in which we serve. this is not about impeachment. this is about his faithfully of the g the laws country. >> mr. speaker, over three days there has been three separate on the institution i.r.s. they said it's clear to him he broke the law so the administration has not responded or done anything about this. what else can and will the house of representatives do to pursue the case? the committees have been looking at this the ways and the committee reform committee are at least one of the committees have put get her a letter trying to into what i will call the what happened and to else may be aware of this

track down any possible way that those e-mails may be retrieved. current thinking on it. >> beyond that any type of court on that depending on -- >> we passed a bill calling for special prosecutor. we've asked for a special those requests have fallen on deaf ears at this they said point. >> speaker boehner -- >> right here. >>

>> how are those two issues different? let you ask some of the get into this.ho if you look at the tax code hose items that are used to produce goods typically are deductible in some fashion it's at the cost of materials or whether it's depreciated over some period of time. our taxes by in large over the has e of 50 or 60 years encouraged most investment in our economy. i can give you the tax side of this. it it was designed to deal with unfair competition marketplace. in some places you look at subsidies going to

an lane manufacturers as example, and i think for long export-import bank provided some equity to u.s. manufacturers. there's a big debate going on in our conference and we'll have to through this. nd, my job is to help facilitate sorting through of this and get to an out come. sue it happening prior to deadline.horization >> we'll see. > a week or two ago you had said prior to going to the white house you were interested in policy was.sident's don't you feel that you have some responsibility here to say doe's what i think we should and here's what the president should be doing.

>> i called for more increased activity a year ago. forces ry when the isis came across the iraq border and began to bother territory i on the administration to act. it's not my job to outline for what tools he should use or not use. t's not my job to outline the strategy for the president when it comes to the overall fight terrorism. i don't have as many tools at my disposel as the president does. this is the president's responsibility. e's elected the president and elected to lead. > mr. speaker, you said you touched on the export-import find -- and wanted to but several people in leadership have said what they specifically do. to

what is the job -- not going to answer the question. you try to do this on last two n for the years. the guy who is the facilitator a discussionget to to get to an out come i think table my cards on the tilts the balance. i don't frankly think -- i don't want to do that. to get our members to a place where they're comfortable. whatever that is. said yesterday that you were in a different position support it.hen you what position were you in now that you weren't in last time in didn't recall the 2012 vote on this but there's a bipartisan effort to do this. more than half our members supported it and i support it. given where the export-import ank is today and given the accounts of what's going on down kickbacks and of

other things, it's clearly time a all the members to take serious look at this. > mr. speaker, speaking of immigration, you appointed a deal with the o problem on the border with this influx of children from central america. what exactly do you expect that working group to do. put e working group was together because we 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 is to the fiction suggest to the administration hings we think can be done should be done and if necessary our members ons to about changes in the law that might need to occur. seems to me given the agnitude of this crisis and

appears it's going to continue we ought to get a better handle on it you asked them to report back to you so you can start to to do?what >> i've given them some to estions and we're going help facilitate information for and i would hope that they'd have some information for the members that week that we're the fourth in terms of outlining more specifically problems are. >> what specific executive planning to u challenge in court? > when i make that decision know. et you >> back to the lawsuit. given how long it will take and the act we're dividing government right now do you expect to change the behavior or this more about energying your base. >> this is about defending the in which we serve.

if you look back over the last 35 years of our history, here's been movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch versus those of legislative branch. what we've seen clearly over the effort to ears is an erode the power of the legislative branch. believe the president is not fatesfully executing the laws of and on behalf of the constitutionnd our standing up and fighting for best long the interest of the congress. tiger woods yesterday?

white house spokeman responded bout the possibility of a lawsuit. here's that portion of today's briefing.e i heard the president talk many about his approach about working with congress. it is the president's preference we would be able to find opportunities to work with democrats and republicans to put policies that would expand economic opportunity. focal point of the president's domestic agenda and be something we have to work too hard to convince republicans should be a priority. president also said is that where necessary he's willing to take action on his using the executive authority that's vested to expanding cause of

economic opportunity and our economy overall. o for a long time we've seen republicans block progress in bill that'srange of would promote economic strength, this case it seems that epublicans have shifted their opposition into a higher gear, a gear i didn't know previously existed. the fact that they are taxpayer funded lawsuit against the president of for doing his es job i think is the kind of step most americans wouldn't support. i think they're looking -- i think what most americans would leaders in t their washington, d.c. to make of the on behalf american people. i'm not suggesting that's easy.

bipartisan progress in particular is difficult. lapsing into these kinds of been s for so long have employed at the legislative branch and now appear to be judicial branch is frankly not the right way to go. do you know if he told the president that this lawsuit was coming? i'm not able to speak with a lot of detail about what kind of they may have had. i can take a look. read out in don't detail much of the conversations do occur ad when they between the president and the speaker of the house. if i can get more information look into it. >> were you aware that it was going to be happening before? but m not aware of that, again, let's look into whether or not the white house got any up with this. > new york congressman charley

wrangle has defeated state de democratic ght primary. 22 term congressman delayed victory late tuesday night but conceded at had not that point. ongressman out paces 47% to 44%. supreme court decisions and robert barns on one of them. generally must obtain a warrant before searching the ell phone of someone they arrest saying it was applying to that date backgy to the nation's birth. modern cell phones hold for many the privacy of life chief justice john roberts wrote sweeping opinion that seemed to could be taeupb monitor the private

lives of its citizens. post 01 ofhe washing the supreme court decisions today. here is a ave right partially processed plant that thatcut down into sections are for the right length for hanging and took off the big fan are sent to the and theyo make edibles have a small amount of tmc and are the tight trim and hat can be dried and made into joints or sent to the place that into xtractions and made hash. and then right here we have a finished bud and this is sent and hang to dry and cured in buckets in a couple of weeks before they sell it. "washington journal" looks at and legal ional use sale in colorado. 7-10:00 ay morning

eastern on c-span. >> now, house intelligence chair ike rogers talks about the growing violence and instability in iraq. reporters at an event hosted by the christian monitor. representative mike rogers chairman of the house select intelligence. his first visit with our group starting his ate morning this day. he grew newspaper michigan. army he ving in the became an fbi special agent public zing in corruption cases and returned to and ehrebgtsd to the state senate the next year. resounding won by a 111 votes. hotly contested race for the and hasat being vacated been re-elected handily to six additional terms. became chair of the house

intelligence committee in 2010. this march he announced he would leaving congress at the end of the current term to host a radio program. for biography. now on to the ever popper process. the record here. lease no live blogging or tweeting or filing of any kind to give us a chance to listen to guest. this is no embargo when the session ends. ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle non signal, raised wave.w or finger we'll offer our guest for opening comments and questions around the table. thanks, again, mr. chairman. >> thanks for the opportunity. invite.iate the thank you for lowering your standards and letting a house in.ber we appreciate that. i thought i'd quickly go around world briefly just to let

you know the challenges that i u.s. face not only the intelligen intelligence services and our often and those of us crying about our security matrix, the threat matrix being and deep and wide that at s all of us not sleep night. and i'm only 25 years old, look what that job has done to me. if you look atgs both strategic and immediate strategic side you have a north korea who is pursuing nuclear weapons and and working to perfect its missile system in a concerning. about a year ago when they stood missile and were bragging about the thought they had the of hitting the western united states. pretty serious threat to the that got washed over by all the other threats that we face. has been very aggression

space and zation in aggression about investment in try to gy, certainly to moot the strength of our u.s. naval forces around the world. happen, you ings watch what their aggressive in the south china sea. that is clearly something that is concerning and i think it's a tension. i still believe that between japan this will be some maritime squirmish within next 24 months and i don't think it will be huge but i maritime e will be a squirmish either between vietnam pursuit to their push out their boundaries and that's 40% of the world's trade through that. we have been there since we've been a country and so when china starts telling us that the u.s. navy can't be in the south china a huge and

significant strategic threat and economic prowess in the world. you turn on the tv. they spent the last ten years their military, odernizing their military and professi profession professionalizing their special forces. that's proved to be valuable. fact they were able to glide annex crimea. and they know it and they understand it. to invest in their navy modernization. dropped some sub marines in the water that are very sophisticated and high tech. that since the early '90s so they're making an power to if their

projection around the world. hen we look at where we are in al-qaida this is the one that worries me most. one in the most immediate threat is this al-qaida with f capabilities and intentions to strike outside of their areas of operation. so clearly when you look at what's happening in iraq and it syria by the way. we need to be clear about that. e watched this development of al-qaida in eastern syria for three years. we watched them pool up in ways have never seen before and we watched them recruit in ways we never seen before. when i say recruit in ways i have never seen before i mean successfully. gaining strength really by the day and by the month and the longer it went no disruption the more aggressive they became. half a year, year and a ago you start the tensions start islamic state in

iraq and the front. any argued it was because they thought they were so brutal they couldn't be part of al-qaida. it's hard to argue that an organization that participated stoning of s and women and flying airplanes into anymore would find brutal. it was about control. exert control o over the isio leadership and aving a difficult time doing it. they believe if you're going to e in this fight you want to hold land. and the fight at this time the was him telling them to focus in iraq not in don't do external operations. he concerning part of that conversation was that the reason sio wanted to do operations is

because they had a large number of foreigners of western them.rts working with they saw that as a huge opportunity to conduct europe and the united states. he thought it was too soon and wanted them to focus in iraq. ow you what you see they focussed to focus in iraq. that split where they decertified al-qaida i would look at it as two organized chicago.ilies in at the end of the day the goals and intentions are exactly the same. together they'll work together. if they fight about it they'll fight about it. at the end of the day they're brutal organizations, organizations if you knowing the same way. now they're reaching out. think there is public reports about them reaching out to a. q. yemen.n a q a p looking for the

leadership is looking for ways to try to have a success and an operation. they believe that's important if -- remember, they were the to hold territory the south of yemen that they believe was the initiation of they're to create and hold. so you have all these new a wayonships happening in that's really concerning. two years ago we were able to establish the relationship q a b. a this we are trying to get their branch down in northern africa activity all e across northern africa. i won't go into all those details. take too long. this al-qaida threat is getting worse by the day and the fact a billion dollars in cash and gold bouillon and if you think about 9/11 took about $200,000 and maybe a year and that's a lot ng, of dangerous cash laying in the kitty.

worried abouten't building roads and schools and taking care of public services. worried about killing and trying to dominate iraq, syria cross and would love to take lebanon. now they're on the border of of an and on the bord israel. this is as bad a situation as you could possible imagine. think we should all have a drink. stiff orange juice. ask you, you you're a house republican leadership team. any do you take cochran and mph of the loss of cradle. does it say anything to you going or e things are just politics and no message? hanna survived. might see pite was

portrayed the republican party is a big tent party. coalitions. if you go travel overseas and ou see parliaments those are wild group.hese here in america we do it with a parties and in those are tremendous amount of coalitions. that's the way our parties have operated for a long time. so what you're seeing now is a filtering out and a struggle and a healthy debate about which of those coalitions gets more seats in the republican party than the coalitions. and i thought it was -- at the americans day i think are ready for governance. been sot five years has devastating to the middle class and energy prices and devastating to our national devastating to their own healthcare. they're looking for some lead eadership and sometimes that means people forming a coalition, that means you'll get something done. i think the elections showed the country people are

ready for that. they're ready for a change in the way the country's being i think that's what you saw happen. > let me ask you one other thing and that's about intelligence. counter part in the senate senator feinstein has been level of bout the detail and quality of briefing provided by the administration. conference call the intelligence officialed said that the american intelligence agencies provided strategic growing.hat isis was is it your sense that you've the well served in terms of isis intelligence you've been getting? know, about two years ago others were ds ramping up the notion that we had to do something in eastern

syria. came to those conclusions based n the intelligence that afforded to the committee. we get it all. sometimes it's raw and it conclusion that isis on this day will do this. we get all the raw intelligence to those come conclusions ourself. that years to me isis was building recruiting, s and drawing in jihadists from around the world. of that happening. then -- remember, we talked for long time. nothing happened to disrupt that. then we saw them cross the go into tpa luge i can't and nothing happened. come up y could have

and said, we're going to give the tpa luge i can't update? took g happened when they happened when at the took the cities and then they said, we problem. i think that is really an unfair assessment of what we knew and we watched it develop. they clearly stated their intentions. we knew what their intentions were. arming and were training. we saw that. so maybe they didn't say they're berm on this day, but boy, it would be hard press if you didn't pay attention to intelligence to come to a conclusion something bad is happening. >> your complaint isn't with but how they responded. >> not responding is a decision. is a king a decision decision. pretty n, i have been vocal in the last two years rying to bring this problem to the attention of the public on why we needed to do something in because of the

potential -- did we know they were going in iraq? sure but they clearly want lebanon and jordan and of el and they want all syria and they do want iraq. so, it was very clear they were try to expand their interests from eastern syria which was a safe haven for two a half years. >> mr. chairman, a couple of after s said yesterday the closed door briefing and classified briefing that the is more the homeland urgent than it seemed last week one senator said if you -- anyone who walked out of the briefing could not quibble with fact that there's an urgent and dire threat to the homeland here. do you agree with that? how urgent is it? >> i do. now remember how we come to this conclusion. so we knew -- remember the fight a year and a half ago was do we external operations against europe or states in

not? they said focus on iraq. thevery fact they're having discussion sends a chill down my spine. that means somebody is in an trying to putatus together something that would look like something that could et 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 and you're flying to the united states, you don't a visa. that's a problem. that's a bring problem for us. any other country in the e.u. or vice versa. we're seeing now is their drunk on their own success. they understand -- as a matter interesting -- i read n interesting report recently that baghdady was talking about fact that do you herery if syria or iraq o deference to pay

him because he's the only one establishing a land base. the same exact e's the only ona land base. they both want the same exact thing. with access to these western and stated intention that is why i wasn't in the briefing but i imagine what those senators walked out thinking this is pretty bad. they have complete safe haven. there is nothing to disrupt activity. they can plan for it and train for it. their training camps are unabetted for years. they let it go. place how you get to this where you wonder we're in some trouble. and most court ruling that says can't have a no fly list, perfect. for s a great recipe disaster. there is a federal ruling i think on that. >> in oregon.

oregon. >> was oregon. to you say a little more about it. procedures for putting someone the no-fly list were inadequate. homeland security department provide more information about and alsore on the list for weigh ways of getting off the list. disagree with that if >> we have according to public trying an organization to build bomb that circumvent security and working with according anization to public reports in syria that have expressed an interest in show their chops by having an international attack and now you had a judge rule you can't put someone on a no-fly list. why i can't sleep at night. that makes no sense whatsoever. international other community has no fly list. hat means you'll be able to

flydom mescalely. congratulations. that's the worst all worlds. to refine them, maybe they can do that and they ought to look at refining them fairly quickly. i hope the case is appealed and the decision is stayed. nly for the purposes of making sure we have the opportunity to pretty good idea that should be has an ill intention on that aircraft you aircraft. hem off the >> we'll go next to marine then john.n and then to maureen. (inaudible question)

>> my goal has always been is a productive con serve active which means you accomplish something. when coalitions are tearing it's hard to art form a governing majority. i look back at some of the have happened in the republican conference and how muchquestion) let get spent because we couldn't agree on the exact amount. rather than get half of what you wanted because of the way that the conference was fighting amongst itself, we got zero. so we couldn't agree there were 2 job training programs needed to be 26. people said 26 is too many. ou know how many we ended up with? it was, 42. that's not productive. just a way we can focus our efforts to get the government to look a lot more way i think most conservatives want it to look which is lean and mean -- not in that term, but lean in the sense that it's functioning and not wasting money and takes of people who need it, but

doesn't do things the federal be doing. shouldn't if we're together as a force i let get spent lot of because we that we could have accomplished that we left on the table. > and that to me is unfortunate. we fight about some of the things in my mind that are small potatoes. to not uld come agreement that we couldn't get on. ensus >> you have to have a perfect score. i don't know anywhere in life u.s. orks including the government. >> i think you just eluded to but you can say something that bombintelligence making expertise has high reated to syria and they're orking on perfecting bombs to get past syria. how big of a threat is that and a bomb that get past?

if you look at the -- i can't confirm any specific reports, here's what we can look at that's in the public fair to d i think i's draw a conclusion. p. who has q. a. esigned the ink cartridge bombs. they were going to detonate 8 or in different airplanes over the oceans. that was their goal and these designed to re security. with good intelligence work were down.to shut it we know they're never trying to stop design that. underwear bomber was another good one. thought er 25th they they could get through security airplane.f on an

of an y but of a quarter inch of a syringe pull we would of people thousands in homes. it flies over a very populated area in detroit. would you have had all that equipment fall through the sleeping. people were this was not just the airplane but the ground damage would have been significant. that was their second iteration. we know they haven't given up they'll develop something that circumvents security and gets on airplane. that's just the fact of the matter. things and ee those you see this relationship that started very early in 2013 and of it by the way was to mediate. n the beginning before this decision came down to decertify and alaffiliate.

they needed these fighters that shoot people in the head. that scares us. that's a badge of honor for them. they wanted to keep those folks in the fold. couldn't work out. you have el nutri rbg the other group in eastern syria an interest in external operations you and know there is a relationship between q. a. p. and el noose tra. in and of itself would awh allow any logical person to come we have a lusion problem. we have a definite problem and that al-qaida in the past shares technical expertise i.e. d.'s and how to all mvent surveillance and those things that come with those conversations of how to

target.ot a you can draw your own conclusion with that bit of information. this is worrying me a lot. to hy do the public have draw their own conclusion. i understand it's basic fact if it's a fact -- > well, certain information is obtained in how we want to rotect the ability to continue to find out information that may in fact stop an event. importantould be very to protect those ways so that if a threat -- by the way, if you remember the leak that happened with the bomber -- a. q. a. p. bombing thing. there was a pretty significant the bomb? we saw real changes in real time that really did ally's u.s. and our ability to collect information on a. q. a. p. a long time.

some of it we may never get back. things -- it was just procedure about who, what, when nd 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 and i just think we ought to protect it so have the ability to get somebody thatf they're going to get on a plane or not or catch them a lot earlier. if we have to catch them on a has been a failure with the system. >> normally people ask to be on.led go ahead. >> there's no clear line yet isis and the a. q. a. p.? speculate they work together? >> well, we know that they all relationships. they have had intermediary we know that. remember, once they were ecertified they decided they

were going to go their own direction. again, their goals and the same. are exactly a practicafraction of a difference. the tactics may have been different. position is rery's if i can't control you i'm not going to have you as part of our group. primarily because being part of a. q. gets you and status and recrui recruits what he underestimated is these folks were winning on the battlefield. hen you're winning on the battlefield that and of itself because other jihadists they want to be part of the winning team if you will. exactly the same. they still have this funny other.t for each when they have a difference they'll fight you. but when there's mutual benefit they'll be together. really the same kind of thing. they are al-qaida-minded, no

different. they want to establish it and use all the tools of political violence to do it. couple of mechanical things halfway through. >> thank you, dave. chairman, pick it has been that some of america's friends in the middle east that saudi arabia and in r are akin to merchants the city paying protection money do nn corleone. any solid evidence arabia are saudi i.l. or lso paying i.s. other terrorist groups and what can be done about it? hen they talk about a winning

coalition our colleagues on capital hill talk about those iran. es and not >> well, i think -- again, this product of indecision in a very difficult neighborhood. you see a problem in the middle east you have to deal with it end of story. going to deal not ith it as some notion of a foreign policy framework this is what you get. to you through that. early on in syria, our arab said to us said we want the united states not -- this is the ground ots on and big military but we need your help with command and control. want you helping guide any support -- think of this -- any arab league is producing we do this in a way that is vetted properly and back to bite us. very reasonable offer. response was, es

nope. that's too hard. it.e not going to do so what happened was other parts started to lead fracture. that's why you needed the united states showing the table.ship role at the that would have been very important for us to play. some know for a fact that of the supplies that some of hose arab lead countries were supplying were getting in the hands of extremists. caused because of the way it as ramped upe our partners started to fight amongst themselves because they realize that one country was more aggressive than the other those and some of materials were ending up in a for even was bad their own national security interests. this problem got started. he united states never quite weighed in. i have had significant appeals arab lead partners

personally. and i know other members have as frustration eir with the lack of the united states engagement on eadership on this issues and because of it we watched a lot of that money and weapons did its way to the most operating in ists eastern syria and that empowered have today.we reengage and y to fairy of state to how up for a chat isn't going to do it. they need to see something. as one arab leader told me about if you are not going to sit at the to do it. they need to see table with to lecture us et is a to what table looks like. hat's what you saw happening and unfolding. news at the e big

time but that was really the gas that gone thrown on the fire to to start to develop because they had access to all this really good equipment. again, certain of those it wents didn't mind if to extremists. they figured they could deal later.at but having the u.s. not sitting huge. the table was >> what was the time table on this >> we've known about this for three years. happened the first course of the 12 months. end our month over opportunity to impact got worse right? e, the options you had three years options youed a 24 months and 18 months ago. it completely deteriorated watched r eyes and we all of this happen which was i think highly unfortunate. which to me is why engagement is important in the world. we have isolationism

versus engagement this is why so important. > >> there are 70,000 unaccompanied kids coming across elseorder versus something that might worry you? chairmantrip i took as of the committee was mexico. why? e had the real opportunity for failed northern provinces in mexico, failed governing states. that is a huge national security risk to the united states. so these organized criminal elements down there were controlling huge swaths of land. saw was lack of police authority. were winning.

the beheadings and laying the roadways. the kids, th the 70,000 they're not getting in vw vans and driving up on a nice country to get through central america into the united states. criminal controlled by elements. what outrages me there is no in allowing these riminal elements because i guarantee you there is slave trade issues going on and exposure to drugs. heard the reports they're trying to figure out which ones gains.recruited into this is awful stuff. failed about those northern states. we have done some good things with mexico. i think in some ways it's get a little better.

they have been very leery about having direct u.s. support but we know some of our other success stories around central is aouth america, colombia great example is in a position their counter terrorism they have been very leery force i think could be impactful. but it's been a long, slow road and in the meantime you get on to south side of that mexican border and it is as lawless as and if that truly goes states we'll have a significant security threat from southern border. pretty -- it's interesting we're having this about what rsation i.s. i.l. actually is and what its relationship to the other to be.tes happen what i'm interested in what you ave seen in terms of this recent surge by the group and groups ances with sunni

in iraq that aren't necessarily of ned with this idea reating an islamic cal fade i d might be partners in the administration's push for an governmn ent in baghdad. what is the nexus between these groups? how rehraoeupbt on moderate it become in iraq. should wespecifically be doing? you're in a unique position as a oversight er of the community of the i.c. and we all say the ng people administration did this wrong administration -- what could we be doing differently do right now?d we we have a good listtry why are sunni tribes joining i.s. i.o. in their march toward baghdad.

at what happened in the establishment of the taliban because of the uter region asks they had difference withs with the leade horrible there was corruption and injusts being the taliban got in and got his start because there was an allegation of a rape of a 14-year-old girl and no justice was done. justice onand needed the spot. drag the somebody out in the and hung him i think. hey, rted should swell of that's pretty good. what they found once the taliban this is pretty awful. looked pretty good at the time awful.rns out it's pretty stoning of woman and made it illegal to teach little girls how to read.

pretty brutful stuff. can't leave your house without a if he's six ven years old. it's really kind of crazy stuff. hat's when all the chaffing started in afghanistan. same in libya. said, hey, done they wait a minute, this more radical law implementation is not for me. that's what you see brewing in libya. the same thing happening in iraq. he sunni tribal leaders are pushing back against what they corrupt led shia led government and they won't put up with it. finding out and law that plying chaffing already starting ecause it takes away the sunni tribe leadership and they lose a little influence in that kind of

aan arrangement. hat's the same thing that was tapped into in '06 and it sunni tribes and al-qaida and iraq. come together and we're seeing some of that. cannot allow ou i.s. i.o. to continue to have success the way it is. a disruptive e activity. that means maybe training camps. you have to directly target command and control and eadership in a way that's disruptive. one of the things that air strikes or not air strikes, a tactic. the president shouldn't be and ing over a tactic neither should we. we should be talking about a strategy. may be a part of that or may not shall a special forces raid may be a part of that. have a strategy that leadership..s. i.o.

by the way it starts in syria. effective ifn't be you don't take away their safe syria.n eastern the reason their controlling those border points they know way they'll resupply vice versa.s and if they ever decide to head toward lebanon. they'll need the supply line both ways.