strengthen oversight. it will improve safety. this is a commonsense idea that should have bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the amendment that the burdensome paperwork it may create. the gentlelady lives in santa barbara and had a spill there many years ago, but i'd remind my friend from california that also within this legislation, within this legislation is language that strengthens the versight in a statutory way of activities in the outer continental shelf. currently, that's done not with statutory authority but with

regulatory authority going back to the reagan administration. so if the gentlelady really wants to make sure that there's some certainty so we don't have these devastating spills in the future, i would invite her to join us in supporting this legislation because we put into law statutory -- law, statutory law how we should regulate offshore. again, i rise in opposition to this amendment because i think it's too much burdensome from a paperwork standpoint. when the issue is to have certainty in the long term in the energy sector, and with that i urge rejection of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i respectfully ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will e postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-493. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. deutch: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-493 offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, it's no surprise -- excuse me -- that i oppose h.r. 4899. however, my amendment is not an attempt to sabotage a bill. it's to fix a major drafting error within this legislation that could have drastic consequences on our nation's district courts. my amendment would strike section 10702-a-3 of the bill which mandates that cases involving oil and gas leases, quote, take precedence over all other pending matters for the district court, closed quote.

i'm grateful for the opportunity to explain the serious implications of this serious provision. the provision seems to be directed to concerns that individuals and communities, small businesses, other interests that are not party to the production of an oil and gas lease may file lawsuits to prevent or delay an oil and gas lease from moving forward. now, i believe that people have an important interest in the production of oil and gas leases that could impact public health, property, environmental injuries in the area of the lease. i don't support the principle of locking people out of the courtroom. in our nation where the courts protect and ensure individual rights and private property rights are not violated, this provision eliminates court protections of these most basic rights, but the bill is drafted that's so broad that it does so much more than that. and here's where i hope that opponents and supporters of this bill can come together to fix this error. as drafted, this language requires cases involving oil and gas leases to skip ahead of all other pending matters

before the district court. that means everything. all pending cases. even cases already on the dockets of each of the judges sitting on the district court. because it was so broadly drafted, it contains no language to ensure that the case involving the production of oil and gas leases only receives precedence over pending matters before the district court judge who's been assigned to the oil and gas case. is it really the intention of congress to mandate that legal disputes over oil and gas leases take precedence over every single case already pending in our district courts, including national security cases, high-profile criminal and civil cases? surely not. h.r. 4899 already lets oil and gas companies the chair: the district court that oversees the federal property in question or the district court for the district of columbia. this section, therefore, allows oil and gas cases to bump some of the most important legal cases in the nation off of the d.c. district court's dockets.

do the oil and gas industries get to butt in line ahead of victims of massive ponzi schemes? do they get to bump ahead of litigation over drone strikes? do oil and gas companies get to jump ahead of litigation, like the dispute between the house g.o.p. and the department of justice over fast and furious? clearly that's not what my friends on the other side intended. do oil and gas companies get to prosecution er the of terrorists? i don't think that's the intent of my colleagues. and the implication of this poorly drafted provision goes beyond the d.c. district court. the eastern district of virginia of the individual who plotted to bomb the u.s. capitol should remind us across this country there are district court hearings, important cases that shouldn't be put on hold because congress wants to please big oil. even with my amendment, h.r. 4899 still includes language that requires cases involving

oil and gas to be resolved as expeditiously as possible. and not more than 180 days after the claim is filed. isn't that enough? mr. chairman, my amendment would strike this poorly drafted provision from the bill. we shouldn't let oil and gas litigation skip ahead of some of the most important national security cases, civil cases and criminal cases of our time. at the very least, i'd urge my friend, chairman hastings, to revisit this revision and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition -- to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i obviously rise in opposition to this amendment. let me talk about the underlying legislation. the underlying legislation streamlines the judicial process to ensure that there are timely resolution of lawsuits that seek to block and slow down american-made energy.

that was what the whole idea was. in fact, i refered to this in my comments -- referred to this in my comments on the previous amendment. so the attempt of the underlying legislation was to make sure there is a timely response to this so there can be, again, some certainty in the process. now, what i find interesting, i think the gentleman from florida makes some valid points as to what perhaps the interpretation of the underlying legislation, but i'd remind the gentleman that when this legislation was on the floor as an individual amendment, exact language was in here, the judiciary committee, who has jurisdiction, obviously, over this, waived their jurisdiction and felt that the language was very good. i'd certainly be willing to, if the gentleman has a way to maybe fine tune that, i think that's something we should look at. but -- and this is the important point here, mr.

chairman, as we debate this amendment -- his approach to this is like taking a sledgehammer to a fly. and i don't think that that is the proper way to go because he strikes the whole section dealing with giving priority and trying to get certainty in the judicial process. so i rise in opposition to the gentleman, but i will say to the gentleman, as this legislation moves forward and he has some suggestions, if and when the senate, by the way, passes legislation and we can fine tune this, to address i think some valid concerns that he has while still making sure that energy produced litigation is dealt with in a timely manner, i think there might be some common ground. mr. chairman, i believe that his approach, by striking that whole section out of this legislation, is not the proper way to go. i urge rejection of the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida.

mr. deutch: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. chairman. just to respond to a couple of points. the judiciary committee may have waived jurisdiction. as my friend knows, there is no vote to waive jurisdiction. had there been i would have stood up. if the purpose of the litigation is to streamline lawsuits and that was the whole idea behind the legislation, then having language that requires these to be heard as expeditiously as possible and not more than 180 days, that does that. that's in the bill even after this amendment passes. and i can't believe it was the intention of the drafters of this legislation to put the oil -- these oil and gas disputes ahead of cases that involve plots against -- plots to kill americans, as is the case of the mastermind of the benghazi attack. individuals who have important civil cases, important criminal cases, i just can't imagine the dispute between the house g.o.p. and the justice department over fast and furious. clearly it wasn't the intent to

say that the oil and gas companies are more important than seeing that case through. mr. chairman, i hope that this amendment will pass. we don't need to fine tune the bill. it's clear enough already, and with that i ask my colleagues to support this. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hastings: i want to point out that the judiciary committee last year waived jurisdiction on this. i do think that the gentleman makes a valid point, and we all know that legislation is never -- is a work in progress many times. i acknowledge, i think the gentleman raises a point. but, again, mr. chairman, the reason why this amendment ought to be rejected is because it takes out the whole section. and now you're left with the situation where there's not a certainty whatsoever in these lawsuits. i don't think that's a proper way to go, especially with the volatility of the energy market worldwide. when we have an opportunity to use the resources we have in this country, whether talking about offshore or onshore, to

ensure not only the safety but to add certainty to a growing economy, we should take advantage of that. but -- so i would urge rejection of this amendment because i think that what we put in the underlying legislation is valid for what it's attempting to do. so with that i urge rejection of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. deutch: because 180 days is a finite number, i ask for a recorded vote on this. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the committee will rise informerally to receive a -- informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the chair -- the speaker will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the senate has passed with amendments h.r. 803, cited as the supporting knowledge in investing in life-long skills act in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-493. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. speaker. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-493 offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you very much. this is an old friend to the committee and the floor. my friend, congressman hastings, and we couldn't have him retire from congress without doing this one more time. mr. speaker, i'd yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. by way of background, for those who haven't walked through this before, in 1995 congress desiring to encourage bidding on leases in certain deepwater areas of the gulf of mexico, provided relief from the normal applicable royalties payable to the united states. and what we found in the course of this, it worked. people bid on the leases. they went in but we found out that there was no provision for

eliminating the royalty exemption if the market price of oil rose back up to reasonable levels. according to some accounts, this omission might have been an administrative error. what we have found about the mismanagement of the minerals management services, people literally in bed with the people that they were supposed to regulate, it may not have been an administrative oversight. but whatever. it was wrong. it shouldn't have been there. now, as a result, they are now with oil up $100 a barrel and higher, are pumping this oil without paying anything to the federal government. far beyond what was ever contemplated. my amendment is simple. it gives these companies a choice. they can either renegotiate and execute leases for this oil.

that was obviously the intent. there was never intent to make this permanent for an ongoing basis. pay reasonable royalties to the united states, especially since a number of these companies are foreign companies. state-owned enterprises. or they simply wouldn't be able to bid for new leases. their choice. over the life of these leases up to $31 billion or more. i respectfully suggest it's time -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for offering the amendment and i thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. i guess my career would never be complete unless we did this one

more time. but this amendment, mr. chairman, is identical to an amendment that failed two years ago in this house, and i might say it failed by a broad bipartisan vote. i also remind my friend from oregon that this issue has been repeatedly settled in the nation's courts of law with the courts determining that rewriting the terms of these leases would -- to include price thresholds, would be a direct violation of contract law. that's what the issue here really is with this. it was during the clinton administration that these -- that this happened and i agree with the gentleman, it shouldn't have happened, but it happened. the courts have spoken very clearly on this. the u.s. supreme court found the department of interior did not have the authority to rewrite the contracts that were issued under the 1995 law. i remind the gentleman, the department of interior has lost

this issue in district court, appellate court, and the supreme court. ultimately this amendment speaks to force u.s. companies to break a contract legally negotiated under government law. or else be denied the opportunity to do business in the u.s. the amendment aims to back companies into a corner and attempt to force them to break legally binding contracts that re -- from my point of view is essentially extorting these companies to undo these contracts. again, i want to again speak on just a little broader. i would acknowledge that we have the right in this congress to pass legislation to change that. after all we are the body that makes the law. but there's a fundamental issue here that i think we really have to address this beyond this. should congress be passing legislation that breaks contract law when courts have said repeatedly that contract law should be inviable?

i think that's what the issue is here today. i understand my friend from oregon having some heartburn because this is dealing with oil and gas. i understand that. frankly i respect that. but i think the larger issue is here, we should not be doing what we could do because i think that we should hold contracts, private contracts, governments to private sector contracts in high -- a higher area than we probably -- some people think we should. with that i urge rejection of the amendment and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: we are not seeking to break contracts. what we are doing is providing an opportunity for people to renegotiate these contracts to stop making a profit by exploiting the loophole or a mistake that both of us agree

was unintended and unfortunate. this would be their choice. contracts are renegotiated on an ongoing basis routinely with government and in the private sector. and i respectfully suggest that this is a contract that's long overdue to be renegotiated. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i advise my friend i have no further requests for time and i'm prepared to close if the gentleman's prepared to close. mr. blumenauer: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. mr. blumenauer: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. blumenauer: i yield two minutes to my friend from oregon, the ranking member, mr. defazio. mr. defazio: what we are talking about here is obscenely profitable oil companies getting a give away while we are running massive deficits.

everyone says they want to run government like a business and lower deficits. the g.a.o. estimated if this is allowed to run its course without any of these leases being renegotiated, it will be a $50 billion windfall to the oil industry. not million, $50 billion. now, that would be a nice piece of change both for revenue sharing for the state and for the federal treasury. we could apply it all to deficit reduction or other needs. maybe even fund continuation of national transportation system, who knows. bottom line is, as the gentleman pointed out, it may or may not have been intentional on the part of people that the then management service to give away these assets to the oil companies, but for three years before they slept with them, or whatever happened, they did include it in the leases and then the court -- what the court found was that the law the republicans passed in 1995

didn't allow those sort of conditions to be in the leases. so this is a new approach. the republican law was the effect of the clinton administration, some members were corrupt at least, bipartisan problem. let's fix it in a bipartisan way. this would just say, if the companies who got this windfall and won that court case want new leases wee, would condition new leases upon them renegotiating and paying a fair return to the taxpayers on the old leases and in that process make the taxpayers whole. it is a legal and simple way to fix a problem that was caused both by the law as written by the then majority republican party, and the corrupt -- few corrupt members of the clinton administration. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. blumenauer: 30 seconds. let me just say there is an

excellent report from the congressional research service on this subject that makes clear that it is not illegal or violation of contract law. the argument is very sustainable. it's not the oil company that gives me heartburn to my dear friend, i would think any of us would have heartburn if the federal treasury, the taxpayers, were cheated out of $25 billion to $50 billion due to an error or an omission. that ought to give heartburn to anybody. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield my southwest balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hastings: the observation has been made that these maybe should be renegotiated. listen, mr. chairman, any contract could be renegotiated as long as both sides want to renegotiate. but this was the law at the time. and what i would -- what concerns me with this piece of

legislation is that we are saying, ok, there has to be -- or implies there has to be renegotiation. i would suggest to some that they would say that this is a heavy hand of government forcing somebody to do something that they could do under law right now. some areas they call that extortion. i might not use that strong of a word but i'm sure that would be implied by some people if they were subject to this. again, this has been -- this amendment has been rejected in a bipartisan basis the last couple years. the courts have ruled against this. i think we should follow with that. and with that will i urge rejection of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from washington. mr. defazio: ask for a recorded

vote -- mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report number 113-493. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. chairman, i have a brilliant amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report number 113-493, offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. so last night i'm watching the cubs game and the shortstop who is on a terror right now as far as hitting bounces off a foul tip that the replay clearly shows bounced into the ground and the catcher trapped the ball and then held it up as saying he had actually caught it. and the umpire, even though this violates the rules of the game, had the power to pick the

catcher over the hitter and he declared that the batter had struck out. even though the cubs manager went out there claiming how unfair it was, and i was yelling at the tv screen for hours afterwards, history books will still say that castro had a strikeout at this particular event. of course the unfortunate thing is our administration and the department of interior and the bureau of land management plays this same game of picking catchers over hitters all the time, even though it violates some of the rules. so, 77 leases were put up for bid in utah. the martin luther king on -- b.l.m. on the ground took seven years, they did the environmental aalcy, and the secretary of interior simply canceled them. his reason was, because. recently, 56 leases were also set out there for auction, once again all the boxes were checked, they got through the process, they did the environmental aalcy, the environment assessment was done, public comment was done, protest

period was punished, five days, five days before the auction, a letter comes from a special interest group to the state director for the bureau of land management, a group that had been silent through the entire process, they said nothing during the assessment, they said nothing during the public comment, during the protest period, they said nothing. here two months after the record was closed, two months after the decision had been done with no more access to public comments, the director of the b.l.m. simply says, i'm going to pick a special interest group over another interest group and he canceled these leases. schools, chance of jobs in my state went out, chance of royalty payments that would help the kids in my state pay for their education, it was simply done on a whim. the industry had spent $500,000 -- a half a million dollars from their recreation and development funds were spent getting ready for this auction. all of a sudden a special interest group is given special

treatment and it takes -- what vernment needs, especially needs rural areas, and businesses, you tell them the rules, they play by the rules. it's a business necessity to have certainty and not have an administrative official simply change the rules on a whim at some particular time. it's kind of like to paraphrase the old tom cruise movie, you crude up, you trusted me. if we have -- you screwed up, you trusted me. if we have a policy that is long and hard, it gives am opportunity -- ample opportunity, it's meaningless if the bureau of land management can yield to the 11th hour to a special interest group. all we are asking them to do is follow the rules. don't change things on a whim. don't pick one group over the other. don't pick the catcher over the hitter. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: first, --

the chair: does the gentleman seek time in opposition? mr. defazio: first my condoences to the gentleman from utah for being a cubs fan. i'm a red sox fan. e have had some problems, too. that was an interesting moment and an interesting analogy made. i am not aware of the specifics of the incident which he speaks, t i would say that this as a remedy for a path -- past action of this would apply in the future. and it would not undo whatever took place in the past that the gentleman is referring to. the principle here is fairly extraordinary. it kind of says, federal

bureaucrats never make mistakes. so we have proposed leases in an area, we go through public comment period, local people comment. a hunting and fishing group comes in and says it's absolutely -- primo area for hunting or fishing or something else, or it becomes apparent that this is like right in a main recreation corridor. something that the federal bureaucrat overlooked in drawing up the lease boundaries. but under -- if this were adopted and became law in the future, at the end of the public comment period it would be where the federal government, thank you very much for pointing out that we really screwed that up, that we are just about to wipe out a prime habitat. we are just about to block or really degrade a prime

recreation corridor, we are bureaucrats in washington, d.c., we didn't realize that, but we are sorry. public comment periods don't mean anything anymore. we cannot condition withdraw or change the lease. and that would be it. i don't think that would be good. i really don't. i don't know what the gentleman is referring in the specific, but i believe this amendment looking forward to whoever is in the white house and whoever is administering these programs would really preclude any part of the public from having meaningful comment and getting a meaningful response on federal bureaucracy which has proposed leasing in their neighborhood. with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the gentleman from utah is ecognized. mr. bishop: mr. chairman, before i make a comment about the red sox, may i inquire about how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from utah has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. bishop: thank you for that i'd like to 45 secksdz to a mariners fan -- seconds to a down s fan, tough day here. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just want to make a point. what does this amendment say? it prohibits the secretary from canceling lease sales previously announced to be auctioned based on public comments received after the comment period ended. in other words, what the gentleman is simply saying, let's follow the law. i know he said that, but it's worth repeating. you have a comment period, then

a decision is made. once that decision is made, that should end the issue. why? because there is a great deal of capital that's been invested and as the gentleman from utah said, that's the certainty that our energy producers need. what was done in utah with the canceling of those sales at that time i thought was totally wrong. it was wrong then, and it's wrong now. the court has found that. i support the gentleman's amendment and yield back to him. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. defazio:nd and i have the right to close -- and i have the right to close? the chair: that's correct. mr. defazio: that might be an amendment that will be more acceptable, but it doesn't say that. after the conclusion of the public comment period, the secretary shall not cancel, defer or withdraw any lease

parcel to be auctioned in the lease sale. what the gentleman described is not what this section f would do. this basically says, we listen to people, we listened, we heard, it goes forward. maybe that's not the intent, and if it isn't the intent, then it would need to be modified. so i believe that the public comment period for leases that are drawn up by bureaucrats in washington, d.c., headquarters should be meaningfully commented upon through a process by people in the vicinity, and their comments should be given some weight in whether or not the lease is modified or goes forward, as i previously described, if it impeds upon prime habitat or, you know, particularly on a recreational corridor. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized.

mr. bishop: i'm assuming you have no other speakers. i'll finish this then. i appreciate knowing the gentleman from oregon is a red sox fan, that explains so, so much here. i appreciate this concept. i have to admit, this is probably a needless amendment. one would assume if you write a law or you write a rule, that is what you do. this amendment basically says you abide by the rules. even though you have great and awesome power. never mind the man behind the curtains. you don't pick one special interest group over another. you abide by the rules. they have seven years of going through the process of finding out what it is. this is one of those concepts, we are going to obey by the law. we are going to abide by the rules so everyone knows what is there and everyone knows with certainty what you should do and you don't change it at the last minute because you want to favor one group over another group. that's why we're doing this.

happened in the past. it can happen in the future it should not. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. defazio: again, the sentiments expressed by the gentleman having to deal with a particular experience in his state, perhaps his district, is one thing. but this is really clear in the statutory language. it says we will hold the public comment period when it closes, the lease goes forward, no matter what we heard. what the gentleman is talking about, there was a public comment period, the public comment period was closed and he says that some time later outside of the public comment period someone submitted information which was used and overcame all of the other testimony and/or comments that were provided. that's a whole different circumstance than what this is. this is very simple. it just says there will be a public comment period.

we will listen and at the end of that we don't care what we heard. it has to go forward as proposed. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. all those in favor say aye. ll tholes. -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. defazio: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number printed in house report 113-493. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 113-493 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee will control five as well as a member opposed.

the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman and i rise today to set a standard for answering the call of 500,000 to 800,000 jobs being created by 2020 that addresses the work in our ongoing and growing energy industry. i'd like to thank the natural resources committee chairman, mr. hastings, and ranking member defazio for their leadership on diversifying our employment base. and i also wish the chairman well as he moves on to other endeavors. he'll be missed on his insight. mr. speaker, i rise to support -- in support to the jackson lee amendment, number 9, to h.r. 4899.

congress has the need for participation of veterans, women and minority for employment, ownership opportunities. the jackson lee amendment number 9 to h.r. 4899 directs the secretary of office to establish an office of energy employment and training to support the agency's hiring and training of veterans, women and underrepresented minorities. it sets the standard for the private sector. as a member of congress from houston, the energy capital of the nation, i've always been mindful of the importance of having strongly advocated for national energy policies, really all of the above. and to make our nation more energy independent, preserve and create jobs and keep our nation's economy strong. the recent increase in production of unconventional oil and natural gas have provided a lift to the u.s. economy, and americans are seeing the benefits, not only because of the jobs created, but also because household incomes have gone up. it's up to us to have the regulatory structure that protects the environment but

also provides the opportunity for growth and creates jobs. i'd be remiss if i did not point out that both the chairman and the ranking member have been resolute in their pursuit of the expansion of opportunities in the energy industry. i share that commitment with them and this amendment is an example of what happens when members work in good faith across the aisle to find viable solutions. in this amendment, veterans, minorities and women are significantly -- recognizes they are significantly underrepresented in the oil and gas industries at all levels and severely underrepresented in a senior management -- managial, professional and ownership ranks. u.s. competitiveness requires that this manage increases the number of successful underrepresented minorities in stem education and careers and are more essential than ever. a pipeline of qualified veterans looking for employment will play a key role as the energy industry seeks quality, highly skilled workers. i'm committed to honoring our obligations to our nation's veterans, utilizing the talents

of veterans to help the government to meet today's dynamic challenges. the office of energy employment and training will align military and utility job classifications, identify veterans with the desired basic skills, access military personnel during the offboarding process and hold training programs. it is interesting to note that in 2001 to 2013, the number of stem jobs increased by 72.% as a result of the oil and gas boom in that state. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleladyle reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, this amendment is a product of the -- of a collaborative process between the gentlelady from texas and the natural resources committee. for most of this year, the

subcommittee on energy and mineral resources has held a series of hearings on american energy jobs, focusing on the tremendous job opportunities and demand for educated and skilled workers in the oil and gas industry. a number of those hearings focus directly on veterans -- opportunities for veterans, opportunities for women and opportunities for minorities not only in the industry but also within the department of interior. this amendment builds on that work by establishing an office in the department of interior to centralize and focus specifically on the dismal record of the department in these areas. and why do i say that, mr. chairman? i say that because we learned earlier this year from a g.a.o. report that the department of interior has trouble staffing these agencies and fails to utilize all of the tools at their disposal to hire and to train and to retain staff in

these particular areas. and so what this amendment does is centralize what d.o.e. should already be doing with the focus on veterans, women and minorities. i'm prepared to accept this amendment and look forward to working with the sponsor on this in other areas where we can agree upon and with that i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from texas. 90 seconds remaining. ms. jackson lee: i want to thank the chairman for his astute reflection on the work that we have done and i have done over the years. i introduced h.r. 70, h.r. 3710 that dealt with coastal restoration and the utilization of training for our young people and our veterans. so as i conclude and thank the chairman for his acknowledgment, along with the ranking member of their work on the committee dealing with diversification, the jackson lee amendment will help prepare a diverse population of workers from across the country with

diverse background to enter exciting and rewarding careers in american energy jobs. our hiss colorcally black colleges, hispanic schools, nontribal institutions and women universities will be engaged of the department of interior that will force a collaboration, mentorships and partnerships through effective job training and will yield employment opportunities. the department of interior will have management, employment and business activities. it will be the light at the end of the tunnel, creating a pathway for the 800,000 jobs. mr. chairman, at the appropriate time, i'd like to put into the record the employment outlook for african-americans, latinos in the oil and natural gas industry. the chair: the gentlelady's request will be covered under general leave. ms. jackson lee: thank you so much. in conclusion, let me indicate that our task here is to create jobs. we understand there are 300,000 vets that in fact may need

unemployment insurance. we want them to have jobs along with women and minorities and so i'd ask my colleagues to accept the jackson lee amendment and i thank the committee. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 113-493. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 113-493 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 641, the member from oregon, mr. defazio, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. as i mentioned earlier, the chief executive officer of exxonmobil under oath before

the united states senate testified three years ago that $40 rice of oil was $30 to higher than it should have been, and the price at that time was about $100 a barrel, a little less than it is today, $30 to $40 of the cost of each barrel of oil didn't have to do with the company's passing through exploratory costs or, you know, lease costs or anything else. 30% to 40% of the cost of every barrel of oil is due to speculation by commodities, traders on wall street, flash traders, derivatives traders and others. this isn't your grandfather's swaps market, commodities market. it's not users hedging themselves against future inflation.

it's not producers, you know, hedging themselves. no, it is rampant speculation by people who have no intention of ever accepting delivery of a barrel of oil, have no use for a barrel of oil except to manipulate its price, to make it more expensive, to make money for themselves and the people they represent, which is a very small minority of americans, less than 1%. meanwhile, the other 99% of americans pay more at the pump. . we should do something about this. there are those who think the modest position limits in dodd-frank will be a horrible, onerous burden on these speculators. and that maybe they can only extract 20 bucks a meryl, maybe only $10 a barrel. you would only be paying an extra 30 cents at the pump to

wall street. but as it stands today, after you take out other associated costs, about 60 cents a gallon that every american is paying at the pump today, no matter what the price is, where they live in the country, whether it's very high or very low, is going to wall street speculative interests. we should do something about that. if we want to provide relief to the american people at the pump, we should do something about that. this amendment as very simple. it establishes an account where money from lease sales would go to this account and it would be made available to the commodities future trading commission so they could upgrade their computers and do other things to better track and rein in speculators. basically the commodities future trading commission has been choked to the point in terms of personnel and equipment. i think they are still using common door 64's and trying to chase supercomputers.

we can do better. and we can do something real for the american people here today other than groundhog day on the fifth anniversary and repassage of this legislation that will not become law. now, there are those who say, well, you're increasing the deficit or whatever. no, it just says those leasing moneys would be put into this account and they would be subject to appropriation. we would then have to convince the appropriations committee that it would be a good thing to upgrade the commodities future trading commission so that they could crack down on some of the flash trading and speculation that creates volume tillity and higher prices for americans. i think 24 -- this would be a very good thing to do. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment is another attempt to prove the

unfounded position that speculation in energy markets is impacting energy prices. last year the massachusetts institute of technology released a study showing that, and i'll quote directly from the study, speculation had little, if any, effect on prices and volume tillity, end quote. so this -- volume tillity -- volatility, end quote. this distracts on our future energy needs and our country and about increasing our energy supply and production in our contry. this legislation simply -- the underlying legislation simply ensures that american energy production can move forward to create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign imports, therefore increasing revenues to the federal treasury, and, of course, contribute to economic growth. instead, this amendment, i think, would waste millions of dollars to try to find proof that speculation, its effect on

energy prices, , when in fact, that has been disproven. i might add, too, mr. chairman, that an amendment of this nature has repeatedly been defeated on a bipartisan vote in the committee, not only in the committee, but also in the full house of representatives. i urge rejection of the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i would yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. defazio: article from oil daily in 2008 and it is on the subject of a one-day increase of $17.92 in the price of a barrel of oil and they go on to say, nothing in the world happened, traders were astonished and horrified, and the volatility, and this should really settle the argument whether this is speculation or fundamentals at work. there is massive speculation in

this market. the chairman of even -- of exxonmobil says that a good deal of the price being paid at the pump has to do with speculation. we could whistle past the graveyard and continue to bow to wall street and defer to them, but this is reality. i wish that we would do something about t i fear we won't. -- about it. i fear we won't. they are very generous in even numbered years. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hastings: since it was established in earlier debate that the gentleman from oregon is a red sox fan, let me quote here from the massachusetts institute of technology which of course they are in cambridge, massachusetts, and probably most of them are red sox fans. i'll conclude here again on the issue of speculation.

it they conclude with this sentence, what we focus -- when we focus, ail quote directly out of the report, when we focus on four specific periods of price run-ups, we find that speculation may have decreased prices by about 1.4% on average, end quote. in other words, what the gentleman is saying and suggesting in his amendment that we should be studying speculation because it raises prices, here's a report from presumably a lot of red sox fans that believe that, in fact, speculation might have driven prices down. again, we have gone through this before not only in the committee in the house. it has been rejected. i urge we reject it one more time. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. mr. defazio: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. accordingly, the motion is adopted and the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 4899 directs me to report that it has come to no 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. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

1, the chair declares the house in recess for a period of less than 15 minutes.

exploration production activity overall is up dramatically in recent years. a lot of that is happening in places where the federal government doesn't necessarily regulate the activity. so it sort of depends how you count, really get to what the debate is. >> how much support will this bill, if any, get from democrats in the house? >> generally these bills pick up a handful of democrats. there's a good number that you can generally count on to come from energy producing districts. that has these interests back home that they are responding to. we saw yesterday i believe it was 19 democrats voted for another piece of this energy push this week to expedite

pipeline construction. that was actually much lower than we have seen as many as 69, i think democrats, sort of the high point voted for republican bill on keystone pipeline a few years ago. there's still some democratic support, but it's not overwhelming. >> given us a couple of amendments that you're focusing on. >> there are a few democratic amendments that get to issues like speculation in energy markets. they say that people on wall street and down in houston and other places where oil and gas is traded, they say speculation in those markets is responsible for driving up prices. there's an amendment out there i believe from one democrat, several democrats that would give the cftc to investigate these types of activities. there are a few republican amendments that would try and be even more aggressive in how quickly we open new areas to drilling. again a lot of this is more or

less a replay of debates that have been going on for quite some time. >> touched on this already, but remind us again how this bill focuses or is part of the broader republican strategy on energy. >> sure. the house republicans have made this week an energy week. they have really tried to hit the theme throughout. yesterday they voted on a bill to make it easier to build oil or natural gas pipelines, transmission lines, similar types of projects across the u.s. border. this is inspired by the keystone x.l. pipeline which has been the overarching fight in energy policy in recent years. also today there's going to be a vote on a bill from representative cory gardner that would make it easier or is designed to make consideration of liquefies natural gas export applications. it would make the department of energy review those more quickly. he says this would help our allies abroad in the context of the situation in ukraine by putting more gas in the world market, trying to drive prices down.

there are concerns that if we send gas abroad that would drive prices up here. so there's a lot of debate around that. there's also political angle to that in that mr. gardner is trying to unseed senator mark udall this november for the senate seat, and udall is pushing a very similar bill in the senate side. it hasn't gotten quite as much tratching. >> on energy the white house isn't idle this week, either. they tweeted that one year ago president obama announced his climate action plan. check out the progress we have made. is there any area of agreement between what the house wants to do, house republicans, and the white house? >> not really. like i say that has been the case for quite some time. this is -- we are sort of at that time of year where everything -- all attention turns to messaging ahead of the november elections. i think this week it's just another example of that. >> nick juliano is environment and energy daily reporter covering debate on energy bills in the house. thank you for joining us. >> thanks so much for having me.

>> both on amendments to that bill coming -- votes on amendments to the bill coming up. the house in recess subject to the call of the chair. we'll have live coverage when members return here on c-span. as the house has been working through those amendments, the supreme court today handed down a couple of big decisions as the court's term comes to a close. the court decided to limit the president's ability to make recess appointments. .

scotus rules the recess appointments unconstitutional. another one says, it's bad any ay you look at it. congressman matt salmon said,

happy to see the recess appointments rejected. and the court unanimously ruled that a massachusetts rule that creates buffer zones around the is tion clinics unconstitutional. they can make sure that -- they -- states can guarantee access they tion clinics but can't prohibit public speech. and now we're going live back to the u.s. house as members vote live on amendments. it -- the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 4899 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to lower gasoline prices for the american

family by increasing domestic onshore and offshore energy exploration and production, to streamline and improve onshore and offshore energy permitting and administration, and for other purposes. . the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the -- proceedings on the mendment had been postponed. amendment number 1 by mr. wittman of virginia, amendment number 2 by mr. lowenthal of california, amendment number 5 by mrs. capps of california, amendment number six by mr. deutch of florida, amendment number seven by mr. blumenauer of arkansas, amendment number eight by mr. bishop of utah,

amendment number 10 by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on 113 -- 113-497 on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-497, offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: a vord -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 244, the nays are 172, the mendment is adopted. he house will come to order. the committee will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection. >> i want to start by

congratulating our republican opponents for putting up a hard fought game in last night's congressional roll call game. as you know this year, we broke two records. we broke an attendance record last night and we also broke a record for the amount of money raised for the charities, over 400,000 for three charities. so our charities were the real winners last night but i want to congratulate the democratic baseball team, this is our sixth victory in a row, not that we're counting. our guys played a horde fought -- a hard fought game. i want to single out very quickly two people that i think really made a difference and they both played second base. one was raul ruiz, our m.v.p., made some outstanding plays. and second, really our co-m.v.p., linda sanchez that really -- really brought the

crowd to its feet. with that, i'd like to yield to my good friend and republican manager joe bar ton. mr. bar ton: thank you and i -- joe barton. mr. barton: thank youened aalmost objected to the unanimous consent but i decided it is tradition. the republicans wish to congratulate our friends on the minority side for their victory. it was well earn. we fought hard but we ended up this year in second place, one game behind. that's not bad. but it's not first place. we had some great players on our team, our m.v.p., kevin brady was 2-3. made cedric sweat a little bit. jeff flake, our senator from arizona, stepped on third on a hard smash and made a three to

mr. rooney at first base for a double play. we threw a man out at the plate. so mr. shimkus came in as relief pitcher and shut the democrats down for several innings, so we had some bright spots. but the sixth victory in a row was well earned but that is on loan that trophy is not permanently on that side of the aisle and while you've won six games in a row, we won about 60 votes in a row here on the house floor. >> i remind the gentleman that won't be permanent either. mr. barton: well, we're willing to bet some money on that for a little bit. in any event, charity was the big winner, as you pointed out. we set a record for money raised for the washington literacy council, the boys and girls club of washington, d.c. and the dream foundation for the

nationals. i wish to congratulate you and your team. to my republican players, i am proud of you. our guys played hard, practiced hard and we suffered, being on the wrong end of the score, graciously once again. congratulations to to the democrats. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal orange which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-493, offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 179, the nays are 232. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9, printed in house report 113-479, by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps. the clerk willres. re-designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 113 ht 497, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the nays are 227. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-493, by the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redefingt the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 113-493, offered by mr. deutch of florida. the chair: a recorded voast has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the nays are 223. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-493, by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in house report number 113-493, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] 7

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 229. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 8, printed in house report 113-493, by the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in house report number

113-493, offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. -- this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 241. the nays are 173. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in house report 113-493, by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redelingt the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10, printed in house report number 113-493, offered by mr. defazio

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 189, the nays are 223. he amendment is not adopted. there are no further amendments under the rule. the -- there are no further amendments. under the rule, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 4899 and pursuant to house resolution 641 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4899 and pursuant to house resolution 641 reports the

bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. demanded on vote the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is son engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to lower gasoline pricers in american family by increasing domestic onshore and offshore energy exploration and production, to streamline and improve onshore and offshore energy permitting and administration and for other purposes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. schoip the gentleman opposed to the bill?

mr. bishop: i am in its present form. the chair: the gentleman -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualified. the house will come to order. we will proceed when the house is in order. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bishop of new york moves to recommit the bill h.r. back to the house with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i ask that we dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? the reading is dispensed with. the house will be in order. the house will be in order of. -- will be in order.

the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i rise tufere a motion to recommit. s the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately be amened and proceed to final passage. the bill will be -- the bill before us does not represent a substantive effort to impo -- empower america's middle class to move up the ladder of success. though creatively tite 8d, it represents another attempt by the majority to look out for special interests already doing well from a tax code stacked against millions of our hardworking constituents. under the guise of attempting to lower gasoline prices, republicans are using the bill as a vehicle to steer control of our nation's precious natural resources to companies that accounted for nearly $100 billion in profits in 2013.

it is a textbook example of corporate welfare run amok. my final amendment will add two critical deponents -- components to the underlying bill. first, up in of the big five oil companies will be granted a new lease to drill on federal lands without first foregoing the massive subsidies they receive from american taxpayers. this would result in nearly $10 billion of savings to put forward the pressing national priorities that need our attention but are being ignored by this house. education, the highway trust fund, unemployment insurance, or permanent medicare reimbursement fix. second, oil companies will not be permitted to export u.s. oil or natural gas if doing so will increase domestic prices of gasoline or home heating oil. in other words, if the government is going to make drilling easier for the big oil companies, let's make sure the benefits are passed on to the american people rather than the corporate bottom line or foreign consumers.

we all want lower gas prices. in my district on long island, gas prices just went over $4 a glofpble that's almost a half a buck increase in the last foufer months. democrat or republican, all of us recognize that lower gas prices are desirable for american families. but let us also remember that the price of oil results from a combination of both supply and demand. as more and more chinese nationals purchase cars, increased demand on the global gasoline marketplace will lead to higher gas prices, regardless of u.s. or international oil production. in fact, since 2010, china alone has consumed about half of the extra oil that has been produced during this current oil production boom this bill will do nothing to actually lower prices at the pump. claiming this bill is a panacea to fix the problem of sky-high prices is just plain wrong. without the protections contained within this motion to recommit, the underlying bill could very well result in lower

prices at the pump and china -- in china and higher prices here at home. this is unacceptable and not what my friends on across the aisle have in mind. american energy infence is more achieveable than ever. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. members in the back, take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. american energy independence is more achieveable than ever. in fact, domestic oil production is at a 25-year high while net imports are at a 29-year low. let's support the american middle class by adding these vital consumer protections to the underlying bill. i urge passage of this motion to recommit. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek reck snigs? >> i rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: this is one more procedural motion and it seems we see a pattern here, procedural motions that distinguish the difference in philosophies between the two parties here. this is a good case in point. the democrat's response to higher gas prices is to, what? tax, tax, tax. our response to higher gas prices is to create american energy system that creates jobs, jobs, jobs. let's be clear. if you want to lower gas prices in this country, you produce more gasoline here. if you want to stop opec's influence in an international market, you produce more here. if you want to create a growing economy that can sustain itself over time you produce more energy here. this is an m.t. rfrl that does none of that vote against the m.t.r. and the underlying bill and i yield back my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields back his time. without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote having been requested, those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 roof owl -- of rule 20 -- clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered. s that five-minute vote. -- this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 177. the nays are 235. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. defazio: recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon requests a recorded vote. a recorded vote having been requested, those favoring will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 229. the nays are 185. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11:30 a.m. on monday, june 30, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: i rise today to applaud the work of the f.b.i., local and state law enforcement and the national center for missing and exploited children for successfully conducting a week-long operation to investigate commercial child sex trafficking in the united states. more than 168 juveniles through sex trafficking were rescued by law enforcement. the youngest of these victims was just 11 years old, and some of the victims had never even been reported missing. the operation spanned across 106 different cities, resulted in 281 pimps being arrested who were recruiting minors off the streets and online. while the operation was a success, it absolutely underscores the need for action

to combat child sex trafficking. the house has passed five different bipartisan bills to protect and help victims, go after the pimps and the johns and also end international sex trafficking. we need the senate to take action as well, mr. speaker. these are children, and by working together with law enforcement and victims' groups we will save lives, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, ocean waters have seen a 30% increase in the acidity. according to national oceanic and atmospheric administration, by the end of this century, the waters of this ocean could be 150% more aacidics, resulting in a p.h. that the oceans have not seen in more than 200 million years. this will have a devastating affect on many marine

creatures. it hurts species including oysters, clams, planketin, putting the entire food chain at risk. this will damage californians with $24 billion fishing industry which supports 145,000 jobs, and californians, $25 million a year shellfish industry could also disappear. we need to take action to prevent the effects of climate change from getting worse. we cannot stand by and see our environment continue to deteriorate. the cost of inaction are too great. i call on this congress to act to protect our planet for our children and our grandchildren. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> president obama was in my

state recently to talk about manufacturing. if the president is serious let me give him some suggestions to help right now. call for passage of the made in america act. announce support for the bipartisan plan to address the skips gap. use his pen to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline and take steps toward an all of the above american energy policy that drives down costs for everyone. mr. fitzpatrick: and call on the senate to move on the dozens of house-passed jobs bill that will gre our economy and empower businesses and employees. mr. speaker, simply put, americans are tired of talk. now is the time for bold action to help manufacturers, working families, and our nation, politics aside. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, one year ago tomorrow, the senate-passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration re-- the senate passed bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. it is good for the economy and strengthen ours security and recognizes the contributions immigrants nike our country this bill represents a good faith compromise by our senate colleagues to find common ground. over the past year, house republicans failed to even bring an immigration bill up for a vote. mr. lujan: earlier this year, e house republicans outlined principles for immigration reform but failed to introduce a bill to address thee principles. instead of bringing up comprehensive legislation, we have seen a tax on dreamers and excuse for inaction. democrats and republicans in the sthath have acted. democrats in the house support reform and have introduced a bill, a broad coalition from the high tech sector to law

enforcement, the faith community to agriculture backs reform. the american people overwhelmingly favor a comprehensive bill. the only ones standing in the way are house republicans. it's time to do what's right for our country and bring comprehensive immigration reform up for a vote now i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to a brave young man from my district, ryan segurski a 29-year veteran of the volunteer fire department. this is a picture of him with his family. he we celebrated his act of heroism. i don't know how he's registered or how he votes. but i know where his heart is. this is a tanker truck he, heard on the radio on his way home from work, that the tanker truck

swerved and hit something. he arrived at the scene, asked, was the driver oaks. when he found out the driver was still inside the drug, the went to his trug, got on his volunteer fireman's gear, went inside this inferno with no regard for his own life and safety but more regard for the person trapped inside. mr. kelly: what a remarkable act of heroism. at a time when our country is looking for strong americans, people like ryan, ordinary people doing extraordinary things, every day, why? because they're duly americans. especially on the weekend we have coming up, we celebrate these type of people and what they have done. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute.

ms. titus: today is the one-year anniversary of the historic decision to strike down the defense of marriage act. we celebrate the progress we have made for lgbt equality, but more importantly we must recommit to ending the injustice that remains. an announcement last week by the administration regarding ongoing efforts to extend federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in the wake of that decision clarify what is i have long suspected. unless congress acts, legally married same-sex servicemens, veterans and their spouses will continue -- service members, veterans and their spouses will continue to face discrimination when accessing benefits from the v.a. that's why nearly a year ago i introduced h.r. 2529, the veteran spouses equal treatment act. it sheens -- ensures that no veterans or their families are denied benefits they redeserve

regardless of where they live. members of the military don't serve in defense of the rights and freedoms of a particular state, but rather of the united states. my colleagues have a choice to stand with our veterans and their families or stand silent while they continue to face discrimination by the very government they fought to defend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? of without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. they're at it again. another overreach by the administration. this time the e.p.a., reaching not only what you might term navigable waterways but all waterways of the united states, they want to deem as theirs this would mean mud puddles. this would mean irrigation districts, everything they want to have jurisdiction over so they can regulate it, tax it, what have you. it goes beyond anything that has

been legislated in this body and is a complete overreach. the u.s. e.p.a. needs to withdraw this proposed rule that's outside of the law, it's outside of our ability of our people to have private property rights, to have an economy, especially in rural america where farm, ranching, timber operations could all be affected by vast overreach by the u.s. e.p.a. they need to withdraw this rule, we need to hear from the american people how it's going to affect them in their jobs and their local economies. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. ms. >> mr. speaker, 73 days ago, girls were kidnapped by boko

haram. 24 led to an international outcry for these girl's rescue. but 73 days later, we cannot allow this story to fade from the headlines. the violence of boko haram increases by the day. mr. speaker, instead of focusing on rescuing these girls, nigerian president president johnson's attention son his next election. mrs. wilson: he spent $1.2 million to improve his image by hiring a washington p.r. farm he needs to rearrange his priorities. i can think of quite a few things he could do with the $1.2 million. the first thing he should do is find those girls. mr. speakers, this is why we cannot let up the pressure. i urge you to join our twitter war to keep the world's attention on the kidnap of these children. eet #bringbackourgirls and

#joinrepwilson every day. we will get our girls back, tweet, tweet, tweet. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman -- the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i rise to raise the attention of my colleagues to several moments, first i'd like to celebrate the passage of my amendment that just passed in legislation h.r. 4899 to create a job training and employment department or section in the department of interior for veterans, minorities, and women, with 800,000 jobs on the energy industry, this is an american job creator. i'm excited about that amendment. but with sadness i rise to support my colleague,

congresswoman wilson, we joined each other in a delegation to nigeria, meeting with girls who had escaped from boko haram and in the backdrop of the tragedy of the bombing of a mall and killing more people, it is time for boko haram to be stopped and the girls to be brought back. finally, mr. speaker, as i go down to the valley in texas to address the question of those desperate children, this humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied children, we introduce legislation today to create 70 more immigration jums so they can be addressed. s that rye sis of which america is dealing with and we should recognize it as the humanitarian crisis. finally let me say, mr. speaker, bring the girls back in nigeria, help the children coming across our border. let us have a heart when -- heart when it comes to children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr.

woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the time. i don't know if you've seen the headlines yet, mr. speaker, you've been busy with votes all day long, but the supreme court struck decision today down the national labor relations board so-called recess appointments that the president made there over the christmas season in 2011-2012. 9-0. i hear a lot about the supreme court being a divided body, mr. speaker. 9-0, the supreme court said that the president of the united states had absolutely no constitutional authority to name members of the national labor relations board without senate approval.

they said that the recess appointment power that is provided the president in the constitution of the united states is not there so that the president of the united states can avoid senate approval, it's there so the nation can continue to run in the absence of the senate's being in session in order to give its approval. and mr. speaker the reason i bring that up is because that was yet another in a long line of decisions the president has made to ignore this body, to ignore the united states, in fact, to ignore all of article 1 of the constitution and that's not just a republican from the state of georgia saying that, mr. speaker. that's nine supreme court justices, every single supreme court justice, the most liberal of the supreme court justices, saying the president vastly overstepped his authority in his action -- and his actions were unconstitutional. that's not news to anybody whob

following that case. the d.c. circuit court of appeals made that same decision, said the president overstepped his bounds, an that was way back in 2012. i have a quote here from president george washington's farewell address in 1796, mr. speaker. george washington said this, he said, it's important that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration. that's us, mr. speaker. that's representatives in government, that's the white house, that's the courts, that's the congress. should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration. to confine themselves within their respect i have constitutional spheres, avoiding any exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. in his farewell address, george

washington said, in order for this country to succeed, these individual branches of government, the checks and balances created in the constitution, the men and women entrusted with those responsibilities must resist encroaching on one another. against that backdrop, mr. speaker, against the backdrop of our nation's first president, against the backdrop of, well, he's standing right out in a painting right here in the hallway, mr. speaker, george washington presiding over the constitutional convention in the sum over 1787, this man entrusted with the birthing of our country, with the understanding of the consent of the governed and how we can preserve our freedoms while administering our governmental responsibilities, said resist the opportunity to encroach on the powers of competing branches of government. what i have on this sheet, you can't see it, mr. speaker, but it's -- but it's quotes from president barack obama.

not quotes from 20 years ago, not quotes from 10 years ago, but quotes from just the three years i have been serving here in this body. just the three years i have been entrusted with some responsibilities here in article 1, the president says this, a speech at north carolina state in january of this year he, said, where i can act on my own without congress, i'm going to do system of the president says, if i can do it without these other branches of government, i'm just going to do it. i'm just going to do it. george washington says, avoid encroaching on one another. the supreme court says, mr. president, when you step outside of your lane, 9-0, we'll declare your action unconstitutional, those were actions taken back in 2012, mr. speaker. even this year the president continues down that path. . state of the union address, mr. speaker. america will not stand still and neither will i. so when i can take steps without legislation, that's what i'm going to do. there's no confusion at the white house, mr. speaker.

it's t an act on the -- not an accident when he made supreme court nominations, he want confused what he was doing, he wasn't misunderstanding what the constitution said. he wasn't confused about what state the senate was in. he knew they were not in recess. he decided that he would define what recess was, he decided that he would do it anyway, he decided he did not care if he encroached on the senate's lame, that article 2 came and trumped article 1. february state of the union address, 2013, mr. speaker. the president says this, i urge this congress to get together and pursue a bipartisan market-based solution to carbon change, but if congress won't act soon to protect future generations, i will.

climate change. i can't go into a high school in my district, mr. speaker, without young people talking to me about the environment, want to talk to me about climate change. this is an issue about national concern. this is not about the president's concern. it's an issue of national concern, obviously international concern. but the president in his state of the union address doesn't say i'm going to take this concern, i'm going to win the hearts and minds of the american people and i'm going to move legislation through congress to enact my goals. he says i hope congress does what i want them to do, but if they don't, i'm going to do it anyway. it's exactly what he said with his recess appointments, mr. speaker, which today, again, he supreme court ruled 9-0 was an unconstitutional action by this white house. mr. speaker, august of 2013, we were in the midst of the president proposing changes to obamacare. in that summer he says this, in

a normal political environment it would have been easier for me for me to simply call the speaker, john boehner, and said, you know what, it has a tweak that has nothing do with the essence of the law, and we -- the employer are already providing health insurance, it looks like there may be some better ways to do this. let's make a technical change. the president says, ordinarily, what i would do is i'd call the speaker of the house. ordinarily, i'd call the congress and i would say, hey, i've got this little bitty idea, this little tweak i'd like to make, would you all work with me on legislation to do so? that would be the normal thing, the president says, that i'd prefer to do but we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to obamacare. we have executive authority to do so, and we did so. so here's what the president said. he says, i know what the right thing to do is, i know what the constitution requires is if i have an idea that i contact the

congress, that congress moves that idea through, that i put my signature on it and it becomes law of the land. i know that's the ordinary course of events, but these are not ordinary times so i'm going to ignore those constitutional mandates and i'm just going to do it myself. said that about the enforcement of obamacare. said that about his actions on climate change. said that about his appointments to the national labor relations board, and the supreme court said, as did the district court, that's unconstitutional. you can't do that. mr. speaker, we all have an agenda that we want to pursue. i'd like to believe we're all focused on the improvement of this country. i believe we're all interested in an opportunity for all america citizens. i believe we're all interested in growing the economy and protecting freedom. and the debate we have is how to get to that place. and when branch of government, mr. speaker, decides they are going to ignore the others and do it their way, the entire

system breaks down. the court today spoke directly to that. now, i want to contrast that, mr. speaker, because you might just think, hey, congressman woodall, you're a relatively new member from the great state of georgia, you're just bitter because you're a republican and there is a democrat in the white house. that's nonsense. i want to take you back to what previous presidents have said. congress ought to do what i tell them to do and if they don't do it i'm going to do it anyway, that's not what all presidents have said. bill clinton, december, 1994, remember back, december, 1994, the republicans had taken over the u.s. house for the first time in 60 years. 60 years the first time we had a rrp majority in congress and in 6 -- republican majority in congress and in 60 years and bill clinton is just two years into his new term and he says, not if congress going to do what i say i'm going to do it,

not i have a pen and i have a phone. he says this, i hope we can cooperate with this new congress. he's talking about the same environmental issues that president obama's talking about. the most significant environmental gains in the last 30 years were made under a democratic congress and republican president richard nixon. we can work together again. and you know, we did, mr. speaker. e did. biggest tax reform bill in my lifetime, 1997. bill clinton-newt gingrich. biggest welfare reform bill in my lifetime, 1996, bill clinton-newt gingrich. biggest medicare reforms in my lifetime, 1997, bill clinton-newt gingrich. that's what this country does, mr. speaker. we work together. we have common goals. we have different ways of getting there but we work together. our founders feared an all-powerful executive, mr. speaker, who would roll over the congress and roll over the

will of the people. feared it. set up a constitution to prevent it. other presidents understood that. ronald reagan, he wasn't working with a friendly congress. he was working with a congress of the other party and he said this. he said, there are also pessimistic predictions about the relationship between our administration and this congress. it was said we could never work together. well, those predictions were wrong. together we not only cut the increase in government spending nearly in half, we brought about the largest tax reductions and the most sweeping changes in our tax structure since the beginning of this century. ronald reagan, state of the union address, 1982. he'd been in office just over a year. just over a year. and he worked with a democratic congress, republican president, and he did some of the most sweeping changes that this nation has seen in the past century. that's what we do. that's who we are as a people. president kennedy, 1961, the

answers are by no means clear. all of us together -- this administration, this congress, this nation -- must forge those answers. members of the congress, the constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress. i want you to hear the tone of those different statements. president john f. kennedy to the congress, we are not rivals but we are partners. president reagan to the congress, they said we could never work together, but they were wrong. we brought the most sweeping changes since the beginning of this century. president clinton, the most sweeping changes in the last 30 years were made with democrats in congress, republicans in the white house working together. president barack obama, if congress doesn't do what i tell them to do, i'm going to do it

myself. the supreme court today 9-0 decision what president obama is doing is unconstitutional, and i tell you, mr. speaker, when folks are doing things that are unconstitutional, it threatens the very fabric of the freedoms that bond this country together. mr. speaker, just so happens that the supreme court ruled on yet another unconstitutional action of the white house today. i didn't anticipate that ruling happening today. i came down to talk about the president's new environmental initiative. e wants to reduce carbon emissions, co-2 emissions, carbon dioxide emissions by 30%. he announced this policy from the white house and the media covered it expansively. here's bloomberg, mr. speaker. president obama's views of addressing the climate change as a key part of his legacy.

reuters, climate change is becoming a major legacy issue for obama. "usa today," obama clearly hopes to make this an important part of his legacy. these are all articles from the last 30 days. "chicago tribune," the president's hometown newspaper, experts rule that the rule will probably spur the growth of state-level cap and trade in the marketplace. in that sense it may be remembered as a rare moment when obama worked around opposition in congress to implement one of the top goals. "politico," if finalized next year and put in place, it would be one of obama's largest legacy achievements. "new york times," it could become one of the defining elements of mr. obama's legacy. you might be asking, congressman woodall, for pete's sake, you talk about this being an important part of legacy from reuters, "usa today," a rare success for "chicago

tribune," "politico," largest political achievement in obama's administration. you're asking, where is the legislation on capitol hill? largest legacy achievement in the obama administration, this is the administration that brought you obamacare, this is the administration that brought you a complete reregulation of the financial services industry, this administration that brought you all of these sweeping changes, the media says this next proposed change may be the largest yet, and there's not a single piece of legislation moving across this body to implement it because the president says even though this is the biggest initiative of his career, even though this is the biggest change ever proposed, he does not need the approval of congress to do it. e's going to do it on his own. mr. speaker, that's frightening. it's frightening. the only way he's allowed to do these things if we can't work together in congress to stop

him. it seems to become the pattern in my adult lifetime that republican congresses protect republican presidents and democratic congresses protects democratic presidents instead of article 1 tries to help the people while article 2 tries to implement those authorities. again, the president is not confused what's happening here. this is his director of the white house office of science and technology. just last month he says, clearly the president regards this as part of his legacy to really turn the country around on climate change and he aims to get that done. i want you to think about this again, mr. speaker. biggest initiative of the president's administration, his director of the office of science and technology says the president aims to get this done. it's been covered by every media outlet in america, and there is not one piece of legislation on this floor to implement that because the

president believes that the right way to do it is without winning the hearts and minds of the people, without winning the hearts and minds of congress but just doing it and letting the chips fall where they may. he's tried that over and over and over again. it's a pattern in this administration, a pattern that the supreme court unanimously finds unconstitutional. i want to take you to part of the supreme court decision, mr. speaker. from page 40 of that decision -- the recess appointments clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. it simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the senate is away from -- is away during a recess. here, as in other contexts, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. the president announced the largest environmental

initiative of his agenda. obviously the -- arguably, the largest initiative of his entire presidency and he says i don't care what congress says, i'm going to do it by myself. this in the same month when the supreme court unanimously says, mr. president, friction, friction is not only natural in congress and the white house, it's anticipated by the constitution and, no, you cannot use your phone and your pen to avoid friction. we must work together. we must come together on an idea. we cannot operate independently. recess appointments clause is not designed to overcome institutional friction. friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. a consequence, the president would arguably like to avoid. mr. speaker, i have a couple of

shots here from this very same well where i gave a very similar speech almost two years ago. where we talked about these very same issues as the president embarked on that -- those original actions that led to this decision today. mr. speaker, those words went unheeded. those words went unheeded. the american people want to trust their president. the american people want to believe in the president. i want to trust my president. i want to believe in my president, but we cannot, we cannot sacrifice constitutional principles in the name of expediency so that any one person can pursue their agenda. working together has always been essential in the fabric of this nation. mr. speaker, two years from now, we cannot wake up as we did two years from the day that i gave this speech.

. where we knew the constitution was at risk. where we knew rather than winning the hearts and minds of the american people and the congress, the president just did it his own way. where we knew that there was a better pathway forward but so many in this chamber said nothing. so many across the hall in the capitol in the united states senate, mr. speaker, said nothing. so many in the name of supporting their party were complicit in undermining their constitution. mr. speaker, today is a day that we can reset that clock. we are in the myth of a major policy initiative that's 30% reduction in carbon that the president owes it to all of us to go out and win the hearts and minds of the people, win the commitment of congress, to make hat the law of the land. in e washington, avoiding

the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. the very fabric of the constitution, very fabric of the beginning of our country, mr. peaker, who we are as a people necessitates friction between the branches. and cooperation to wield the people's power. the president said he was doing the right thing for the right reasons 2 1/2 years ago, mr. speaker, when he made those recess appointments. the appellate court of the united states of america said, you are doing the wrong things, they are unconstitutional. the president said, i don't believe you. take it to the supreme court. i've got friends there. the supreme court said, 9-0, you are violating the constitution when you use your phone and your

pen to get this work done instead of seeking the approval of congress. we can throw our hands up, mr. speaker, and say the ends justify the means. we can say it's just too hard to work together. we might as well do our own thing. george washington cautioned us in his farewell address that that would be where human nature would lead us. but this is an institution that is full of consciencious men and women who took an oath to serve their constituency and serve this nation and to serve this constitution. we have an opportunity today, mr. speaker, not a partisan opportunity, not a house or senate opportunity, but an opportunity given to us by the supreme court of the united states to reset the clock on this relationship. for those of us who have always known these actions were unconstitutional, i confess it's a bit of a validation. but for those who might have

ithin -- been defending this dictatorial as something that was perhaps permitted in small way under this constitution now have the certainty that they need. not a 5-4 majority. 9-0a 4-4-1 plurality, but a unanimous decision. that if we are to move forward in this contry, we are to move forward together with article 1, congress passing the law. and article 2, white house enforcing the law. we can do this, mr. speaker. we owe it to the american people to do exactly that. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. with the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, is recognized for 36 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and submit remarks extraneous materials for the record on the topic of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rothfus: mr. speaker, next week on the fourth of july we celebrate our nation's birthday. the declaration of independence signed 238 years ago laid the groundwork for the greatest nation in history. the founders in the declaration of independence and our constitution created a novel system of government, one of the people, by the people, for the people that recognizes god-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. although the declaration was written over two centuries ago, our founders' sage words are

just as relevant and just as important today. especially those who work in public service. as a pennsylvanian, i'm proud that the declaration was signed in philadelphia. it's truly pumbling to read these important words on the floor of the house of representatives, and i thank my colleagues for joining me this afternoon. , the ress, july 4, 1776 unanimous declaration of the 13 united states of america. , when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.

we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed that when -- whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such forum as to them shall see most likely to affect heir safety and happiness. prudens indeend will take tate that governments long established should not be --

accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forums to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evince as design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new government for their future security. such has been the patient sufference of these colonies and such is now the necessity which estrange them to alter their former system of government. the history of the president king of great britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.

to prove this, let facts be submitted to a can dit world. -- candid world. he has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. he has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless suspended in their operation till his ascent should be obtained. when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend them. he's refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right to them and formidable to tyranny only. he has called together legislative bodies that places unusual, uncomfortable, and different from their depository of their public records for the soul purpose of keeping them in compliance with his measures. he has dissolved representive houses repeatedly for opposing

with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. he has refused for a long time after such disillusions to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for the exercise. the state remaining in the meantime exposed to alt dangers . invasion from without he has endeavored to spreent the population of these states for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of newer appropriations of land. he's obstructed thed administration of justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. for taking away our starters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally

the forums of our governments. for suspending our legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate or us in all cases whatsoever. he has abdicated government here by declaring us under his protection and wailinging war against us. he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. he is at this time transporting large earnings of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and purr fidity. scarceless paralyzed in the most barberous ages. he has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

i'm privileged to be joined here with a colleague from the commonwealth of kentucky, congressman andy barr, from kentucky's sixth district who will continue with the recitation of the declaration. mr. barr: i thank the gentleman for yielding and to continue the reading of the declaration of independence. he has excited domestic insurrections among us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers. the merciless indian savages whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. it in every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. i repeated petition vs. been answered only by repeated injury. a prince whose character is thus

marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. and i yield to my friend the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. rothfus: thank you, congressman barr. also joining me is my colleague from the commonwealth of pennsylvania who will continue with the recitation of the declaration. scott perry. >> nor have we been wanting in attentions to our british brethren. we have warmed them from time to time by attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. we have reminded them of these circumstances of our immigration and settlement here. we have appealed to their native justice and magnim mitt and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would

inevitably interrupt or connections and correspondentence. they, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice. we must therefore acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace, friends. we therefore the representatives of the united states of america, in general congress assembled, appealing to the supreme judge of the world, for the rectitude of our intentions due in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states. that they are absolved from all allegiance to the british crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of great britain is and ought to be totally dissolved, and that is free and independent

states they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do and for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor. i yield back. . mr. rothfus: thank you, congressman perry. mr. speaker, i thank my colleagues for their help in reviewing and reading the words of the declaration of independence, the words that birthed our nation. as families gather next week to celebrate our nation's birthday, let us not forget these words and let us never forget those who gave all for freedom, those in our military, especially those who are deployed today in harm's way. may god bless and protect them and may god bless and protect the united states of america.

mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, i would just like a robo t attention to call that was made on behalf of one of our republican colleagues down the hall. i really hope that he had othing to do with it because it was dishonest, reprehensible, played the race card and attempted to divide eople and in fact, apparently, was conspiring to try to get people who were going to vote for the democrat in november to vote for the republican -- in the republican primary runoff which under their state's law is not lawful, not legal.

so i certainly hope senator cochran had nothing to do with it, but it sounds like it helped him win his election, and this is exactly the kind of thing that people in the house, senate should not be involved in, trying to mislead individual voters, trying to trick them into voting for themselves because one thing is absolutely clear. if it requires trickery, deception, dishonesty, manipulation, unfair manipulation of people in another party to violate the law and vote for a particular candidate, then very clearly that candidate is not worthy of being elected to anything. this past weekend i was down on

our border between the united states and mexico, along the rio grande valley and along the rio grande river itself. i had the impression from the way some stories were written and some talk was going that we actually had a situation on our border where people would come rushing across the rio grande law even if there were enforcement officers, border patrol officers, that it didn't matter, people were just rushing across, so anxious to get here. having spent the weekend on the border, what i learned was that, yes, people are very anxious to come into this country but the coyotes that are bringing them from what we learned, apparently, paid by drug cartels to bring people across, those coyotes don't

want to bring people across if they're going to get caught because one thing our border patrol and the texas department of public safety does very well s if they catch a coyote transporting people illegally -- for r border example, in a raft, which is one of the most frequently used method of getting people across, then they take the raft and they destroy it normally right there in front of the coyote and help destroy his current illegal business. so the coyotes don't want to lose their rafts, their jet skis or whatever they're using to get people illegally across the border, so they wait, even into the wee hours of the morning, which i was there to see firsthand, they don't want

to be caught. they'll wait until they feel like they got time to get across and get back. i've also heard plenty of times from friends across the aisle, from people outside of congress who continue to say the same thing, and i know they don't mean to be dishonest. they're very honest people, but they keep saying they're trying to get away from the horrible murders and rapes and terrible situations in their home countries. ut the thing is, if you look at the crime rates in those countries from which they come, in central america, for example, you don't see a remendous dramatic rise in the amount of crime. there's not a dramatic increase in areas where so many of these

people are coming from to come illegally into the united states. so the question keeps arising -- well, then if the murder rate is deplorable, horrible as the situation is, if the violence has not dramatically increased, then why has there een such a dramatic increase in the number of people coming across our border illegally? and the answer that this administration apparently fuses to acknowledge is that it's not because of dramatic increase in violence in central or south america. it's because the word has gone out in central and south america that if you can get to america, you will not be sent

back. in the wee hours sunday night, monday morning, there was one group of adult women, three adult women, some small hildren, these were very honest people. they spoke spanish. they didn't speak any english. some say, i bet they're coming from mexico and they're being coached to say they're from el salvador, guatemala, south america, other places. but these kids could not have been coached at their age to say what they did. hey're very honest people. hen asked, why did you come, the immediate answer was, well, we wanted these little children to get a good education. well, most everybody in the world, you know, six billion,

seven billion people in the world, most want their children to get good educations. and yet if we have an influx of even one billion people into the united states, our country as we knew it will be gone. it will be no longer a country where there's a rule of law, where capital investment feels safe because you can't maintain a country unless you have the rule of law enforced. you can't just magically one day say, ok, now today we start enforcing the law as it is. it doesn't work that way. if you have raised a generation or emigrated in a generation who believes you just ignore the law when it's inconvenient, thin you're not all of a sudden going to have a country that

follows the law and attempts to enforce it across the board. it doesn't happen. so you -- i've been told before that, gee, there may be a billion, a billion and a half people in the world that would love to come to america. well, when you have just over 300 million people in america and you're increasing the numbers here by giving out over a million visas a year, more than any other country in the world, even though you have india, china with several times more people than we have in america, nobody's giving out more visas than we are. and even though you have a country like mexico that condemns the united states for their treatment -- for our treatment of people coming in even illegally and even those legally, what they don't bother to notice in their massive hypocrisy is the way they treat

people that legally or illegally come into mexico. if we began treating mexican nationals coming in illegally into the united states the way mexico treats american citizens, they would be screaming, going crazy every day. but it's because we're a more fair nation than mexico is. of course, it doesn't really help mexico when we have an administration as this one and a justice department as the one run by attorney general eric holder which not only has an ffort to get 2,000 or so weapons, guns into the hands of criminals in mexico with drug cartels but then also engages in covering up evidence of exactly what happened during that horrible, horrible project

that justice department actually put couple thousand guns or so in the hands of criminals, resulting in deaths that would not have occurred otherwise and yet they still cover it up. so clearly it's not under attorney general eric holder, a department of justice. it's become a department of, number one, injustice and a department, number two, of just us. oh, sure. as long as the internal revenue service is only going after conservative groups or christian groups or religious groups, that's fine. as long as it's only going after groups that votes republican, that's fine. it's ok. oh, and you want to try to catch us? well, our hard drives crash and our emails disappear and, gee,

we have no idea where they went. why? because we are in a country where the department of justice becomes a department of injustice and a department of just us, where, you know, as long as you support just us you're good. violate the law. it's fine. we'll make sure you're not prosecuted, but it's perfectly fine to go after people who vote republican, perfectly fine to go after groups that may not support the president's position on things. and now right down the hall in the senate of the united states we actually have united states senators who are wanting to destroy first amendment freedom f speech rights. there are united states senators, all from the democratic party, those that

are pushing this, that are actually pushing an amendment to the u.s. constitution that will allow congress to take away people's right to make speeches. and it's incredible that they don't even realize that if the amendment to the constitution to abridge, to take away freedom of speech rights, if it were to become part of the constitution and the american people got so mad at those they ats pushing it, that gave the republicans the majority in the house and the senate and even gave them a veto-proof number, then you could actually have republicans saying, hillary clinton can't publish her book anymore. i was just talking about this

with my good friend, senator ted cruz, and he was talking about some of the language that's being pushed in the senate. and senator cruz made the point, you know, if this gets passed, you could have congress, if there were enough republicans in there that said hillary clinton's book illegal, it's contraband, she can't do nbc, ore, and, gee, "saturday night live," they like to do say tire about political owe -- satire about political officials and some of hem are pretty dog gone funny, but actual -- doggone funny, but actually in the amendment we have senators pushing that amendment, under that amendment congress could actually tell nbc, national broadcasting corporation, they could actually tell them, you can't

do political satire anymore. . why would senators who like our constitution think it was a good idea to take away free speech rights? and i think they don't mean harm , they don't mean to harm our republic, but it's because we have now gotten into an environment here in washington, d.c., where the i.r.s. can go after people they disagree with politically and heaven help some candidate or some republican that stands up says we got to eliminate the i.r.s. because they can pretty well come on them coming right after him or her. say those kind of things, the i.r.s. is about self-preservation, and they'll come after you if you say negative things about them because like the justice department it's just us. we got to protect ourselves. so it's serious business, but

the environment is such here in washington, where democratic senators, some of them have rulely come to the idea that, gee, it would really be nice if we take away freedom of speech rights and give congress the ability to say, you know what, you can't publish that book. you can't do that political satire on tv. no, you can't do that film because we don't like it. these are people who are supposed to be enlightened and be against censorship. yet they are pushing an amendment that would allow , ngress to start -- basically we are back to the orwellian idea or all of those that have been written about in history when big brother gets so big, have book burnings. seems like that happened in the 1930's and 1940's of the 1900's.

it has become dangerous here in washington where you have educated people that haven't thought through their constitutional amendment they have signed on it enough to realize just how dangerous it is to the idea of a government of the people, by the people, an for -- and for the people. they bought into a justice department that's just us. a senate that's just us. and administration that says, hey, if congress doesn't do what we want them to, forget congress. i'll write my own laws and we'll just ignore congress. that's a dangerous concept if we are going to continue what the founders referred to as this little experiment in democratcy.

it's a dangerous time. and then we have questions that re asked of pete king of secretary johnson about what's going on at the border, and he's asking, if you're a parent central america in effect this can look like a free pass because you're making the situation more humanitarian, you're making more facilities available. as mr. fewgate said you are providing foster families, all of which is understandable. that's our obligation as human beings. if you're a familiar in guatamala or el salvador, this is a free pass. well, secretary johnson ends up saying, a couple things. first, i'm convinced that the principal reason these kids from everything i have heard, everything i have seen and from my own conversation with these kids, principal reason they are leaving is, the push factor from

the countries they are leaving. this is secretary johnson saying this. with homeland security. he says, the conditions in honduras, for example, are horrible. it's the murder capital of the world. there is this disinformation out here that this is for misos, that's what we are hearing. free pass, like you get a -- piece of paper welcome to the united states, you're froo. that's not the case. when you are apprehended at the border irregardless of age, my late mother, english teacher, she would have jumped on that and pointed out for secretary johnson, irregardless is not an appropriate word. it's either regardless or it's not. the secretary didn't have an english teacher for a mother so it's a common mistake. irregardless of age, you're on priority for removal.

they are given a notice to appear in a deportation proceedings. the way the law works, the 2008 law, we are required to give that child to h.h.s. and h.h.s. is required to act in the best interest of the child, which most often means placing that child with a parent who is here in the united states. but there is a pending deportation proceeding against that child. so -- by the way, mr. speaker, parenthetically here, he references the 2008 law which requires department of homeland security to give the child or children to health and human services. we were in a hearing yesterday where i was told i was wrong about that. i was just quoting secretary johnson in my comments as well as other people in the administration said look, we don't have a choice, because the law from 2008 requires us to immediately provide the children to h.h.s. any way, mr. king comes back and says, if i were a parent in

guatemala, wouldn't i see that as being a free pass? i mean a child, a 5-year-old child getting an order to show up in immigration court, you negotiation are you going to actually deport that child? to me it's a free pass. from their perspective. then these astounding words from secretary johnson. he says, congressman, i don't see it as a free pass. particularly given the danger of migrating over 1,000 miles through mexico into the united states, especially now in the months of july and august that we are facing. a lot of these kids stow away on top of freight trains which is exceedingly dangerous. i spoke to one kid who was about 12 or 13 who spent days climbed on top of a freight train. a box car. and these kids sometimes they fall off because they fall asleep. they can't hold on any longer.

it's exceedingly dangerous. well, secretary johnson is saying, because it's dangerous to come through mexico, then it's not a free pass that he's handing out to people when they get america. but having been on the border in the wee hours, let me tell you, to those little children, to the adults bringing them, it is a free pass. that's why they came. and in using the interpreter, and this is open territory, anybody can be standing there because these people, get them across the river, then they look for somebody to turn themselves in to. i was there when there were different groups that were being processed out there in the open .ir, daytime, nighttime so they are asking them questions as their job requires.

where are you from? there's names. they don't have any identification on them. they are strictly taking their names as they give it to them. nd -- but these -- one adult woman who had a couple of little girls with her, said, well, i'm not the mother, but i'm the cousin of the mother. where's the mother? well, she's got a good job in miami. she came in illegally some time back. and she's been working in miami. so since they can now come and stay here, then this was the time to start bringing the kids in. the other two women, they were mothers of the other children there, and they were explaining that the fathers of those children were working at good jobs in north carolina. and since they could now -- all

they had to do was get in to the united states and homeland security or health and human services would transport them, they become human traffickers, our government is, now doing that, they become human traffickers and take them to north carolina where their daddy has -- fathers have good jobs, working illegally over there, but again, since they saw it as a free pass, then this is the time to try to hurry into the united states. what was particularly telling, mr. speaker, and i don't have it with me here on the floor today, but there was a request, a solicitation from our administration, the obama administration, back in january, the end of january, that actually says, that we anticipate in the next short

months that we may have 65,000 children come across our border. now, why would they think that? because there weren't near that many only a fraction of that many the year before. and a fraction of that many the year before that. so why would they think all of a sudden there are going to be over 60,000 children coming in in the months ahead? well, they knew, the word is out in central america and south america, if you just get to the -- this country, the obama administration is getting you a free pass. the women that last group we talked to -- or that the border patrol we are talking to out here after they had turned themselves in, they didn't -- they had not heard the word permisos, but they knew they got a free pass. they knew they got to stay. so they said we are here because

we want these children to get a good education. since we know they can stay in effect is what they are saying, now is the time to come and get a good education. we want everybody to get a good education. but unfortunately if in this country we take tax dollars from americans who are working and try to pay for the education of every single child? the entire world -- child in the entire world, which i would love to do, if we do that, it bankrupts this country and then no child gets any kind of education. but it's a dangerous time. it's a dangerous situation for these children to be coming across our border for them. those areas, the brushes is thick. the river is swift. it's deep there where so many of them were crossing.

and yet because this administration has the word out and it's being sent out by drug cartels, being advertised, what we keep hearing, the drug cartels have the best of all business worlds. they actually will charge $5,000, one lady got a real deal, she got two kids and herself for $5,000, and others it's generally 5,000 a person, some eight. the drug cartels charge people to bring them up. cross mexico into the united states. and if they kind an traktive girl, they may pull -- attractive girl, they may pull her off in the sex slavery and make money off her. having three daughters myself, that idea just is abominable. but then because of the masses of people that are coming across in greater and greater numbers, we have border patrol and i.c.e.

that are pulled away from their regular jobs so they are not out there looking for the drugs. so you got drug cartels making money, charging people to bring them in to america, and then that causes a problem for us to enforce our border against drugs , and they can get more drugs in. there is a war against the united states being staged by the drug cartels and this administration better wake up and better start doing its job and if the administration will do that, i know my friends here on the republican side, if the administration will start enforcing the law and enforcing our border and protecting us from the massive amount of drugs that are coming in, and enforce the border, we will get an immigration reform bill done so fast people will be amazed how quickly we get it done, but

there is no sense at all doing an immigration reform bill right now when the president's ignoring enforcement of the law the way it is t the president needs to enforce the law as it is, once he does that then we can talk about amending it. . had a quote from the president. for all the challenges we face, all the problems we have, if you had to be -- if you had to choose a moment to be born in human history, who you were going to be, you'd choose this time. the world is less violent than it has ever been. healthier than it's ever been. more tolerant than it's ever been. it's more educated than it's ever been. well, i thought about this cartoon. mr. speaker, i'll finish with this. in effect, we borrowed the cartoon here, but it's like the

president's gone off a cliff and all the way down he's able o say, doing all right so far. but the day is coming when the country will not do all right, when there will be a crash because we failed to recognize the dangers on the way down. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i have unfortunate news that we ave lost one great american, senator howard baker jr. senator baker passed away today. howard baker served this country well, and he served it in a fashion that was worthy of admiration, from both parties, all people because he was an american first, a tennessean second and a republican third. he served three terms in the

united states senate, served as majority leader and minority leader. he served as united states ambassador to japan. served as chief of staff to president ronald reagan. he was a private practicing attorney as well at the firm of baker-donaldson, which was a firm his grandfather started and practiced law at one time with his father who served as a united states representative from tennessee. howard baker's been recognized since his retirement from the senate many occasions and received the presidential medal of freedom and has received other awards. his was a life well lived and a life to be demonstrated to others as a role for legislators to work with both sides of the aisle and work for america first. a life well lived, howard baker. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, for 30 minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr.

speaker. i certainly don't intend to take that much time, but in a few short minutes we're going to break for the july the fourth recess, and i just wanted to come forward and on behalf of the veterans of the united states and make the commitment to them that the house and the senate are going to continue to work to resolve the issues that we heard so much about. i'd like to share, if i could, share stories from veterans, eir wait times and neglect that my office has tried to help work resolve, that i'm hopeful that when we come back we're able to get to a resolution for these men and women that fought for and died for this country so we can have that july the fourth independence day. and so the following stories come from my district. they are stories we have worked on in our office. they haven't made national headlines but are very similar to others who have made national headlines. and the first is the gentleman, mr. michael whitley. he was a 100% service-connected

disabled veteran with cancer. he was unable to receive that cancer treatment at the v.a. medical center where he received his primary care, and so he had to travel about 3 1/2 hours to a different facility. even though there was an outstanding cancer treatment facility just 30 minutes away from his home. as his condition worsened, it became more difficult for him to travel, mr. whitley's primary care facility promise to provide fee-based treatment that was near his home. unfortunately, mr. whitley died before that was approved. the second comes from a 12-page letter, heartwrenching letter, three-year case that my office has been working to resolve. it's mr. willis mccarty. he visited his v.a. primary care provider in february, 2009, for an aor thic abdominal an rism. his doctor found the an rism, measured 7.8 centimeters and required immediate surgery.

to quote mr. mccartney, he told me i was a walking time bomb and that i needed immediate surgery. mr. mccartney was referred for surgery consultation at another v.a. facility and went to the appointment under the impression that he would be admitted for surgery. the surgeon sent him home and rescheduled the surgery for a later day. mr. cart knee writes, the doctor said, we do not see any immediate danger. we think the doctor overreacted and we are going to send you home for 10 days. upon returning home, he was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery where he remained hospitalized for two months due to complications. to quote mr. mccartney, before they took me into surgery they had to use the paddles on me two times. my heart stopped for over two minutes. while in surgery, a ventilator was placed down in my lungs to breathe for me. i was in surgery for six hours. after the surgery was completed and i was rolled into the i.c.u., the surgeon told the nurses, this is a miracle, boy,

and i want to keep it that way. i was in i.c.u. for about three weeks with a ventilator in my lungs the entire time. while in i.c.u., one of my lungs collapsend and i developed pneumonia. i was going through hell and i didn't know i was in the world. i was in the hospital for six weeks. after -- after his stay, mr. mccartney received a phone call from the chief of staff at the hospital and the v.a. representative apologizing and admitting guilt on behalf of the v.a., assuring him his expenses would be paid and that, quote, the doctor should have never sent me back home. they advised him to file a tort claim and even filed the forms to use in even filing the claim. mr. mccartney writes, just the hospital bill was about $125,000. this is not including the bill from the two surgeons, pathology, x-ray, etc. mr. mccartney has been paying these bills out of pocket

monthly since 2009. for five years, the v.a. continues to deny his claim, and to this date, the v.a. has paid nothing. they also continue to deny mr. mccartney's disability claims. mr. mccartney's appeal process will likely take another three years. mr. mccartney is 77. in his letter, mr. mccartney writes, i feel like the v.a. is giving me the run-around and i've served my country, done my duty and was proud and honored to do it. in return, mr. mccartney's eight years of service, he spent five years dealing with this medical trauma and now expects to spend another three years on appeals. every month he pays the surgeon and the hospital for a complication that the v.a. is responsible for. mr. speaker, most of the time when we're working with these veterans, they ask us to fix this for one simple reason -- fix it so the next soldier doesn't have to go through

this. not for me but so the next soldier doesn't have to go through this. we need to resolve these issues for our veterans and we need to resolve them now. they deserve better, and i want to thank our house v.a. committee under the leadership of chairman jeff miller, the democrats and republicans on that committee for the work they have done and are doing to make that system better. before we break for the july 4 independent holiday, i want to make the commitment on behalf of my colleagues in the house of representatives, while we will be gone from washington for a week, we will continue to work on these issues, to help resolve these issues for our veterans, and i wish each and every one of you a happy independence day. and whether you fly the flag in your yard or wear the patch on your shoulder or just keep it in your heart, thank you and god bless america. with that, mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. is there a motion? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i move

the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 11:30 a.m. on monday next. "washington journal.

host: back with senator ron johnson of wisconsin, sits on the foreign relations and homeland security committee. i want to get back to iraq and homeland security threats. if we could begin with where we started with our viewers, speaker boehner's decision to sue the president of executive action, do you agree? hast: it is sad that it come to this point. i have my own lawsuit against

president obama because he is basically governing through unilateral executive fiat. he is changing loss. there is nothing that gives the president any power to change, amend, or appeal laws. the president is supposed to faithfully execute the laws, he is simply not doing that. it is not just conservative republicans that have busy point. self-described liberal professor jonathan turley has testified before congress, he says we are at a constitutional tipping point and the president has crossed the line. our founders were geniuses and they set up a tripartite form of government, each branch would defend their own powers with checks and balances. during my lifetime i have seen presidential power expand at the expense of congress. it is a delicate balance. host: there is a check, critics

say, the power of the purse by congress to not fund these initiatives. guest: it is pretty blunt. the thing we need to realize is only about one third of the government is appropriated, two thirds is mandatory spending, entitlements, that is on autopilot. even when you have the last government shutdown, i know i created uncertainty and i do not recommend it. thery small portion of government actually shut down. most americans did not even realize it. a blunt instrument and not one you want to use. the judicialpport system getting involved in this constitutional crisis. the judiciary has been largely absent. in many respects may be appropriately so, but when you have a president who has taken his signature piece of legislation and he has changed at 38 times, maybe some of those are legitimate, executive discretion. for example, my lawsuit about

the management role in granting members of congress and their staff special treatment under the law, congress debated that. it is clearly not with the law intended. the president does not like the law. i agree. most things about obamacare i do not like but he needs to come to congress to change it he cannot do it through executive fiat. host: let's go to iraq, what do you make of the strategy and do you support the 300 advisors there and taking the step of drone strikes? guest: does the president have a strategy act of his strategy was withdrawal. i do not think it had to happen. what happened was predictable. by withdrawing and not leaving a stabilizing force in iraq we blew a historic opportunity to show that she has and sunnis and -- that shias and sunnis and kurds can get along in a

coalition government and share prosperity. that was only going to be realized if america stayed there like we did in europe, japan, and south korea, leave behind a stabilizing force after we lives,ced almost 4500 800 $50 billion spent. president obama came into office was stable. his job was to maintain that stability and hopefully increase it. the only way we can do that was by leaving american troops behind to pressure maliki to have a coalition government. as soon as we left, maliki started purging the government of any ethnic members other than shia. created great enmity, the kurds are taking care of themselves. let's make sure we help kurds maintain their stability. host: that answers why, but what

to do now? guest: we need to do everything we can to help the kurds stabilize kurdistan. i would rather have the kurds governing kirkuk and baiji and mosul. this is a term the wall street journal, we are witnessing the creation of the state of al qaedastan. that is a dangerous situation. the kurds stabilize and make sure baghdad does not fall, we need to protect american citizens in baghdad. a very grim situation. what is sad is i don't think it had to happen. host: what you make of the papers today saying that while the president has sent 300 advisors, there are going to be up to 7000 private contractors tot there to protect -- up

1700 private contractors sent there to protect them. guest: we need to reach out to the moderate sunni tribal leaders who helped us in anbar and during the surge and see if there is hope of putting humpty dumpty back together. we have heard the assessment, it is pretty grim. we have tod to do, recognize that reality. you provide stability, we need to do so and really do everything we can to help the kurds in the north. host: how do you attract the moderate sunni with nouri al-maliki in power? guest: it is tough and this administration has been open in their call for a better leader maliki, even the grand ayatollah has indicated that. i don't think there's anyway you look at moderate sunnis rejoin the coalition government with maliki in charge.

host: he has to go? chance ofyou have any reassembling the coalition government. i'm not sure it is possible but maliki cap beheaded. host: to protect -- maliki can't be head of it. host: to protect the oesdish region, d their have to the action in syria? guest: there is action in syria as well as iraq. president obama declared the war over, it could not be further than the truth. president obama initially wanted that appealed. administration asking for, does he want a modification? right now it authorizes use of

force against al qaeda and associated groups. iraq now, what you see in is al qaeda and associated groups, i think that obama has to have that. the effectivee response to terrorism managed by 535 members of congress. we will have to react quickly. unfortunately, this president does not seem to have it in him to take the forceful action required. host: we will get calls. ron johnson of wisconsin. harold, louisiana, republican caller. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. host: the morning. caller: two questions about the issue about the executive orders. my first question, isn't this a partisan issue? my second question, how did previous presidents issue

controversial executive orders, this is not new. appreciate the question, i think it is nonpartisan. hopefully in the op-ed i have cowritten with jonathan turley, which will run quickly, people need to be concerned. as is been a bipartisan problem. presidential power has been growing at the expense of congress for decades. that is true. making and what jonathan turley recognizes is that this president in particular has crossed the line. take a look at obamacare, 38 times he has changed the law. the employer mandate was -- it is very explicit and says it shall be mandated after december 31, 2013. president obama delayed it. it does not give you a lot of wiggle room or discretion. this president continues to do that. point in time, i think

congress, in order to support and defend the constitution, we have to defend congressional power. that is what john boehner is doing and i support him. i support my own lawsuit against this administration. host: oklahoma city, democratic caller. caller: hi. johnsonistened to mr. and other republicans like him who talk about the illegal moves president obama has made. but they cannot give any specifics. when you are going to a court of law, you cannot just make up any abstract ideas about how you feel. you have to have some facts. talking about him as aing the aca

violation, the lot you guys hated from inception, you do not have a leg to stand on. if anyone needs to be sued, it is mr. johnson and john boehner for wasting so much tax dollars. you guys have done absolutely nothing since you have been in office. absolutely nothing. host: let's get a response. a specificve you example in terms of the employer mandate, shall be implemented after december 30 first 2013. my lawsuit is really addressing the fact that president obama has granted special treatment to members of congress with the affordable care act specifically said that members of congress can purchase through the photo -- can't purchase through the federal employee program anymore. it was voted on that no employer contribution could be made for those purchase plans. democrats in the senate were not running to president obama.

even though the office of personnel management ruled as the law was written. president obama changed the law. i have sued this administration. harmed, it creates an administrative burden for me. because of the unequal treatment of the law. i did not want that. betweeneating enmity myself and constituents, that is a precious commodity and politics. it is a harm when that advantage is broken. host: you have to show personal harm. when it comes to the personal harm speaker boehner is going to file, where is the harm? is tryingaker boehner to establish something called legislative standing. there are some legal experts that are positive that at some point and time congress should the the power to challenge

executive when their powers are being eroded. that is a collective harm that is being done. that should establish standing. the judiciary has got to get involved as well. otherwise, our tripartite system of checks and balances is going to be destroyed and our freedom will be friend. host: back to iraq. nothing butis isis armed political parties in the western sense? guest: listen, terrorists are -- certainly they are not affiliated with a nationstate and they are not following the rules of the geneva convention as it relates to how to conduct a war. they're committing acts of terrorism. , suicide bombers. we have seen beheadings, executions without trial. as people are terrorists, they are not lawful combatants, they are unlawful combatants. kill americans.

they do not like the west. they do not like the modern world. absolutely bent on its destruction and we have got to fight them. we cannot put our head in the sand. when al qaedact, declared war on us we did not want to believe it. the twin towers came down and thousands of americans were slaughtered. i wish this threat did not exist but it doesn't we have to face it. host: if we have to fight it, do you support airstrikes and boots on the ground? want to see this administration's plan. want he ran today greater influence inside iraq. a better scenario would be help stabilize the kurdish region. if we are going to have operations, i would rather do it from kurdistan. but we do not want baghdad to fall. this is a complex, difficult

situation. the real tragedy is it did not have to happen. twitter.k on we support dictators and then we do not support dictators. do we fight every religious civil war? guest: america's role in the world is to convey through excellent example what our values are. liberty, personal freedom, free-market competitive system and democracy. where we are able and where it is necessary and in the national interest, we need to provide stability. we should have left a stabilizing force to keep iraq stable. now our opportunity is let's make sure kurdistan remains stable. into aot force israel destabilizing agreement. let's do everything we can to support poroshenko and helped him stabilize eastern ukraine. you have to look at every instance on its own merit. what is in america's national interest?

one of the problems we have is we live in a global world. what happens halfway around the world does affect us and can represent a threat to our national security. it is up to the president, who has got the bully pulpit, he needs to make the case to the american public. he has not. he did not do it with syria and when he drew a red line and as sad used chemical weapons, president obama could not rally the american public behind his suggestion for action. so it really does -- so much of this depends on strong residence leadership. i can talk from the sidelines all i want but i'm a small voice. the president that we elect to lead in the situation is the commander-in-chief. host: does the president deserve credit for syria getting rid of most of their chemical weapons? they have why did that down. -- down.aeave winded that guest: that was where we have a shared interest with russia but

it came at a cost. the admitted chemical weapons have been removed from syria that they are still using chlorine gas and we do not really know blood other weapons might be in -- know what other weapons might be in syria. i give the administration credit for working with russia but in now russia has more influence in the middle east. 9 millionot gone, ns overed syrians, syria the border and destabilizing places like jordan, turkey and iraq. iraq is a result of how syria spun out of control. president obama has not caused these conflicts but there are opportunities for america to help stabilize regions. this president has rarely acted and any action he has taken is too little and too late. host: a domestic issue that

could be a national security issue, the children that are crossing over from central america across the mexican border into the u.s. on the southern border. here's the headline in "the washington times. house judiciary had a brief about the hearing yesterday when they talk to border patrol officials. the deputy chief at the border patrol, customs and border protection on homeland security had this to say. [video clip] >> in 2002 under the bush administration, the homeland security act of 2002. then there is the human trafficking law passed in 2008 under bush also that talks about how we treat people that commit crimes, especially kids. there's a big difference. this is not a mexican problem, is a central american problem. 75% or more of the people

committing crimes are from central america. how we treat people under the current law is this. if you are from mexico or canada toomeland has 48 hours determine what kid you're going to send back to mexico or canada. but the way we do it with central americans, they get them, they process them, they get a piece of paper with a notice to appear, not appeal. then they can travel anywhere in the u.s., the kids are put in locations and placed in foster's. to changeion, we need the protocol with the central american countries, just like we have with mexico and canada. within 48 hours, we have to determine whether they stay or get removed back to their countries. the hearingas not but that was a guest on "washington journal" yesterday.

that is the idea he is proposing to address the situation. change the protocol with this central american countries right have these do not children remaining in the country for years. this was a predictable outcome of not securing our borders. that is what we are seeing. we have provided a status for people to come here illegally. the most recent was president obama's what i would consider an executive order, deferred action on childhood arrivals, which basically created an incentive. they created the impression in central america that if you can get across the border you will be able to stay. we incentivize and induced people coming across the border, they do. we provide welfare benefits to non-us citizens, we incentivize them. from my standpoint, the first step -- i want to solve this illegal immigration problem.

it has to start with securing the border. you do that across the board. you have to increase border security. you need to reduce or eliminate those incentives, you have to have a functioning guest worker program. you have to have interior enforcement. many are here on visa overstays. there's a host of things we need to do. secure the border, then talk about the other things. one of the problems with, hence his approach -- one of the problems with the comprehensive approach, it lays everything on the table. we are seeing the very predictable result of that. i am not aware of what the congress was proposing there, but we need to understand what our actions have caused in the past, what incentives were created. we need to and those incentives.

we need to secure the border. host: let's listen to what the border postal virtual had to say on the house side. [video clip] >> texas has experienced a rise of children and unaccompanied family units. the increase in unaccompanied children has been challenging on many levels. year, the fiscal number of unaccompanied children is over 51,000, they have more than doubled this compared to the amount encountered over the previous year. there are just over twice 700 children -- is over 2700 unaccompanied children in custody. the border patrol has augmented rio grande valley's personnel with agents from across the southwest border. allowing the sector flexibility to increase

operational footprint in within its area of operation. these children are vulnerable in custody, they are separated from adults and provided drinking water, food, and medical assistance. while basic necessities and facilities might be adequate for a short-term stay, cbp facilities were not designed and do not have services and place to convert large funds for an extended period of time. we are working with ice, dhs, and federal partners to surge resources comic women, and supplies to quickly, safely, and support the transfer of custody to the department of refugee resettlement. host: what did you hear? guest: is a tragedy.

my definition of a real problem. solutions will not be easy. one of the things we are hearing is that it will cost over $2 billion, but we are a compassionate society. by getting back to the main point. one of the things we are hearing , there are radio ads in honduras and guatemala, send your kids up here and they will give you permission slip and you can say. we need to counter that with real information about how they are being trafficked as humans. rapes, murders, broken bones and they have a train called the beast where children the most inhumane conditions. we need to get that information to central america to combat the other problem. luring children for profit, drug

cartels and smugglers. ,e need to get that information they're going to spend $2 .illion we're going to have to take care of the humanitarian tresses as well. christopher. caller: i think this is an issue democrats and republicans can get around together. the infighting is discouraging. i am concerned about munitions being used in iraq and afghanistan. i hear about soldiers coming back and they are sick and then they are stories you do not hear about him being sick and the veterans scandal that recently i'sulted in shinsek resignation. i am concerned about the use of depleted uranium over there.

i read an article a couple years ago that the green zone is radioactive. there are munitions causing cancer for their. -- over there. i was wondering if there would be an investigation into that. host: senator johnson? guest: i am not aware that, it is something to be concerned about, i will check into that. i am concerned about the weaponry we left behind for the iraqi army that is being utilized by isis. it is part of the grim reality from what is happening in iraq. host: on twitter responding to what you said about president obama's decision to leave in 2011. guest: president obama had an opportunity. the way i hear the story told is wanted a much

greater, in-depth strategic partnership long-term and the status of forces agreement was part of that. the administration wanted no part of that. maliki understood the generals levelecommending a troop of somewhere between 20000 and 23,000 troops. the status of forces agreement 10,000 on the table and then continue to ratchet the number maliki,the point where this is what i have been told, just through out the we can't grant you immunity. as the story has been told, this president had every opportunity statusop if he wanted a of forces agreement, he could have. on thatt obama ran platform.

he wanted to tell the people we have achieved of the peace and are coming home. but you have to consolidate and stabilize. he did not recognize that or learn from history. he hoped for the best. campaign slogan was hope and change. hope is not a strategy. a failureegy was and we are living with the consequences. host: melissa. caller: if you are looking for something obama did to violate the law, he did not give congress notification when he was negotiating to trade bowe bergdahl 45 taliban prisoners in guantanamo bank. being that senator johnson is part of the homeland security committee, i just wanted to know, since there has been a loosening of restrictions on travel in the u.s. and s,strictions loosened on visa s

is there going to be a tightening of restrictions in ?he future quest ma guest: there should be. backresident is putting us on a pre-9/11 footing where we are treating terrorism as a crime. it is far worse than that. the threat is growing. that is one of the reasons when we actually cap sheridan one of the -- when we actually captured one of the perpetrators of benghazi, rather than saying we will put him in a court of law, we should ship those individuals to guantanamo. it is a beautiful facility and people are treated with humanity. it is probably the best living conditions these people have lived in. the way you get intelligence out of these individuals is over a long period of time with relentless questioning. of years.iod

that is how you gain intelligence. if we're going to secure our nation, our best line of defense against terrorism is a robust intelligence gathering capability. ton we have an opportunity capture somebody and that individual might have intelligence, we need to extract every ounce of that. host: that is the debate over the benghazi suspect that has been aboard a navy ship making its way to the u.s., headed to washington, d.c. the suspect will be tried in a d.c. court. the new york times reports that faras been cooperative so according to officials. not clear whether he had been warned of his right to remain silent or the reps and by a lawyer. to thewhen i talked folks in guantanamo, the people who are experts, there is no way you can extract all the intelligence in a few hours or a few days or even a few weeks. the valuable intelligence comes out over years.

these people are terrorists. they are unlawful combatants. they do not have the right to trial or the rights of u.s. citizens. they are unlawful combatants and we have the right under the geneva convention to hold them indefinitely while the conflict continues. unfortunately, the conflict continues. host: the new york times reports the ship the suspect is on is made from steel from the world trade center towers. its model is "never forget," typicallyy -- it carries osprey aircraft and helicopters. guest: it seems like this president obama a town hall meeting in minneapolis. he was there to promote raising

the minimum wage. >> what i have right here is a personally process plant that i have cut down into sections for the right wing for hanging. then these little leaves here are tight term. that can be dried and made into joints. be sent to the places that may cash and that sort of thing. right here we have finished by the that is sent over to cure and hang to dry and then cured in buckets for couple of weeks before they sell it. >> looking at the recreational use of sale and marijuana. 7:00friday mornings eastern on c-span.

we believe all men are created equal. many are denied equal treatment. certainve all men have unalienable right, yet many americans do not enjoy those right. are entitledl men to the blessings of liberty. yet millions are being deprived of the lessons. not because of their own failures, but because of the color of their skin. reasons are deeply embedded in history in tradition and the nature of man. we can understand without rancor or hatred have this all happened. but it cannot continue. constitution, foundation of our republic, the principles of

our freedom forbid it. morality forbids it. and the law i will sign tonight forbids it. >> this weekend, the 50th anniversary of the 1960 four civil rights act with president johnson addressed to the nation and signing ceremony, and later, hear from reporters who covered the debate in congress. the herald tribune's and a glass , sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span three. likes house and senate democratic leaders repeated calls today for house republicans to vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill am a marking the one-year anniversary of the passage of the bill in the senate. senator chuck schumer said immigration reform instead of trying to sue the president.

>> sorry for being a little disorganized this morning. we have had a lot of things to do this morning and just finished a medical -- medal ceremony. i think it is appropriate to quote comedian the upper trays what is going on better than anything i could ever say. this is other. certainly what is going on in the house of representatives. have done nothing like the republican tea party directed republicans we have in the

senate. it has been 365 days, 52 weeks since we passed in the senate a bipartisan conference of immigration reform bill. that commonsense immigration , reduceld create jobs our debt by a trillion dollars and keep families from being torn apart. a true bipartisan way, eight senators, for democrats and four republicans sat down and hammered out what they thought was the solution. went to the committee, went to the floor, and we passed it. billor leahy managed that or the entire senate, those eight. americans want their elected officials to work together to fix our nation's problem, and this is a problem that needs to be fixed. eight in 10 americans support immigration reform. that to me is about 80%. polls have shown the majority of

republicans support a bill with a pathway to citizenship. this went so far as to say head of the chamber of commerce republicans should not bother to pay -- run a candidate if they want -- if they do not pass immigration reform. they said it more than once. it was not of this -- a slip of the tongue, he really believes that. an organization led by tom donohue believes this. i think they are right. house has had a long time to act. they now have a month to act. hasajority leader mccarthy a clear choice to make. now majority leader mccarthy has a choice to make. he could force a bill on immigration and would not be hard to do because it would pass by a wide majority.

would voteemocrats for it overwhelmingly. something is not done by the republican dominated house of representatives during the month of july, the sole blame without any condition or inflation --nimum minimization would be republicans is we have been unable to do immigration reform. day they do not act they are killing it. each day the house does not act we do not make progress toward closing the deficit and creating jobs. other countries can work together competitively and we lose talent and more families suffer. instead of wasting -- wasting time suing the president, the house should do the work of the nation and pass comprehensive immigration reform. >> thank you very much.

for your strong statement, great leadership. one fear -- one year ago this week the senate passed a strong bipartisan immigration -- comprehensive immigration reform piece of legislation. for one year we have been waiting, urging all operating with the republicans in the house to bring a bill to the floor. they did not want to bring the senate bill to the floor. comp or hind -- compromised bill. many of the cosponsors are here now. it anyway you want but bring a bill to the floor, give us a vote. people across america, the religious community have traveled the countries. starvation, fast all the rest to make the point of how important it is. the law-enforcement community was the bible. the badges and law enforcement community have come here to

testify over and over again how important this is. supportness community this legislation. you can make a business case for it if you have agriculture in use -- in your state. agriculture, hospitality. the list goes on and on. this is needed for the economy of the country. it will reduce the deficit by about a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. a couple hundred billion in the near-term. it is about values as a country that we want people who are here to have right and be a path to legalization and citizenship. a sense of decency toward other human beings as president bush has spoken. president george w. bush a leader on immigration who said when we have this debate we should do so with respect for the people we are talking about. so whether it is about constant

reinvigoration of american that the immigration community is, values of respecting people, a better economy and the need for us to have apprehensive immigration, so many reasons why. today on this one-year anniversary we say to the speaker, give us a sign, give us a vote. if we do not have some immigration in the month -- some signed in the month of july there will be a bill scheduled for the floor, it seems there is little chance for us to pass such a bill. of goodeful because faith on this the senate has acted. long overdue for the house to do so. we have many senators who are here but because there are both on the floor, i will yield. the urban come at the champion on immigration reform. >> thank you very much. what i heard yesterday is that

the speaker would sue the president of the united states for using his executive authority it recalled a moment in history in one of the darkest moments of the civil war when another president from illinois named abraham lincoln sent a message to george mueller: who was refusing to use his army to execute the war and win. his message was simple him if general michael and will not use his army, i would like to borrow it for a time. that is what we faced when it comes to the issue of immigration. that speaker boehner, who has refused to call the bipartisan measure that came out of the senate for one solid year is critical of this president or using his authority to try to address the many challenges of immigration facing our nation recalls that moment in history and my mind. we passed a bill after a lot of long, hard efforts and negotiation. it was a bill that had the support of business, labor,

faith community, all across the united states. it is a bill that really appeals to all of america because it solves an american challenge that still continues where this -- to this day despite the ben geordie, he refuses to call the bipartisan measure because he knows quite simply it would pass. and if it passes, it would begin to solve the problems of the broken immigration system. a year has gone by. i do not know how much work time he needs but i hope you will speak up today, and if he does not, the president will borrow the power needed to solve the problems of immigration tom and should not be sued as a result of it. >> i am pleased to follow my friend the durban. we do just told you we came from a ceremony to present a gold medal to shimon perez. in many ways, the founding father of his country.

a country which form when neil peoplet by the jewish but in another sense a nation of immigrants. ofamerica, a nation immigrants. made great and courageous and entrepreneurial by its immigrants. we have a new majority leader. i was once a majority leader that have the power to put a bill on the floor or keep it off the floor. and i talked yesterday and i asked him to consider bringing this bill to the floor. i urge the speaker to bring this bill to the floor. deserves the right to have its representatives vote on this critically important issue to our country. from an economic sense and a plead,ense we demand, we

we ask on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the american people, brings this comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. and do it now. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues for the hard work. a year tomorrow democrats and republicans came together in just the way people want us to act in a bipartisan way on a major issue where everyone compromised and we addressed it or open immigration system. the bill we wrote was not perfect and not everything that any one person wanted but a good, reasonable compromised that strengthens the border, often stuff but their past two citizenship, reduce the deficit and got broad support across the

political spectrum from the most liberal to the most conservative, and still the house cannot summon the courage to bring a bill to the floor. act.ouse has yet to hope springs eternal because republicans know if the house does not pass immigration reform, they will be hitting the house, the presidency, the senate to democrats in 2016, and we will write our own bill in 2017, and it will be a bill less to their liking. the leaders of the house no they are coming up to the edge of the demographic cliff, and immigration reform is the only thing that can keep them from falling off a bit. a majority of the caucus knows it as well. an informal whip count before cancer was lost indicated the majority said let's move a bill forward. they know. they all know.

small sliver of the minority of america that has disproportionate weight for tea party that prevents them from moving forward. they are afraid of the tea party. they are afraid of the word amnesty. and limbaugh says it enough are afraid their primary voters who skew far right believe it. the majority of the republicans in the house are in the pray yes, vote no caucus because they want to deal with the issue for the good of the party but are afraid of the tea party and almost hateful anti-immigrant forces led by stephen king. the tea party may be a sliver of the american public, but they make a huge percentage of primary voters in their district. so the question before house republicans is this, will you let steve king being -- be your spokesperson? dictate to your -- what your

party does on immigration, which is nothing or the next year and a half. that is what you are doing. that is exactly what the republicans are doing, or do you summon a little bit of courage and pass immigration reform that will be good for you, your country and your party? i would encourage my friends in the house to look around and realize the tea party has peaked, and in only one major election did they cause the demise of an incumbent , and that is eric cantor. lindseyook at the graham election, mitch mcconnell, election in oklahoma, renee ellmers and a conservative district campaigned on immigration reform and one. their fear is greater than the reality, but they are quaking in their boots, and america suffers. i am still hopeful.

maybe they will come to their senses because people usually at the end of the day do what is in their self interest, and it is clearly in the self-interest of the republican party to move forward him and the speaker knows it. but they have about a month to summon the courage to do what is right for their party and country amid too big the chains of bondage that the tea party is wrapped around them which will consign them to minority status for generation. its hopes for the good of the country they summon the courage. >> thank you. pelosi, leader reid, and all of my colleagues and senators who have spoken before me. that my no question colleagues have all laid out many reasons why we need this comprehensive immigration reform bill. , that comprehensive

immigration reform will reunite families and strengthen our economy to have great importance to our economy. that is why you heard the 80% of people who are polled saying this 113tho be in congress. as chairman of the hispanic caucus, i can tell you it has been the signature issue, and we have been fighting carelessly and always in support of getting it done this year. of the american people, 80% are telling us to act, yet republicans continue to hold immigration reform hostage. the u.s. senate has done their job. it is critical that we in the house of representatives to our jobs. is --use passed a heart the house has before them a bipartisan solution and house bill 15 introduced by my colleague, joe rcf from florida.

times, but said many i will say it once again, now is the time to pass immigration reform by this 113th congress. thank you. >> well, i am glad to join my colleagues on both sides of the capital because we are at the end of the line. it looks as though the republicans may be giving up on our last chance to bring 11 million people out of the shadows. the last chance to make sure there are no second class citizens in american -- america. the last chance to do what is right for america for the economy and the future of the country and the last chance for the republicans to be on the right side of history. political consequences of their inaction and obstructionism are

now forthcoming. today one year later after hundreds of rallies, thousands of advocacy meetings, hundreds of thousands of families being immigration reform sits languishing in the house of representatives and the country waits. 11 million people wait and the toll run republican and action compounds. family suffer, children suffer, deportations continue and injustice reveals. i hope our republican colleagues in the house remember their immigrant heritage. understand exactly what the cost of inaction is and what it will mean to stand on the wrong side of history justice core political points for a handful of the most conservative districts in the country. i hope they understand we are not bluffing by setting a legislative deadlines for them to act. by killing immigration reform, they are turning act on their own immigrant heritage, on the

agricultural committee, business community, law enforcement, the religious community very broadly represent. the high-tech community of silicon valley and more importantly, their own face you have big to fix the broken immigration system. they are simply on the wrong side of common sense and political realism. the worst of it is, because of republican and action, even those of us who are u.s. citizens sometimes are enraged based on the color of your skin. hundreds of thousands have been deported, despite u.s. citizen children. they are not criminals but hard-working families trying to make ends meet. now, the clockt is ticking. the fallout for republican obstructionism will at the end of the day take years to recover at the ballot box. the fact remains if we had a

vote in the house of representatives, this bill would past. i remind the speaker and the new majority leader that their first job is to govern. in the absence of governing the nec executive actions. if you believe the business of government is people. if he believes responsibility of leadership is that he should move history to action and stand with us on the right side of history, then i think he will be rewarded. people are suffering. 11 million are living in the shadows. families are being separated. the clock is ticking and history is not on your side. the lives of millions are in your hand. spanish]

>> thank you. i am congressman judy chu, chair at the asian pacific american congress. it has been almost one year since two thirds of the senate, democrats and republicans voted for comprehensive immigration

reform. the american people and countless aspiring americans from around the world have waited long enough. every day house republicans stonewall reform, millions within the asian islander community feel the devastating impact. it affects people like the family who came to the united states from china but have to leave their 22-year-old son behind. if you were to petition for his son to come to the u.s., it would take him up to 12 years. today more immigrants come from asia or the pacific islands than any other region in the world. those from asian countries account for 10% of all undocumented immigrants. of the four .2% million individuals caught in the current family visa backlogs . some families have had to wait up to 24 years to reunite with their loved ones. not only that, with the

employment backlog, 80% of those waiting for the employment visas are from asia. that is why i hope to introduce hr 15, the bipartisan immigration bill. it has the votes to pass. do not want people any more excuses. it has been 300 64 days since the senate passed its bill. bring comprehensive immigration reform legislation up for a vote now. >> let me join with my colleagues from the senate and the members who have come up from the house to say congratulations to the senate, democrats and republicans alike, who passed a bipartisan bill to fix the broken immigration system a year ago. day means 365 days, every 1000 individuals being separated from this country, their

families, loved ones. every day republicans in the house have refused to let us have a vote. we also seen today republicans who have been talking -- giving us a chance to have a vote soon are having just the opposite. now know there is a letter going to the president telling him to eliminate the deferred action program for many of the young americans who know no other place as home other than america. more than half a million of the young people, many of the best universities and colleges. many starting businesses being told they should be deported from this country. that is where we are today. it seems like the republicans in the house have not listen to their colleagues in the senate, and certainly clear they are not listening to the american people.

ofause overwhelming numbers democrats and republicans throughout the country want us to fix the broken immigration system. come to one conclusion, house republicans have a choice. they can do this the american way, using commonsense immigration reform, or they can do it the tea party way. we help our house republicans choose the american way to do business and fix the broken immigration system. i still have confidence we get this done because everything proves you can. senate colleagues have chosen that. the american public is behind it. perhaps one place we waste too much confidence and faith is in the republican leadership, because after months of saying they're going to do something, after months of putting out principles, we are beginning to see their true colors. let me conclude by saying something in spanish. [speaking spanish]

it is time to vote, we deserve about, let the american people vote and we can get this done. mr. speaker, it is time to vote. >> thank you. i will be reese. it would be hard to overstate how frustrated the people in colorado are with the way the congress works or doesn't work.

we are a third in a chronic and third independent. when thegreat day united states senate a year ago was able to pass this bill. i could go home and say to people we finally did our job. we did our job in the proper way working together in a bipartisan way. republicans and democrats 7-8 months of bipartisan negotiations come hearings of the issues in the public, committee markup. 30 seven hours of consideration and a judiciary committee. 300 amendments. 212 considered, 100 passed. thoroughly bipartisan from the very beginning to the very end. we could not have passed the bill in the senate without our republican colleagues. colleagues willing to stand up and face the base of the party and say this is the right thing to do for our country, and

ultimately the right thing to do for our party in that order. it has been rare to see that kind of leadership in the five years i have been here, and that is the leadership we need to see in this house of representatives today. i do not look at the recent elections and take a conclusion that a vote for immigration is terminal. lindsey graham almost -- one with him a 60% of the vote. he had the guts to go home and say why it was the right thing for his state. intransigent of some people in the house, the minority of the minority the border has not been made more secure in the past year. the visa system as not been made more functional. the ability for people that are here that are undocumented to pay taxes and come out of a cash economy has not been addressed. my friends and colleagues go

risk losing farms in colorado. i hope they will pass the bill. that's when on longer than i intended to. tokspace that they're going hold our vote. >> very quick. clearly a year has passed. a year has passed that we could have had an immigration system that week -- that works. a year has passed we could have collected revenue that we did not invest in the nation's future. spanish]ng today what we do is treat the symptom. these children on the border are just part of the symptom of a row can immigration system. what we need to do is fix the immigration system. if we fix the immigration system we would have the resources to process the children and the system that worked had it. those that have parents in the united states would have a pathway forward. we could have made a difference.

we have not. [speaking spanish] there is not much more to add than the men and women who went before me. 15 has the votes to pass. and we think we can get it done. >> how much and to what extent do you think the issue of s?accompanied minors has, ♪ >> very little effect. they have had for excuse after excuse. then the president would not enforce the law. this did not have any effect at all. as for any proposed center in new york, i would have to look at the detai