-- >> just to let you know you can continue watching this at c-span.org. the u.s. house is coming in to finish up work this afternoon. they're expected to wrap up work on the $43 billion spending bill for financial services, providing funding for the treasury department, the i.r.s., federal courts and the district of columbia. live coverage here on c-span. votes later this afternoon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. lord god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. for all of us, some days are better than others, some tasks more difficult than others, but you have shown grace and favor to our country since its inception. please guide our nation's leaders to make wise decisions in the best interests of citizens everywhere. for those who feel called by you

to serve, let them say, here i am, send me. grant all the members of the house integrity of action so that they act not for their own honor and glory, but rather for the welfare of all of their constituents. lord, we also pray for all former members of congress, many of whom are gathered here at the capitol today. continue to guide them along their way, revealing to them the truth and bringing them to the fullness of life. may their examples of heroic statesmanship be an inspiration to all. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands aproved. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> pursuant to clause 1, rule 1,

i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the journal stands approved. >> i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceed option this question will be postpone the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlelady from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. johnson: mr. speaker, the immigration crisis taking place on the southern border of my home state of texas demands our undivided attention as well as immediate action. that's why unlike the president i will head to the rio graund avalley on -- grande valley on friday. the area covers over 320 river miles and 19 counties equating to over 17,000 square miles. knowing this, there's no way to fully grasp the scope and depth of the crisis through a simple briefing in washington. the president and harry reid just don't get it. last night harry reid declared, the border is secure. that blew my mind. if he and the president spent any time at the border, they'd

just see how out of touch they are. mr. president, americans, particularly texans, have been waiting 5 1/2 years for a secure border. it's time to secure our border. it's time to enforce our immigration laws. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. i hope we would have settled this debate years ago, yet here we are in 2014 and still arguing over access to birth control for women. according to the five-man supreme court majority in the hobby lobby case, it was not enough for women's access to health care. apparently employees should have a say too. this decision is yet another example of the constitutional rights of individual americans being trumped by the apparent rights of corporations.

so a woman is entitled to her own religious beliefs as long as they don't get in the way of the religious beliefs of the corporation she works for. the court's ruling on hobby lobby allows for for-profit companies to interfere with the personal health decisions of their employees, opening the door for employees to discriminate against women simply seeking practical care. justice ginsburg said it best in her dissent, the court has ven toured into a the mindfield. now it's up to congress to find a way out. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington 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 gentlelady is recognized 1. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is with full and unwavering support that i stand beside our greatest friend and ally in the middle east, the state of

israel. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: can he condemn the violent terrorist attacks in the name of ji hard. a resolution we passed in the house reaffirms israel's right to defend herself. when five million innocent israelis wake up every morning to the threat of deadly rocket attacks, they have the right to protect themselves. when hamas, a terrorist organization that has fired more than 600 rockets from gaza in the last month alone, calls for the destruction of the state of israel, the people have the right to respond. and this congress will stand beside them as they do. our resolution reaffirms israel's right to defend herself and calls on hamas to immediately cease its deadly rocket attacks. we must together come together as a congress and a country to condemn the terrorist attacks against the people of israel. furthermore, we urge this administration as it moves forward in the nuclear negotiations with iran to take a somber look at iran's support of hamas.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise -- seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, three months ago over 200 nigerian school girls were abducted and hashtag went viral, #bringbackourgirls. it is more important now than ever to return them home. every moment they are gone is a moment they are in danger. mr. speaker, three months without our girls means that the time is now to keep pressure on the nigerian government. we must tweet with a passion that extends beyond the glamour

of a breaking news story. we cannot slow down. we cannot lose momentum. we cannot rest until our girls are home. every morning between 9:00 and girls. tweet bringbackour join repwilson, hashtag. tweet, tweet, tweet. keep tweeting until we bring back our girls. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, the continued attacks by hamas on our ally israel makes them live under the daily threat of rocket attacks at any given moment. our closest ally in the region

must defend against the vicious attack. the united states must not understatement how serious these -- underestimate how serious these attacks are and continue to support israel. mr. speaker, i'm shocked the obama administration intends to continue to fund the palestinian authority. their decision to form a new government with hamas is appalling. we must respond appropriately. how can we possibly support a foreign government that embraces a terrorist group that is attacking our closest ally and continues to refuse to look at their right to exist? mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, 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. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to mark over three months since boeck boeck kidnapped -- boko haram dnapped girls in nige --

nigeria. forcing them into slavery is unconscionable and nobody should live in such fear. these kidnappings are not an issue for nigerian students but nations that respect basic human rights, including pursuing an education. i support a resolution sponsored by my friend and colleague, congresswoman frederica wilson, condemning boko haram and their heinous attacks. they rely on fear and intimidation to make their victims feel helpless and that the world has forgot them and doesn't care about them. the united states and the international community must continue to send a loud message that we have fought fore these girls and we'll work with our allies in the region to bring back our girls. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado 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, i rise today

deeply disturbed by the failed foreign policy of president obama, a policy of collapses, defeat and fiascos. mr. lamborn: the safety of americans abroad continues to deteriorates. desperate to seem like a foreign success, president obama and secretary kerry are steaming full speed ahead to another calamity with iran. sunday is deadline for nuclear negotiations with iran. let me remind you who we are dealing with. the rockets falling on israel today were largely supplied by iran. hezbollah, iran's proxy in lebanon, is supporting assad, syria's genocidal dictator, and thousands of iranian supplied bombs killed and maimed those in iraq. mr. speaker, as you said, a bad deal is worse than a no deal at all. a deal that allows iran to continue enriching uranium and pursuing a military nuclear program while supporting terrorism around the world is a

bad deal and we in congress will oppose it. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. and the chair would note that the members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair. with that, for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. higgins: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i rise to commend first shy low housing corporation for -- shilo housing corporation for transforming the town center. two decades ago the 14-acre former housing property was abandoned in the center of an unsafe, high-crime area. today, the town center is an almost fully occupied mixed use development with a diverse community of residents in patio homes, townhouses, apartments and a senior home. this past saturday i attended the shiloh corporation ownership to reflect how far this neighborhood has come and mark the beginning of its next

chapter. mr. speaker, the town center is the result of public-private partnership, including federal low-income housing tax credits and has stimulated new private sector development and economic opportunity. this is the type of work that the federal government should be involved in doing. congratulations to first shiloh housing corporation, its board of directors, its church members on success in taking back the neighborhood and rebuilding a community. i yield back the balance of my time. 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 to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the crisis on our southern border is one of the president's making. his policies and failure to secure the border have encouraged tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien children to attempt to enter the united states. mr. rothfus: on their way

they're exposed to exploitation, violence, sex trafficking, health risks and other dangers. the situation on the border is a humanitarian crisis and requires our chief executive's immediate and decisive action. rather than leading from behind, president obama should convene a meeting with the leaders of mexico, el salvador, guatemala and honduras. he should work with our border state governors and deploit the national guard to provide security and humanitarian relief. president obama should work with congress to actually solve the problem that would include changing law to alloyd for prompt repatery -- allow for prompt repatriation and providing the administrative and social resources to reunite the children with their parents in their native countries. the president bears responsibility for the chaos on the border and in these children's lives. it is time for him to lead. i thank the speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. r. payne: mr. speaker, -- mr. speaker, over the weekend my district endured tremendous tragedy. early sunday morning, jersey city police officer melvin santiago was shot at close range and killed in the line of duty by a madman with a gun. at the young age of 23, officer santiago had his whole life ahead of him. he recently graduated from the police academy and performed his job with such dedication. neighbors and family members said he was an angel who was proud to say he was a jersey city police officer. to me the people of jersey city and the people of the 10th

congressional district, officer isn't a yaw noah was a hero. - sambings ntiago was a -- santiago was a hero. this is another reminder that we must address gun violence. parents and families and children are living in fear, to walk to school, to go to the corner store, or to go to the movies. in the greatest country on earth, feefer of gun violence shouldn't consume our daily lives. i want to offer my condolences to officer santiago's family. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, there's a loving family in my congressional district who has a safe home for

a little boy who needs a lot of love and care. he wriglers, who mive in muncie, adopted this little boy last august. this adorable little boy is stuck in the congo for reasons that have nothing to do with his specific situation or his health. we esser -- mr. messer: put up with to keeping children from their adoptive parents. all children, regardless of where, or the circumstances in which they are born, deserve loving families. i'll continue working to make that dream a reality for this little boy and the wriglers and ore families like them who want to love and care for their adoptive children who desperately need both. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of the marketplace fairness act. states and cities have seen a decline in sales tax revenue due to increase in online sales where a sales tax that's already owed is not corrected. potholes go unfilled, and it is unfair to the brick and mortar stores that do collect it. ms. chu: this can be changed. when my home state of california changed the law to require collection of this already-owed ales tax, it brought in $2.6 billion, and the potential for growth is even greater. last night a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill that combines the marketplace fairness act which would require this collection with a 10-year extension of the internet tax

freedom act. with this act, we can stop the closing of businesses on main street and have a fighting chance to keep the jobs they provide our communities. we cannot wait to pass legislation like the marketplace fairness act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the crisis at the boarder is the result of the president's allowing half a million illegal immigrants to stay in the country and the national liberal media also are responsible for creating the crisis. the media research center -- center found that from june 8 to july 1, 89% of the stories on abc, nbc, an cbs failed to mention that president obama's policies have encouraged the surge of illegal minors at the border. mr. smith: accuracy media editor

pointed out that another story ignored by the media are a the hundreds of thousands of adult illegal immigrant who was crossed the border since april. the so said the media push pro immigration agenda. the national media should give the american people all the facts, not tell them what to think. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek reck snigs? >> i ask unanimous con sent 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. mr. sires: i rise to speak about a young police officer from new jersey, melvin santiago. he made the ultimate sacrifice and gave his life to protect his community. he served as a role model for his family and community. working hard to set a positive example for his brothers and cousins.

he knew from an early age he wanted to become a police officer and follow in the footsteps of his uncle a retired detective of the jersey city police department. his death is a deep loss, not only to his mom, his dad, his stepfather, his brothers, but to the entire city of jersey city. we depend on our police officers such as melvin and the men and women of the jersey city police department to protect us and give us trust that there is order in the world. it is a sacrifice too often taken for granted and i would like to express my condolences and gratitude to the family of melvin santiago and thank the public safety personnel, police officers, fire, and e.m.s. and the daily sacrifices they make to protect us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. daines: mr. speaker, we have long known the obamacare mandate is going to cost thousands of jobs. obamacare's burdensome mandate would force in home care givers to drop jobs and hurt the elderly, disabled and low-income montanans who rely on them for service. the assuring medicare access to providers act protects montanans access to care by exempts health care providers from obamacare's oppressive employer mandate and protects health care workers from losing their jobs or getting their hours or pay cut. i urge my colleagues to support .r. 5098 and help ensure the dis-- ensure that disabled and vulnerable americans can continue to receive critical services in the comfort of their

own homes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in solidarity with israel in its fight against hamas. mr. veasey: we must stand by israel during this time of conflict and continue to demand that hamas stop firing rockets and accept the egyptian proposal for a cease fire. we must stand by israel during this time of conflict. i hope that the people of israel and palestine will soon find peace and security in their homes. hamas has made it clear they do not share this goal. until peace does come, it is vital we continue to work toward strengthening our military partnership with israel as well as offering support and sol dare diin these trying time --

solidarity in these dry triing times so israeli citizens and palestinian citizens may live in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cooper: america lost a giant this week. hn siegenthale of "the tennessean" passed away. he was born to humble beginnings in nashville, tennessee, he was first a star reporter, then a confidant of bobby kennedy, then a defender of the freedom iders, then an editor of a pulitzer-prize winning newspaper, then founder of the first amendment center at the vanderbilt -- at vanderbilt he had the irish gift for words.

he always epid -- he i pit miesed the best of journalism. he was on the right side of history because he helped everyone, including politicians, listen to the better angels of their nature. because of his leadership, nashville is one of the most dynamic and welcoming cities in the world today. over 4,000 people from nashville and around the country attended his visitation. the catholic church was packed for his funeral. it was broadcast on local television. mr. speaker, a truly great american has died and will never be replaced. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i stand here today as a mother and a parent, i could offer that i'm a congresswoman but i think we need to embrace those mothers

whose girls are still missing. how long? too long. how long? too long. next wednesday will be 100 days since they have been gone. i join to say #bringthegirlsback. but i also want the lead ore they have nigerian -- nigerian terrorist group boko haram to be brought to justice. i want you to know they are attacking girls and young women. i want president goodluck this. n to acknowledge he established a victims' fund after we, the women of congress, pleaded -- pleaded with him to establish it after we went there. but we must hug them and know

them and love them and we have to bring the girls back. bring the girls back. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> 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. hahn: sadly, three months ago this week, 300 girls were abducted in the middle of the night from their beds in a school in rural nigeria. as time passes we cannot allow ourselves to forget these girls. kumai, kuwanta, they are our daughters, our sisters, rebecca, ayesha. boko haram aims to end the education of girls in nigeria through fear and intimidation. they stated their intention to

sell these young girls into sex slavery for $12 a girl. ruth, naomi. as a mother and grandmother, i cannot imagine the pain the families of these girls are experiencing. we are paying for the immediate and safe rescue of these young women to bring this awful nightmare to an end. i support our president's effort in helping the nigerian government bring these girls home and return to school where they belong. christy. palomi. tab that. as -- tabitha. we must continue to do everything in our power to bring back our girls. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california 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 gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: it's been three long, painful months since girls were kidnapped from their classroom by the terrorist group boko haram.

since the kidnapping, the terrorists refer to the girls as slaves and threaten to sell them in the market. i thank our congresswomen for continuing to beat the drum to bring our girls back. while some girls have escaped, more than 200 are still missing and boko haram continues to terrorize villages across northern nigeria and surrounding countries. today i stand here as a mother and a grandmother to reaffirm our demand to bring our girls back and to make it clear that mass kidnapping and threat of human trafficing are human rights violations that cannot be ignored. every child has the right to live, every child has a right to receive an education in a safe and protected environment. maifa,ester, just a few of these girls being traumatized and terrorized by boko haram. we callen the international community, especially african nations and the african union to work together and find these

girls and bring our girls back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the jeament from alabama seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. sewell: i rise to stand with my colleagues in sending a clear message that we will not tolerate the hateful terrorism and deplorable actions of boko haram. the denial of respect for human life with which this group operates is deplorable. i am honored to stand with my dear friend and colleague, representative wilson, and i admire her and honor her for her tenacious pursuit of justice for the 300 nigerian girls captured by oh bowe coe ha ram three months ago. we stand in solidarity with these girls, their families and every other victim of these th hateful group. as the weeks turn into months and the months have turned into three long months the international outcry has faded. but make no mistake about it, these girls are still captive

and they're still lost and they're still suffering. dr. king taught us that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. these girls are our daughters. we must continue to galvanize pressure to obtain freedom of these kidnapped girls and remain ever vigilant. we must bring back our girls. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? . without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the house appropriations committee has been busy doing the hard work that the american people expect, working in a bipartisan way to pass the needed appropriations bills to fund the various agencies in our federal government. .e focus on reducing spending mr. yoder really while holding the line on the government out-of-control waste.

chairman crenshaw, with him, we have have passed 11 of the required 12 appropriations bill across the house floor and we will continue our work to finish the job. mr. speaker, if my house colleagues on both sides of the aisle do the hard work to control spending and reform government programs, sadly, the senate has yet to take up one spending bill. as a september 30 deadline approaches, hopefully the senate will take up a spending bill under regular order. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, three months have passed since boko haram kidnapped nearly 300 school girls in northern nigeria. mr. engel: today, as ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee, i join with my colleagues to say that the girls have not been forgotten and we recommain committed to getting them home -- and we are

committed to getting them home safely. #bringbackourgirls. i want to thank congresswoman frederica wilson who has led the charge in this regard and we are united and not stopping until our girls are brought home. this year boko haram has killed more than 2,000 people and nearly 100 attacks, has kidnapped more women, they have tare rised villages -- terrorized villages. their leader demanded that boko haram militants be released in exchange for the school girls and called for the murder of christians. he must be brought to justice. my prayers remain with the kidnapped girls and their families and all nigerians who live under the shadow of boko haram. we must continue to push back against this group and work for the safe return of the kidnapped school girls. bring back our girls. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sarbanes: mr. speaker, i rise today to mark 40 years that turkish troops have unlawfully occupied cyprus, a group in an already volatile med tare arian, defies the u.n.'s peace project. for 40 years, turkey has frustrated every meaningful attempt to a just solution in cyprus. instead, its program has been one of systematically dismantling the religious, cultural and ethnic identity of the island. the sad irony of turkey's forced division of cyprus is that it separates two sypriat s, turkish and greek cypriat.

this congress, this administration, our nation must insist that turkey act in good faith to achieve what the people of cyprus, all the people of cyprus so deeply desire, an end to this tragic occupation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute for the purpose of making a one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to speak for one inute? >> yes. >> -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. last month i joined colleagues on a trip to nigeria, the focus of our journey was the

kidnapping of 270 innocent young girls at the hands of the boko haram terrorists. it's been 90 days since their taking from their school, their families, off to conditions unimaginable. so i once again rise and urge nigerian government to do everything possible to negotiate the return of these beautiful children of humanity. we have not forgotten. we will not forget. bring the girls home. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield it's back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the former member program be printed in the congressional record and that all members and former members who spoke during the proceedings have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i guess i want to talk about general leave. i don't know if i should wait until the chairman is in the chair. mr. crenshaw: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 5016, that i may include tabular materials on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 661 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5016. will the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on

the state of the union for further consideration of 5016 -- h.r. 5016, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, july 15, 2014, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 152, line 15. does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: yes, i do. i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i'd like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise today to address a proposed amendment i

was going to offer related to the securities and exchange commission's municipalities continuing disclosure cooperation initiative, or mcdc, the program that was anoupsed by the securities and exchange commission in march is related to the issuance of municipal securities. under the mcdc, the s.e.c. is asking municipal bond issuers and underwriters to self-report potential technical inconsistencies associated with the financial information reporting practices of state and local government. on its face, this seems to be reasonable. however, the states and localities that the s.e.c. is trying to protect do not support this program and feel it's very punitive. mr. stivers: in fact, the government finance officers association, or gfoa, which represents the nation's state and local government finance directors, supports my proposed amendment because the mcdc initiative is both costly and unreliable for government

issuers and taxpayers and underwriters. in addition, the proposed changed rules mid stream that apply one standard when weg lators reporting apparatus doesn't seem to work -- regulators reporting apparatus doesn't seem to work. i appreciate the chairman willing to work with you and the financial services committee to find a resolution to this problem should the s.e.c. not choose to curtail this program on their own. we want to make sure it's fair and equitable to our states and local municipalities. i yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw. mr. crenshaw: well, i thank the gentleman from ohio for bringing this initiative to my attention. as he said, the s.e.c. recently announced that issuers and underwriters of municipal securities are required to self-report violations of the federal securities laws relating to representations in bond offerings. and i understand the gentleman's concerns that this is a massive undertaking and to

identify all of the series of bonds sold and to make sure that all disclosure are made accurately and timely, a huge undertaking. and so i look forward to working with you regarding your concerns and to find some solutions. i yield back. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment -- report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. engel of new york. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section, none of the funds may be used to lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles for any executive fleet or for any agency's fleet inventory except in accordance with presidential memorandum federal fleet performance dated may 24, 2011. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman

from new york and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. on may 24, 2011, president obama issued a memorandum on federal fleet performance that requires all new light-duty vehicles in the federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles, such as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel, by december 31, 2015. my amendment echos the presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in the financial services appropriations act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the president's memorandum. this amendment has been supported by the majority and minority on appropriations bills eight times over the past few years. i hope it will receive similar support today. our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $6 billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at

ever-increasing costs, but america doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of oil, transportation fuel. alternative technologies exist today that when implemented broadly that will allow any alternative fuel to be used in america's automotive fleet. the federal government operates the largest light-duty fleet of vehicles. there are over 660,000 vehicles in the federal fleet. by supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies on our federal fleet will encourage the development of domestic natural resources clull biomass, natural gas, agricultural waste, hydrogen, methanol and ethanol. when i was in brazil a few years ago i saw how they diversified their fuel by greatly expanding their use of ethanol. when people drove to a gas station they saw what a gallon of gasoline would cost. what an equivalent amount of ethanol could cost and see what was better for them. they do in brazil. we can do it here.

we can let the consumers decide what's best for them. let me say my bill, co-sponsored by the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, would demand and mandate that all cars produced in america be flex fuel cars. it would cost less than $100 per car to do that, and we are foolish, in my opinion, not to do that as well. but here in the federal fleet, expanding the role of n.e.g. resources play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage over americans held by foreign government-controlled oil companies and will increase our nation's domestic securities and protect against price spikes and shortages in the world markets. i ask my colleagues support the engel amendment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. engel: yes, sir, i yield back. the chair: are there awigs digsal requests?

-- are there additional requests? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. all those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes indeed have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: i'd like to enter into a colloquy with mr. wenstrup of ohio, i yield to him. r. wenstrup thk the -- mr. wenstrup: the i.r.s. has admitted to playingle to picks with our taxes, focusing on conservative groups. i want to thank the chairman and the committee for ensuring that free speech rights are protected in this bill. mr. chairman, i wrote to you in april asking that we prohibit

funding to be inch -- funding to implement proposed runals 501-c-4 organizations and my constituents are appreciative that you acted by prohibiting funding for certain i.r.s. activities, this bill would prevent these i.r.s. abuses from becoming law. importantly this bill is designed to make sure the government works for its citizens, not against them. while the house continues its efforts to get to the bottom of the i.r.s. political targeting, this is a meaningful action we can take now to make sure the behavior isn't repeated. every american has the right to participate and engage in civic debate and must be protected from partisan bureaucrats. i.r.s. targeting isn't just an a front to the constitution but against all americans seeking to exercise their first amendment rights. i thank the chairman for his diligent work on this bill and i yield back. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for his kind words, i share his outrage over the

i.r.s. giving extra scrutiny to certain 501-c-4 groups based on their political ideology. this bill includes numerous but necessary provisions in response to their numerous inappropriate activities. these activities must not be tolerated and voting for this bill will go a long way toward making congress' and the public's displeasure felt. i thank the gentleman for bringing this forward and i ield back my time. mr. wenstrup: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. at the end of the bill, before she short title insert the fol logue, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to, one, designate any nonbank financial company -- the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the amendment? seeing none so ordered.

pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from new jersey and a member opposed each will control five mins. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the chairism rise today in an attempt to prevent government regulators from expanding the corrupt doctrine of too big to fail into even greater parts of our economy. under dodd-frank, fsoc, the inancial stability oversight council, can designate companies sipys. people say this doesn't mean they're too big to fail but it's the government's stamp to say, we care about this company.

every time the government uses this designation it opens up all of taos millions of potential losses. first they designate the mega banks as too big to fail. now they're claiming that nonbank firms such as insurance companies and asset managers and others should be designated that way as well. i don't think that fsoc will be satisfied until every company in this country is a sipy. obviously this has to stop. that is why i'm offering an amendment to prevent the secretary of treasury and the chair of the securities and exchange commission, both voting members of fsoc; from designating any additional nonbank companies as a sipy. it puts nonbank companies under federal reserve regulation and the fed, which only understands banks, imposes its bank type capital standards on them. and it doesn't really seem to care if that makes no sense at all for these companies. i guess basically if all you

have is a hammer, then everything else out there looks like a nail. when companies have these designations, they cease to be part of the free market. they become special, protected entities spared the cost and consequences normal companies face. and so, over time, accommodation of this protected status and the fed's risk-averse regulation will sap the energy and also the competitiveness from these companies. you know what, creative thinking and management will be seen as too radical and innovative business structures will be stamped out as too risky. meeting some g-13's definition of safety will take the place of building shareholders value instead. lob being and political donations, they will become the biggest and highest and best use of capital for these companies. and government will corrupt the private sector and in turn it will corrupt government. you only to look heat corporate culture over at fannie may to see what sheltering company from

market discipline does to it. what do i mean by that? if you like the g.s.e.'s, you'll love this designation. we should not allow too big to fail to take root in the nonbank sector. these companies are too important as a counterbalance to the mega banks for taos ruin them with crony capitalism. dodd-frank was based oen a faulty premise and this is it. the financial crisis caused exclusively by the greed of large financial institutions and intrusive government regulation could have prevented all this prevented the crisis by keeping them from making risky investments. with these ideological blipeders on it's no surprise we ended up with these designations, instead of solving the problem of too big to fail, dodd-frank codified it. fsoc is not working out as intended. with every reckless designation of a nonbank company, fsoc steps in and makes our economy more

dangerous and more unstable. as i say, you find yourself in a hole, you should do what? stop digging. so i respectfully request that you support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: dodd-frank doesn't designate any entity as too big to fail as paragraph one of the garrett amendment suggests. instead it provides regulators with the tools to oppose the risk posed by large, complex, and intersected financial institutions. both banks and nonbanks alike. this is crucial to addressing one of the main regulatory gaffes we witnessed leading up to the 2008 crisis. too many nonbanks were in the shadows and escaped critical

regulation that could have prevented the crisis. the garrett amendment is an attempt to roll back the critical rules of the road we passed in the wake of the greatest financial crisis since the great depression. large financial institutions are fighting if designation buzz they -- because they know that being identified by this designation means being subject to regulation above and beyond current requirements, including living wills to help regulators plan how to wind down the firms in an orderly fashion in the event they become insolvent. the heightened regulation also includes the ability for regulators to stress test the entity to see if they can withstand financial distress. demand more capital or to demand more stringent reporting. former fdic chairman sheila bayer, a republican appointee, noted in congressional testimony after the passage of dodd-frank

that, yet, many institutions are vigorously lobbying against such a designation, end of quote that being designated a sify will in no way confer a competitive advantage by anointing an institution as too big to fail. the capacity to designate nonbanks as sifi's is critical to the u.s. financial system for appropriate regulatory oversight. the designation process already has in place multiple procedural safeguards and opportunities for appeal. therefore we urge you to oppose the garrett amendment as not necessary. i restesh -- reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. garrett: obviously the markets have already disagreed with the gentleman by the pricing of their shares but at this point, i yield to the chairman such time as he may consume. mr. creb shaw: i rise in support

of this amendment -- mr. crenshaw: i rise in support of this amendment. i think this amendment points out you've got to have a thorough review and if you dent -- don't consider the true implications on the u.s. economy and u.s. taxpayers, you've got a problem. it's a good amendment, i urge my colleagues to support it. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: both gentlemen yield back the balance of their time? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the cement -- the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gallego of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the follow, title, additional general provision.

section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement or enforce revenue ruling 212, 2012-18 or any guidance of the same substance. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from texas and a member -- and the gentleman from florida each control five minutes. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gallego: as the gentleman knows, i find several government agencies frustrating, one of the most frustrating is the internal revenue services. ne of their tasks deals with wages when they were meant to be tipped. there's a tremendous difference not only to the employer but to the employee as to whether a

wage is classified as a wage or whether it's classified as a gratuity. i know that firsthand from growing up in family-run, local restaurant. revenue rule 2012-18 has forced businesses to change the ways that they have traditional handled consumer checks and that's resulted in a burdensome and logistical challenge for small and local businesses across the country. for over 50 years, restaurants have had a long-standing practice of treating these automatic gratuities as tips, for example, if you have a large party of 50 people, and you want to make sure that your waiter or waitress is well taken care of, and for a while there it was 15%, now it's about 18%. that's added on as a gratuity. that gratuity is meant to go to the waiters and waitresses who have helped your party. yet, the way the i.r.s. would treat that, the i.r.s. would treat that not as a tip, not as

a gratuity but as part of their wage which means it's counted against the employer for income purposes and then it is counted again against the employee for income purposes. the revenue ruling clearly, clearly, clearly is against years and years of practice by the i.r.s. now a lot of bigger restaurants may have the ability to forego the automatic gratuities without experiencing any significant challenges but for small and local restaurants that is a big deal. wait staff are often subject to inadequate tips on large parties and if restaurants continue to utilize automatic gratuities if they continue to say, please put an additional 15% on here for your wait ore waitress, then they can no longer take advantage of the fair labor standard act tip credit for employees who serve these credits -- serve these tables,

even if the restaurants distribute these gratuities to the employees. even if the employee gets the money in the end, it's counted against the restaurant as income and taxed on one place and then it is again taxed as income to the employee. for many small businesses, an inability to collect this tip is -- it is a really big burden. it's very difficult to determine wages for employees when they're simultaneously performing tipped and nontipped work because you cannot add that gratuity for large parties without it being classified in one direction but for smaller parties you can do a different thing. restaurants have treated automatic gratuities as tips for years. that's been passed on to the employee. that's very important to the employees. it is a big part of the money that they make. so as the champion of small and local businesses, i have very real concerns about the implications of the revenue rule to -- rule 2012-18 and i would like the i.r.s. to delay it and

reconsider their characterization of these tips and service charges and i understand -- i want to thank the chairman of the committee for allowing me to step forward and raise my concerns as well as the ranking member, mr. chairman, thank you so much for the opportunity and at this point, because of the point of order, i will withdraw the mendment. the chair: wocks, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. massie at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act including amounts made available under titles 4 or 8 may be used by any authority of the government of the district of columbia to enforce provision of the firearms amendment act d.c. law the

inoperable pistol act of 2008 d.c. law 17-388, the firearms amendment act of 2012, d.c. law 19-170 or the administrative disposition for weapons offenses amendment act of 2012, d.c. law 19-295. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from kentucky and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: i rise today to offer an amendment that would stop the district of columbia from taking any action from citizens using, possessing or transporting a firearm. despite the u.s. supreme court decision in district of columbia versus heller that struck down the d.c. handgun ban as well as the unconstitutional gun lot provision, it is still difficult for d.c. residents to exercise their rights to bear arms.

congress has the authority to legislate in this area pursuant to article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the u.s. constitution which gives congress the authority to quote, exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, unquote, over the district of columbia. through unreasonable regulation, arbitrary time limits and waiting periods and a ridiculous registration renewal process for guns that have already been registered, the government bureaucrats continue to interfere with the district's residents' rights to self-defense. the district of columbia has passed the first law ever in the united states that requires a citizen who is already legally registered a gun to pay a fee for re-registration to go to police headquarters, to submit to invasive fingerprinting and photographing. this is pure harassment. why would the d.c. government

want to punish and harris law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves. as even with the smallest bit of common sense knows, criminals by definition do not follow the law. they'll get guns any way they can. does anyone actually believe the strict gun control laws would prevent criminals from getting guns? they prevent nothing from good people from being able to protect themselves and family in the event of a robbery, home invasion or other crime. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: amazing, like president reagan once said to president carter in debate, here you go again and i rise to oppose the amendment. we often hear people running for

office rail against politicians who have gone washington. this amendment is an interesting representation of that phenomenon. we are part of a group of folks here who would like to treat washington, d.c., as their own little colony. back home, they tell the world they want no part of washington, but here, they want not only part of it but how to act. gun laws were put in place. under our constitution, states and localities including d.c. have the ability to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens even the supreme court has recognized that some level of regulation is necessary in order to uphold those goals. the republican party usually stands for states' rights, but not when it comes to the district of columbia. ur former colleague, the great david obey said if members

wanted to get this involved in district of columbia's affairs, perhaps they should run for the d.c. city council. that may be an option for the gentleman from of kentucky. this continues to be more than just a gun amendment. it is an anti-d.c. amendment and we should stop this behavior and stop it once and for all. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: three minutes. mr. massie: as john lott says, the district of columbia should have learned the problems with gun control the hard way. there's only one year after d.c. handgun ban went into effect in 1977 where its murder rate was as low as it was prior to the ban.

d.c. murder rate rose dramatically relative to other cities after the ban. with its murder rate ranking either number one or number two against the 50 most populous cities and always in the top two-thirds. as soon as the ban and more importantly the gun lock regulations were struck down, the murder rate fell, dropping by 50% over the next four years. indeed, every place in the world that has banned guns has seen an increase in murder rates, unquote. this experience can be seen worldwide. land nations present ideal environment for gun control but countries such as great britain, ireland and jamaica have experienced large increases after gun bans. after hand gups were banned in 1997, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in

england and wales increased 340% in the 7 years from 1998 to 2005. mr. chair, i would like to point out that the other side of the aisle when we talk about voting rights, they are very opposed to voter i.d.'s for voting. i think they would be opposed to fingerprinting and photographing in order to exercise that basic fundamental right to vote. i would remind them that the second amendment says the right to bear arms is a basic fundamental right to vote. and if they argue that fingerprinting and photographing is invasive enough and disproportionately disenfranchises minorities from the basic right to vote how can they not vote for the basic right to own and bear arms.

so in closing, my amendment states that none of the funds made available in this bill to the district of columbia will be used by the d.c. government to prohibit the activity of people in possessing, acquiring, using, selling or transporting firearms. it defunds four laws passed in the wake of heller that constitute an amendment by the government to overrule and ignore the heller decision. i urge my colleagues to support and vote in favor of this commonsense amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. serrano: how much time do i have left? the chair: 3 1/2 minutes. mr. serrano: we oppose certain voting regulations when they are meant to express the vote. i would like now to yield the balance of my time to, get this, the only elected member from washington, d.c., who is in this

room at this time or in this congress, misholmes norton. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlelady. ms. norton: mr. massie of kentucky is not accountable to the residents of district of columbia but he is offering an amendment to wipe out all of the district's gun safety laws now and in the future. even if one were to agree with him, it's an entirely inappropriate amendment on an appropriation bill. a pending bill right in this congress would accomplish this end. he is a member of that majority. if he wants to end gun laws, he has the authority to bring that bill to the floor. this amendment is being offered by a member who claims that every turn to support the control of local affairs, yes he is using the big foot of the federal government. turning to the member himself, if this amendment passes, every

law, gun law in this big city would share the same gun violence issues as other big cities and also the nation's capital, would be gone. while we are still reviewing the full effects of this amendment, it appears to prohibit the district government including the metro police department from enforcing almost all the gun laws of the district of olumbia. making the district if perhaps the most permissive gun jurisdiction in the country. the d.c. government would not be able to stop a person from carrying openly or concealed an assault weapon, including a .50 caliber sniper rifle with a magazine holding an unlimited number of bullets on any street or any building except federal buildings like the one where we now stand. you want to buy a gun in a

private transaction without undergoing a background check, the d.c. government can't stop you. if i want to buy a gun without a waiting period, dds government couldn't stop you. you want to buy 100 handguns today, d.c. government couldn't stop you. you want to carry it in a polling place or the d.m.v., d.c. government couldn't stop you. convicted of a violent misdemeanor this week, want to go and buy and carry a gun, dds government couldn't stop you. every federal court has ruled on the constitutionality of the post-heller gun laws have upheld our assault weapons ban and our ban on large capacity ammunition, upheld our registration requirements. the supreme court struck down only d.c.'s effective gun ban law, holding only that a

resident is entitled to have a gun in his home. is amendment goes way beyond it and flage grant abuse of democracy by a member who comes here with a tea party principle that says power should be did he involved to the local level. he is playing with the lives of the american citizens who are not accountable to him who live in my city and he is playing with the lives of the federal officials, visitors from across he country whom we are defending and protecting while in our city. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. the chair: for what purpose does does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. cherk clerk amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. insert the following, section, the amounts otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the amount made supreme court of the united states salaries and increases and increasing the amount made available for the white house by

$2.13. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from minnesota and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: based on the gates and discussions we have had in this chamber, i have come to the conclusion my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that $7.25 is enough to raise. that is the current federal minimum wage and wins since we haven't had any ability to move it up, i assume they assume it's good enough for people. but i can't imagine that they think $2.13 is enough, but that is the federal minimum wage for tipped workers in america today. that is the federal minimum wage for tipped workers and it is an appalling condition and it should be an outrage for all of us. 3.3 million americans are trying

to make it on $2.13 an hour, plus tips. 75% of those, mr. speaker, are women. and what does it translate to, what does it all mean? millions of americans go to work every day and are forced to interview every time they serve a customer for their money. every time they meet a new customer and take an order, they have to do a tryout or an interview to see if they're going to get paid. and it's wrong. and we shouldn't tolerate it in this society. workers are twice as likely to fall below the bofert line and three tiles to rely on food stamps to close the gap between what they're paid and what they have to survive on. mr. speaker, the folks -- the companies that pay them these wages, many cases are relying on us, the federal government through the food stamp program

to make up the wages that they will not pay. people don't want to go to food stamps, but they need to, and the federal government helping them by setting food stamps, but what if the employers themselves were required to pay a better wage? tip workers are likely to experience wage theft. from 2010 to 2012, the department of labor conducted investigations of restaurants and found violations in nearly all, including tip violations. that might be when the employer refuses to top up the pay to ensure they're getting at least $7.25 when tips are low. tip violations could also include making employees do jobs that don't earn tips, like cleaning or cooking, but still

paying them less than minimum wage. 7,000 tip workers would be lifted out of poverty. half of them would be people of color. $12.7 billion would be pumped into the economy. mr. speaker, in february, president obama sign and executive order requiring federal contractors, including those with contracts to provide concessions like restaurants, pay $10.10. no one who works full time should have to live in poverty. i urge adoption of the amendment. i urge all members of the body to at least demand that we don't have to make up wages that are not paid in the form of government supports. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i rise -- mr. crenshaw: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crenshaw: when you look at the amendment, the gentleman

wants to take money away from the supreme court and give money to the white house. and what he had to say didn't seem to bear any relevance to what the amendment is said. it was entertaining talk. i know he's free to offer any amendment he wants to offer he could come down and do a one-minute and talk about what he just talked about, he could do a five-minute special order and talk about what he talks -- talked about but i'm not sure the amendment he offered is serious in the sense that why he's tampering with supreme court funding and tampering with the white house funding. and so i just would urge my colleagues to say, we enjoyed the chat. appreciate him bringing that to our attention but i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question on the amendment -- the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment a not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. rokita of indiana. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to propose, make, finalize or implement any rule, regulation, interpretive rule or general statement of policy issued after the date of enactment of this act that is issued pursuant to section 553 of title 5, united states code. b, the prohibition in section a shall not apply -- mr. crenshaw: i vemb a point of

order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: b, the prohibition in subsection a shall not apply with respect to rules, regulations, interpretive rules or general statement of policy under section 553-a doctor mr. reroe keita: i ask unanimous consent to waive further reading. the chair: is there objection to waiving the reading of the amendment? seeing none, the reading is waive. the gentleman from indiana and a member opposed each will control five minutes the chair reck mies -- recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: i understand my amendment is subject to a point of order due to scoring or budget concerns and while i intend to cooperate and withdraw the amendment i would i would like to acknowledge that this body has a history of waiving points of order on similar legislation that would result in substantive reforms which is what my amendment could

accomplish. one would be the rains act, passed in this congress and passed in the last congress, hich would meaningingly -- the rules.y overhaul i would propose that this body hould waive points of order on things that would significantly alter our process to significantly help our economy by getting the boots of the regulatory and bureaucratic systems off the necks of those who create jobs in this country. for too long, the executive branch has continued to build its power through expanding the regulatory state. the agencies we in congress have tasked with the execution of our laws, we now pass is in contravention of our intent, acting improperly as legislative bodies with no really direct accountability to the voter. whether through quote-unquote

interpretive rules, quote-unquote general statements of policy, or through regulations themselves, administrative agencies placed extreme burdens without the electoral accountable our founders envisioned. today that process has yielded nearly 175,000 pages of regulations, grow big 1,500 pages per week, written by unelect peemed who rarey consider the impact on our economy or the lives of the people from the rules that we impact. the only thing growing faster around here, mr. chairman, is our public debt load. this has been a decades-long abdication of duty by congresses past and we must correct it. currently informal rule making is the method of choice for proposing rules and regulations around here and it requires, one, publication of a rule, two, an opportunity for public comment, but has no requirement to give weight to those comments from the public. in fact, any time i've questioned an agency witness

during my three and a half years here, not one has been able to answer one simple question, that is, what weight do you give public comments during the rule making process? what formula do you use? they can't answer the question because the answer is this -- they don't care. it doesn't matter. what everyone wants or what the comment may be, if it stands in the way of the agenda of the rule, it gets no weight. so i am offering this amendment today to require all new rules and regulations, follow the formal rule making process which is already in law, it's in the administrative procedure act, while leaving in place existing emergency exceptions to the rule making process, fully recognizing we have to address the definition of emergency at some point at well. several reforms passed by this house go a long way in provide regular leaf to the end of the regulatory process, at least to improving it. my amendment provides relief at the beginning of the rule making process. slows the regulatory state and

increases transparency of this increasingly opaque and secret bureaucracy. formal rule making requires a trial-like procedure, requiring parties to make their case for or against a rule, in public. as a result the administration, no matter the party, must prove the worth of their rules and regulations on the record rather than relying on a closed door balancing of public comments. again, there is a record made so we know, just like all of america knows when the proceed thonings floor of this house, we know the reasons for the final makeup of the rule and if need be, we can further challenge the rule. and mr. speaker, my amendment is consistent with the intent of the 79th congress which created this law for the agency rule making process. in the judiciary committee report of the law, the committee stated that, quote, matters of great import are those for the public submission of facts will be useful to the agency or a protection to the public should

-- should naturally be accorded more elaborate public procedures. the formal rule making process does that so well, mr. chairman, that nrd to -- in order to protect the public and the republic, agencies must afford weighted input in rule making. i will, out of respect for the chair and his appropriations -- and this appropriations process, request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by -- amendment offered by mr. crowley of new york. at the end of the bill bmbing she -- mr. crowley: i move that we waive the reading of the amendment. the chair: seeing no objection to the waiving of the reading of the amendment, pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: thank you, mr. chairman. y amendment, i say this in anticipation and hope that the gentleman from florida doesn't think i'm tampering, tampering is a very negative connotation to it. what i'd like to think we're doing is legislating today. i would hope that it's taken in that light. mr. chairman, my amendment would decrease part of the bill before us by $7.25 and increase the budget of the white house by that same amount. why would i offer this amendment? it's such a small amount of money, after all. $7.25. but just ask the millions of americans who make only $7.25 an hour, otherwise known as the current minimum wage. what can the executive branch do with this money? they can buy pens, mr. chairman. they can buy pens that the president could use to keep

signing executive orders focused on raising the wages of hardworking americans. last february, in light of no action from this republican controlled congress, the president took the small but legal step of raising the minimum wage of employees working as federal -- on frl contracting projects such as fast food employees in federal buildings and on our military bases. what's become crystal clear is the republican majority has no intention of putting forward an ageneral ta focused on lifting hardworking americans out of poverty. they have no intention of putting forward a jobness agenda. they have no intention of helping to force the economic growth in our country. but this administration wants to, and where congress has failed, the administration has ot faltered.

today, let's give $7.25 to the president so he can keep up that necessary work. if republicans would join us in raising the minimum wage and lifting up american workers instead of putting language in this bill to forbid the president from trying to raise the wages of hardworking americans, we wouldn't have this conversation today. that's right. apparently it's not enough for republicans to refuse to bring legislation for a vote that would raise the minimum wage, now they are also trying to stop the president from taking the small steps that he can raise, that he can do, to raise the wages of federal contractors like those in the fast food industry. they added section 203 and 204 to this bill to specifically prohibit an executive order to do just that. i mean, come on. give us a break. not only won't they allow a vote on the minimum wage, but now

they want to tie the president's hands so that he can't help advance the issue either, when they won't. why are they fighting so hard against supporting working people and american families? no one working full time should live in -- should live in poverty but at $7.25 an hour, that's the reality facing 16.5 million americans. so when you hear that congress is debating another huge spending bill, i want america to know that the republican majority has snuck in language into this bill that actually prevents working people from getting a raise in their hourly pay. democrats have a bill to raise the minimum wage and it's ready to go. but republicans in congress refuse to allow a simple up or down vote on that bill. but what would happen if the congress raised the minimum wage for every american from $7.25 an

hour to $10.10 an hour? 16.5 million american workers would see a raise, not just the two million workers on federal contracts. we would experience a boost to the economy. since more people with more money equals more spending in our economy. and we would see, we would be helping families and breadwinners since the facts show adults make up 88% of the low wage workers. the average age of a minimum wage employee is 35 years of age. it helps people who earn more by reducing the need for full-time workers to rely on public assistance such as food stamps and on medicaid. raising the pay of our lowest paid workers is not only good for minimum wage workers but for all taxpayers. no one who works full-time

should live in poverty. we need to raise the minimum wage and we need to prevent any effort by house republicans to roll back any incremental increases in pay the president can legally give to workers under federal contracts. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i appreciate the gentleman's effort in terms of minimum wage or legislation, but i would remind him that this is an appropriations bill. the appropriations committee is not the committee of jurisdiction as it relates to minimum wage and as he points out if he has legislation ready to go, i would encourage him to introduce that at the appropriate place and have the appropriate discussions and move forward there. but this is not the time or the place, but again i appreciate his effort to legislate.

with that, i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. mr. crenshaw: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. he amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lankford: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lankford of oklahoma, insert the following, section, none of

the funds made available in this act may be used to study, promulgate, draft, review, implement or enforce any rule rsuant to section 913 of the dodd-frank reform or amendments made by such section. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from oklahoma and member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lankford: this is a study in unintended consequences, this body determined they wanted to have more oversight over people that are called broker dealers of investment funds. they would be handled the same way as investment advisers that handle high-end large investments from wealthy individuals from across the country. so two are being tried to merge together the department of labor and s.e.c. are trying to come up with their own version. here is the unintended

consequence. those folks on the lower end and middle end of america are about to lose a lot of people that help them with investment advisers. newlywed couple just out of school and getting started making $26,000 a year as a couple and determined they are going to open up a retirement account and get started, thinking about decades from now. we encourage that couple to do that, to start thinking about that retirement. would that couple making $26,000, what they are going to put into retirement $15 a month, are they going to be attractive to an investment dealer? no, they aren't going to be attracted to them. $15, 20. one of these dealer brokers, that's what they love to do. they sign up couples just like that. the rules coming down from dodd frank will put a new stet of standards on those individuals that are providing retirement

investment opportunities for people at the very beginning of their investment time. this hits exactly the wrong people. in the thoughts of the beginning are now coming down to unintended consequences that there will be a disincentive to provide retirement vehicles. the middle-income americans should have every incentive and every opportunity to save. this says to the s.e.c. they cannot promulgate that rule. they need to set it aside and keep the standards that are in place. they are a heavily regulated industry already. keep the same standards in place and do not discourage investments. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the chair recognizes

the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the gentleman may not remember the financial meltdown of 2007-2008. one of the causes of lax oversight of the previous administration's financial regulators. dodd-frank has addressed many of these issues and restored safety and security in the marketplace. it has increased oversight over the financial sector in order to protect those on main street from abuses on wall street. this is not the time or place to change that landmark legislation. any attempt to do so would create greater uncertainty in the marketplace and among many americans including retirees who depend upon our federal regulators to protect them. we should not undermine the much-needed reforms of dodd frank, let alone in an appropriations bill. this is yet another example of the other side attempting to add

legislative riders to must-pass legislation that they could not pass through the regular legislative process. i oppose the amendment. and i urge my colleagues to do the same. and i would remind everyone that we continue to find ways to try to undo either the affordable care act or obamacare that was already law and approved by the supreme court or dodd-frank, which is the law of the land and the sad part of it all is we seem to have short memories and seem to forget that we are still suffering from the effects of 2007-2008 of what happened in my city on wall street and how it had the effects throughout the nation. we have to regulate whether we like it or not. we don't have to overburden industry or harm anyone, but we can't allow people to do what they did before, which is hurt the economy and put us in the bind we're still in.

and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. lankford: i yield two minutes of my time to the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in support of this amendment. i think we all believe in commonsense regulation and we have plenty of that, but the gentleman has pointed out that so often well-intentioned rules and regulations have unintended consequences and i don't think anybody believes that we don't have enough regulation. any time there's a problem, somebody suggests that we spend more money, pass another rule, pass another law. what i think what we need and what this gentleman is talking about is we need common sense. we need to protect investors and do it in a reasonable way. so this is an amendment that i think makes the point that so often the rules are bad for investors, they are bad for the economy, and that shouldn't be

the case. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. both gentleman reserve? mr. serrano: would yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i would close and say in 2008, the financial meltdown was not caused because middle-income americans didn't have access to retirement funds. this is a way to be able to protect middle-income americans and be able to protect their retirement and encourage them to save in the future and not decreasing the number of options they have out there. i would like to have lots of folks out there encouraging americans to be able to save in not just the largest investment dealers in the country going after the highest-paid americans. this is something we should support, maintain the regulations and don't decrease the options for americans. and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lankford: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lankford of oklahoma at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the federal communications commission to make any changes to its policies with respect to broadcast indecency. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 661, the gentleman from oklahoma and a member

opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lankford: last year there was a notice that stated f.c.c. reduced their backlog on indecency and sought comments on whether they should change their policy. however, they reduced their backlog by 70% by closing out one million cases that seemed too old to pursue or as they believed not within their justification to enforce. the f.c.c. decided to leave complaints of incidents where tv content was offensive or inappropriate to be aired at times children are likely to be in the audience. those comments and those concerns were uninvestigated and unenforced. moving forward, they asked the public if the f.c.c. should make it the official policy that they should only investigate the most serious violation of indecency on television. they wanted to know if a

complaint against repeated words in a program while maybe an incident of one or two does not. this is an unreasonable distinction to make. as chief justice roberts has mentioned on some of his opinions, this is not an incident ta they only have a brief instance of nudity, that that shouldn't be warranted when extensive nudity is not. f.c.c. has not formalized this regulation, it is in the public's best interest that they not continue down this road. if they do institute it, it will give f.c.c. the ability to decide on behalf of the viewing public what is indecent and what is not even based on the rules they have now. this is a significant shift away from the standards that have been set and the american public that wants to be able to write in and complain about what their children have access to. many of us as americans have real concerns about what is happening in television and the enforcement now of the existing

law. quite frankly, mr. chairman, it's difficult to allow your children to watch commissioners nowadays much less television. this is a statement to say to the f.c.c. they should retain and continue the current enforcement. i understand there are some issues with this amendment and there are issues we need to deal with the f.c.c. this the days ahead. i allow i thank the chair for allowing me to bring this up and i ask to withdraw this amendment. the chair: any objection? seeing none. the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 offered by mr. meehan of pennsylvania to the end of the amendment that it is disposed of the voice vote thereon. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 2 offered by mr. meehan of pennsylvania. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the request for the recorded vote is withdrawn. accordingly, the ayes have it nd the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the motion is opted and accordingly, the ommittee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the

union, having had under consideration h.r. 5016, 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. 5016 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in rec

"washington journal" continues. >> host: we are back with california democrat karen bass, also the founder and co-chair of the congressional caucus on foster youth. you're here to talk about child trafficking. >> guest: right. >> you have legislation. specifically what is your leveling isolation doing? >> guest: first of all there is a problem in our child welfare system where a number of girls primarily get involved in sex trafficking. it's a real tragedy, we'll go into it later, essentially what the legislation says is the child welfare system needs to change and needs to recognize that this is a serious problem. well, one step towards changing is training the staff,

nationwide, about this problem so that they learn to recognize it. and also that states put in place a response, resources, et cetera, to address this growing problem. >> host: so we're talking about u.s. citizens. we are talk. >> good we are talking about 12-year-old girls born in the u.s. >> host: was does it mean to be trafficked? >> guest: essentially the average age is around 12, a girl gets either taken off the streets or recruited by typically a guy who says he's her boyfriend, and seduces them into the sex trafficking business. a lot of places this is happening where you have gangs involved in drug trafficking but also trafficking girls. >> host: where is this happening? >> guest: all over our country but three of the major cities this is happening in are

california. but this is a national problem. this is happening in many of our major cities, and you might remember when the super bowl happened, there was a lot of attention to this. so a lot of times if there is a major sporting event, you will have girls who are sent from around the country to service or be exploited at those major sporting events. >> host: where are these girls or these children coming from? >> guest: they are coming from all over, some of them are run aways, but a large percentage of girls are from the child welfare system. and this is one of the problems within our system. let me just paint a picture for you. you might have a 12-year-old girl that is upset at her foster parent, and she runs away, and she winds up in the arms of a sex trafficker. you might have a girl that is in a group home situation, and you might have boys who are also in foster care that recruit her into being trafficked. there is a lot of different ways this happens. my focus is specifically on the foster care system, but it is

not only foster girls that are involved in trafficking. >> host: how many kids are we talking about? >> guest: we're talking about tens of thousands, but i will tell you that one of the things my legislation is doing is that we need to better document this problem within our country, so documentation is one of the critical things that are needed. >> host: right. >> guest: i had a girl tell me, a 17-year-old, a young woman, who was trafficked at the i'll an of ten, from the age of ten to 17. and she said that the nation's child welfare system helped prepare her to be trafficked, because just think about out. she said there was never anybody in my life that wasn't there who viewed me as a commodity because they were paid to take care of me, and that the first person that said they loved her was her pump. how tragic is that? >> host: so how much money are we talking about? how much money this the system to deal with the situation? how much money do you think is needed? >> guest: this is not so much a

financial issue, so i will tell you that there's not money in the system right now to deal with this, because the system has not even gun to fully recognize that this is a problem. so that's why it's step one. i'm happy to say that there's a number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced that i'm confident will pass out of the house in the next couple weeks, bipartisian legislation, with many members of the house of representatives recognizing that we need a comprehensive solution to this problem. and so this is something that our nation is just beginning to become aware of, because as you said a minute ago, these girls are from the united states. we are geared to view trafficking as an international problem, and we don't recognize the girls right here in our neighborhoods are getting involved in this, and i have to tell you something else that's incredibly tragic. the average lifespan of these girls, once they start into this, is seven years. they don't live. they typically are either murdered or they die of hiv.

>> host: let me show the viewers graphics put together. this is from january of 2014. take a look. 80% of the child trafficking victims are female, 50% are under the age of 18. the average age, 12 to 14. 300,000 kids a year trafficked. 41% of cases reported to the national human trafficking resource center hotline. 70% of the traffickers are male, and a $32 billion industry. >> guest: how tragic is the that? this is something our nation is just beginning to become aware of. i have to tell you that one of the reasons, one of the things that fuels this is the internet. you have specific sites that traffickers know they can advertise these girls. we need to change the way we view this situation, because some people would call these girls prostitutes, but if you think about it it doesn't make sense to use that term for an underage girl, because if you

are below the age of consent, how could you be considered a prostitute? so one of the things that happens in our nation in many places is these girls wind up being arrested, and treated as though they are criminals, and it is not recognized by either law enforcement, or social services that they are victims and shouldn't be arrested at all. >> host: would your legislation change that legally? >> guest: well that is something we can't change on a federal level, so a lot of it is about public awareness. you know, in some instances, and i've had law enforcement officers tell me this, they don't want to arrest the girls but they don't have any other way to get them away from the trafficker. so that speaks to another problem that we need to build up in our country, that will take some money. it might take redirecting current money, but one of the main problems is when you identify a girl that is trafficked then what do you do? one of the reasons she keeps going back to her trafficker is

because she has no place to go. there is a layer of inin a structure that needs to be built in our country. we need to have shelters, we need to have specific counselors. these girls need to be treated in most instances, are suffering from ptsd. it's the same situation as a hostage, a prisoner, et cetera, a lot of them begin to adapt the mentality of their abusers. some of them turn into abusers and recruit other girls. they recruit their girlfriends. this is a complex situation that really requires a lot of attention, which is why i'm glad that a member of congress has come together to introduce legislation. >> host: you think this will get a vote? >> guest: i do. this is a very bipartisian issue. >> host: let's take a look at your legislation. you want to identify and screen youth at risk of sex trafficking, document it, provide response training for cps workers, require states to

submit annual reports on child trafficking to the national child abuse and neglect data systems and require the hhs to report to congress national trafficking -- why is this a federal problem? should not it be done, resolved on a state level? >> guest: both. they are absolutely responses that need to happen on a state level. i'm happy in my state, you know, things have been happening. several years ago we passed state legislation when i was in the state legislature that said that the girls should not be arrested, that they should be treated as victims. so this requires a national response. so the legislation that you see many of us doing, i think there's probably about 14 members of congress both democrats and republicans, that have all joined together to do this. you see us essentially laying the foundation for what i believe over time will be a comprehensive response. so you see my legislation talking about documenting. before you begin to address the

problem, you really need to have a better handle on how widespread the problem is, are there evidence based practices for how we resolve the situation? so once you identify the girls, then what do you do? i will tell you that in my area in the city of compton there's an innovative court, called the star court, and that court is a court that specifically deals with under acknowledge girls who are trafficked. i went to meet with them one time, and before we went into the court proceedings there was a room of people social workers, educators, lawyers, defense, prosecution, everybody salt around the table and discussed the cases before we went into proceedings. and it wasn't dealt with as though the girls were going to be prosecuted and incarcerated, it was all about how do we rescue the girls and help them get out of the life. that's the mentality we need to have. right now the mentality in our country is still behind in a lot of places, and again we view

these girls as criminals, not as victims. >> host: we're talking with representative car enbass about child trafficking in this country.

individualeck had in or a group of people who were undercover. he was asking for money to support this group who actually went from the states to thailand. they were very successful in saving quite a view -- quite a , boys and girls. this is something we definitely .eed to tailor with more money actually what will happen with the kids on the border, how will that work out and who will check to make sure they will not be abused? >> you are absolutely right. one of the pieces of legislation we will be dealing with that was

put forward does deal with the international piece of this and requires the state department to set up a specific euro. they have an office but we want to elevate it so we recognize the significance of it. i am very concerned about the children on the border because some of them more traffic and brought here, but i am also concerned that when we deport them back, they are not put in the hands of traffickers. i want to clarify a lot of the legislation and trafficking we are talking about our kids that were born and raised in the united states, not the international piece of it, although i really up vitiated you raising that. >> let's go to eric, a democratic caller. >> i have a procedural question. that we are talking

about child trafficking in a workforce 60% of the is labor participation, an all-time low. is talking about child trafficking. i agree it is a problem. i do not know how she plans to document it, but at a time where we are not talking about demand, demand for business is down, because one percent of the country is getting 90% of the income growth. that contributes to child trafficking. you have people trying to make money instead of trying to get a job because there is no demand. you are absolutely right. the demand is a very big issue. i think we need to address the demand.

one of my concerns is, like the graph you put up with the states and trafficking laws, the laws are focus on the traffickers and rightfully so. we also have to do with the guys that exploit the children and we need to change our mentality when we are in and talking about them as well. should be called child molesters. if you have sex with an underage child, you are a child molester. we need to change the way our society views this problem. i think addressing the demand is one of the things we need to do. in some states, when you are talking about adult prostitution, they put the pictures of the john's up or something. i think we need to figure out a way to a dress the demand. >> dave is next. >> the previous caller hit on exactly what i wanted to bring up. what is ti