that i'm a strong proponent of religious libber the you had mentioned hobby lobby in terms of some of the issues you were discussing. i think i have stood fast on that question. i only raise the point, and you made the opponent that anything that was approved prehobby lobby by the f.d.a. but in actuality we know that just from the religious liberty point of view,s that slibry slope because it pits the large entity against the individual's rights and we know under our constitution that the very premise of religious freedom is the idea that there is no pronounced, structured religious plan in place that denies me my freedom. that's what you've done to women -- when i say you, excuse me, that's what the decision has done, it has made the boss in charge of an individual and i would just make the argument, we can stand for religious liberty

but we must stand for it not only for corporation bus individuals such as women who use contraceptions for health care, doctor, and you know that that happens. you are certainly very much an experienced medical professional and i would just make the argument that i can't imagine in the course of your medical history that you have not seen women who need contraception for health care and the other point that i would just finish on is that, as i indicated on the question of a slippery slope, what else can a corporation suggest that i am, because of my needs, infringing on their religious liberty? i'm obviously going to be disadvantaged because i'm a minority of one, i'm an employee, iblee scared for my job but i need to be able to express my religious freedom and it may infringe upon someone else's. let us be careful about this and i frankly hope that -- i hope we can come together and change

hobby lobby. i yield become to the gentleman. . mr. burgess: those people who are worried about laws that would require the ending of life are worried about that slippery slope as well. i reiterate, no on tra septemberive that was previously available is not unavailable. if there were problems, it was a democratic congress and democratic president who signed the religious restoration act, was a democratic congress and democratic president that signed the affordable care act. they perhaps should have taken better care in writing their law. we had this hearing yesterday in the rules committee about the president taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. perhaps we ought to have a faithful writing of the laws as well. mr. speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the america gives more act of 2014, making permanent tax deductions for charitable contributions to food banks and

conservation easements and allowing for tax-free i.r.a. deductions. it's a sound public policy. i'm grateful to my colleague from new york, mr. reed, for writing this legislation which will have a positive impact on countless charities in this country which provide such critical services to our neighbors in need. for that reason i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking is vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting house resolution 670, if ordered, and adopting the

motion to instruct on h.r. 3230. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 226. the nays are 186. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. hastings of florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote having been requested, those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 230. the nays are 183. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to instruct on h.r. 3230 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 3230 offered by mr. gallego of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to instruct. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 201, the nays are 213. the motion is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the house will come to order. he house will come to order. he house will be in order. house will be in order. members take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> by direction of the committee on ways and means, i submit a

privileged report to accompany h.res. 645 and h.res. 647 for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the tites. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 645, resolution requestinged that president of the united states transmit to the house of representatives copies of any emails in the possession of the executive office of the president that were transmitted to or from the email accounts of loys learner between january, 2009 and april 2011. report to accompany house resolution 647. resolution directing the secretary of the treasury to transmit to the house of representatives copies of any emails in the possession of the department that were transmitted to or from the email accounts of former internal revenue exempt organizations director loys learner between january, 2009, and april, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house call dan

-- calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution 670, i call up the bill h.r. 4719, the america gives more act of 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 371, h.r. 4719, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. members take conversations off the floor. staff, take your conversations off the floor. members in the back will heed the ruling of the chair, take your conversations off the floor.

the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4719. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 670, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consist og they have text of the rules committee print 113-51 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to use. mr. camp: the american people are the most charitable people in the world, donating money, food and clothing in times of need. their donations ensure that charities and founding as can help individuals across the country. there are numerous provisions in the tax code that encourage giving and the bill we have before us today, h.r. 4719, the america gives more act, ensures that some of these provisions are made permanent so individuals, businesses and farmers can donate and give back more. the first provision will make permanent and expand the charitable contribution of food inventory by businesses regardless of how they're organized. food banks are a vital part of communities, helping american pus fod on the table and provide for their families when they have come across hard times or suffered through a natural disaster. the food donation connection has estimated that since this tax deduction was expanded in 2006,

donations have increased 127%. unfortunately, a provision in current law that encourages pass through businesses to contribute food inventory expired last year and charities and foundations across the country are urging that it be restored and made permanent. according to feeding america, 3.6 billion pounds of food is distributed by food bank members each year this would increase food bnk access to the 70 billion pounds of nutritious food wasted each year. today we have the opportunity to continue this important credit, allowing all businesses and farmers and ranchers to take advantage and donate more nutritious food to the millions of americans who need it most. this bill also ensures that seniors who donate to charities from their individual retirement accounts can do so without a tax penalty. according to the independent sector this provision has

prompted more than 140 million in gifts to the work of nonprofits since enactment. assisting social service providers, religious organizations, cultural institutions an schools and other nonprofits. making this provision permanent can only serve to increase the generous donations charities relie on. in addition, the bill will make permanent the deduction for contributions of conservation ease lts. this will also increase the amount of land or property doe nayed for charitable use. witnesses before the ways and means committee testified that in the first two years of enactment of conservation easement, the numb of donations doubles, resulting in a 32% increase of acreage conserved. this is one area especially where long-term planning is essential. to allow this to expire makes it much more difficult for the often multigenerational planning necessary to take place. in michigan, i've seen the

benefits of conservation ease. s firsthand. this is a tremendous legacy for future generations. the tax reform draft the committee produced earlier in the year would encourage charitable giving in several important ways and by creating a stronger economy, analysis found that it would increase charitable give big an estimated $2.2 billion each year. two important charitable provisions from the draft, lowering the excise tax on private foundations and extending the tax deadline for charitable contributions from december 31 to april 15 are included in the america gives more act. at the end of the year, many taxpayers have no idea what their tax liability will be. it's only after struggling through the daunting prosays of preparing their tax return that they know with certainty. if taxpayers were permitted to make and deduct cricks prior to filing their tax return, i believe many americans would be even more generous in supporting religious and charitable causes.

testimony before the ways and means committee found that allowing donors to deduct gifts until april 15 would result in significantly more charitable giving. another provision from the draft would lower and simplify the excise tax on private foundations making compliance easy, especially for smaller foundations. as a result, foundations will have more of their resources available to support charities and exempt organizations across the country. all of these provisions are bipartisan and have the support of over 800 -- of over 850 charities and foundations across the country who wrote to congress stating that, and i quote, without an incentive in place and assured, many of the gifts that charitable incentives were intended to promote will not take place, end yote. -- end quote. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the letter supported by the 850 charities and foundations across the united states. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: the good will of the american people is unmatched.

we should do everything we can to encourage americans to give more, enabling charities, nonprofits, foundations and schools across the country to expand their reach and serve those most in need. a yes vote on this bill is a vote for hardworking americans who selflessly lend a hand every day to their neighbors, communities and others in need. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to consume. mr. levin: i want to be clear what this debate is about what -- and what it is not about. it's not a debate about the merits of public charities and private foundations. all of us support the good works of the charitable community and strive to provide charities with the resources they need to carry out their mission.

as well as foundations. indeed, along with congressman gerlach, i'm a sponsor of the food donation deduction. i'm a lead sponsor. and i think that highlights this is a debate not about charities, not about foundations, it's about fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities. today republicans have selected to make permanent 10 of the approximately 60 expired tax provisions without a single dime of offset. not a single dime. after today, if this bill passes, the house will have approved $534 billion worth of tax provisions without a single offset. wiping out more than half of the

total deficit reduction enacted last year during the bipartisan fiscal deal. indeed, this bill is totally enconsistent with the republican tax reform draft they unveiled in february. and i might add, if you add up the 14 bills that came out of the ways and means committee, entirely unoffset, it's $825 billion. you know, i was reading this morning the debate which i heard yesterday on a motion to recommit, and i was reading this language from mr. crenshaw in opposition to the motion to recommit. this is what he said about how republicans proceed with budget issues, and i quote. we do it just like every

american business does, like every american family, they sit down, they take the money that they have, and they set priorities. then they make some tough choices. that is what we have done, end of quote. . there is not a single tough choice in what the republicans are diagnose. -- doing. it's essentially throwing discretion and tough choices to the wind. and also let me say that their approach is inconsistent with the -- their own tax reform draft of some months ago. the enhanced deduction for food contributions that the chairman has spoken so eloquently about was expressly repealed in the republican reform draft.

and the rollover provision was allowed to expire. so you have irresponsibility, you have inconsistency, and you also have violation of priorities. because left to an uncertain fate, our important provisions like the work opportunity tax credit, the new markets tax credit, and the renewable energy credits, as well as the long-term status of expansions to the eitc and the child tax credit. this is the statement of administration policy just issued and i quote, the administration supports measures that enhance nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and other community organizations in their many roles, including as a safety net for those most in need, an

economic engine for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that encourages land protections for current and future generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster solutions to some of the nation's toughest challenges. the president's budget includes a number of these proposals that would enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many individuals. however, the administration strongly opposes house passage of h.r. 4719, which would permanently extend three current provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain donations and add another two similar provisions without offsetting the cost. if this same unprecedented approach of making certain tax extenders permanent without offsets were followed for the other traditional tax

extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits . er the next 10 years just two months ago house republicans themselves passed a budget resolution that required offsetting any tax extenders that were made permanent with other revenue measures. as with other similar proposals, republicans are imposing a double standard by adding to the deficit to continue and create tax breaks that primarily benefit higher income individuals while insisting on offsetting the proposed extension of emergency unemployment benefits and the discretionary funding increases for defense and nondefense priorities such as research and development in the bipartisan

budget act of 2013. house republicans are also making clear their priorities, by rushing to make these tax cuts permanent without offsets, even as the house republican budget resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working families and students by letting important improvements to the eitc, the child tax credit, and education tax credits expire. the administration wants to work with congress to make progress on measures that strengthen america's social sector. however, h.r. 4719 represents the wrong approach. if the president were presented ith h.r. 4719 his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill, the end of quote of this statement of

administration policy. so, what in the world are we doing here today? what in the world are we doing? passing another bill that that is e deficit, contrary to the rhetoric of republicans and is going nowhere in the senate. zero. it's hard to figure this out, mr. speaker. what is motivating republicans to be so totally inconsistent and irresponsible? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> at this time i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. mr. speaker, i want to start my comments today, to focus on the

merits of this proposal. and then offer some comments in response to my good friend from michigan in regards to the budgetary concerns that he articulated in his opening remarks. mr. speaker, this bill is a commonsense bill that is the right thing to do for america. it is the right policy, because what we are doing with the america gives more act of 2014 is putting in our tax policy, provisions on a permanent basis that are going to provide for enhanced charity -- charitable giving in america. that's the right thing to do. we care about americans. especially fellow american citizens in their times when they need it the most, we're going to stand with them. our tax policy under this provision would be made permanent to encourage fellow americans helping americans. to me it makes sense.

it's a fundamental question of fairness and it's a fundamental question of do we care about our fellow citizens in their time of need? now, i have one piece of legislation in this underlying bill in particular that i want to articulate and i want to thank my colleagues on the ways and means committee that are going to speak after me in regards to their individual pieces of legislation that makes up this america gives more act of 2014. and that provision that i'm going to talk about, mr. speaker, is the fighting hunger in america act. essentially all we are doing under the tax code is recognizing that we're going to treat all businesses, all people the same across america when it comes to their excess food inventories. be it in their restaurants, expanded to farms, so that our farmers can be in a position to give that food that otherwise would go into a landfill, to give it to the people that need it most. fellow hungry americans.

to me that makes sense. and that's where we have supported this legislation and it's come out of the committee and it's gotten bipartisan support. groups across the country took out an ad in our local paper here today and have supported this effort to not have food go to a landfill, but go onto the tables, onto the plates of fellow americans who need it most. that is why this legislation is the right thing to do. mr. speaker, i heard my colleague talk about the concern about the deficit. i share that concern. but the question has to be begged to be answered, why have these extenders been renewed on a temp rare basis -- temporary basis historically without an offset? because it's the policy of the tax code that we're trying to make permanent here that prior members of congress, the president himself when he was in the senate, supported the

extension of these extenders without an offset. because it's the good policy, it's the right thing to do, and, mr. speaker, i urge all my colleagues to join in support of this legislation and support it in passage. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. mr. reed, do i care? it's my bill. with mr. gerlach, that you have taken and put your name on. my bill. to make it permanent without any offset, with over$500 billion already done -- with over $500 billion already done is the wrong way to do the right thing. i care. i now yield three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, another member of

the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the tax provisions that are being considered today include the much-needed conservation easement incentive act, a bill i introduced with my friend, mr. gerlach, from pennsylvania. as a matter of fact i've worked on this issue ever since i've been here. the last time that we introduced the bill it was mr. camp and i that carried the bill. mr. thompson: it's important and since its first passage in 2006, farmers, ranchers, hunters and conservation groups alike have waited a long time to -- for the security provided in this measure. it needs to be extended and it needs to be made permanent. conservation easements help protect valuable natural resources and scenic open spaces by allowing private landowners to permanently retire the development rights on their lapped. this provision, this bill -- land. this provision, this bill keeps farmers and ranchers on the

farms and on the ranches. this provision is more than just about landowners, however. more than 70% of our wildlife gets food and shelter from our privately owned working farms and ranches and forest lands. but we're losing these habitats to the development by an alarming rate of about 5,000 acres per day. as an outdoors person, a hunter, a fisher, i'm well aware of the importance of having places to hunt and fish and the importance that that is to our community. i also know that many outdoor recreational activities depend on maintaining viable fish and wildlife habitats. it's also important for clean habitats. urban areas benefit from this. watersheds, for instance, right outside of new york, if it weren't for this type of measure, we would not have clean watersheds, new york city and the surrounding areas wouldn't have water. so this incentive helps

maintain healthy wildlife populations, hunter access and healthy communities. and it's not just land trust and government agencies that depend upon this. all types of charitable groups, ducks unlimited, mule deer foundation, all of them depend on this type of legislation. but as it's been pointed out, and as much as i support this measure, as i said, it's my bill, as much as it is important to the country, the fact remains it's not paid for. this is an incredibly popular bill. there's never been a time that we've introduced it where it hasn't had over 200 co-authors. and as we know in these divisive political times, it's hard to get 200 of us on this floor to agree on what time it is. this bill has over 225 co-authors this year. but again it's not paid for. and the fact of the matter is, this, in combination with the

other fiscally irresponsible measures that the committee has $825 up, realizes an billion shortage. it's not paid for, i support the measure but i don't support it in the fashion that it's been drafted. we need to pay for it, we need to pass it, we need to do it right. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. gerlach. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. gerlach: i thank the chairman for his recognition and for his strong leadership on this important legislation. mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support this legislation and specifically to highlight section 4 of the bill which would make permanent the hugely successful conservation easement tax incentive. mr. speaker, when the time comes for families across our great country to decide the future of land that has been farmed for generations or blessed with abundant natural resources, the choices should

not be limited to simply selling that land or struggling to pay a bigger tax bill to hold onto what is likely their most valuable family asset. the extremely difficult decisions families make about their farms and their property ultimately affect not only their lives but also the quality of life for their neighbors and the character of their communities. conservation easements provide property owners with another choice when looking for an alternative to selling their land. before expiring at the end of 2013, modest income property owners, family farmers and other landowners utilized this tax code incentive to protect millions of acres of land across the country. i've been fortunate to meet many of the families in my district who have been able to preserve their property thanks to the conservation easement deduction. they are folks like don hawthorn who donated 26 acres of his land, an active christmas tree farm. he expressed his support for making permanent the federal conservation easement tax

incentive this way. quote, knowing that farming will likely continue on this land long after i'm gone gives me peace of mind. it really would be wonderful if the federal tax incentive would be made permanent so other farmers who choose to preserve their land can benefit. end quote. the great chester county has been part of jim moore's family for many generations. it's a diverse wetland and home to 155 species of birds, 250 species of flowering plants and from marsh rs creek. mr. moore explained why conservation easements are important. quote, open space is really about the next generation. we preserve this land because we love it and want to share it and the tax benefits from easement donations make it more feasible for us to do that, end quote. this language encludes some from

a bill i have been working to get passed, we have over 200 co-sponsors in the house this session. for anybody to see that kind of consensus here in washington, d.c. is note worthy indeed. i believe the conservation easement incentive enjoys broad bipartisan support in washington because it works in our communities. therefore, that's why i'm urging our colleagues to support this legislation today to provide property owners with the freedom, the opportunity and the certainty they deserve when making critical choices about the future of their land. i thank the chairman for yielding and i wreeled back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, another distinguished member of our committee, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for five minutes. mr. doggett: thank you. i rise in opposition to approving this permanent republican tax break for twinkies. that is exactly what this bill does. i think we should encourage

charity, but also fiscal responsibility and accountability. this bill fails on both the latter two parts. a while back, there was a texas official who often derided the war on poverty and social services in general by declaring, america's the only country in the world where most of the poor people are fat. well, in more recent years, we've come to understand that the challenges of obesity and poverty are different faces of the same problem. that diabetes and hunger sometimes go hand in hand. as disadvantaged neighbors who too often lack enough to eat, too often make up for it with high sugary, fatty foods that provide temporary relief from hunger while making them more prone to disease. according to the american heart association, one in three american children are obese or

overweight and nearly -- that's nearly trip they will rate of 50 years ago. and one in three chern will contract what was once called adult on set type ii diabetes. we can address these challenges through direct government expenditures, like w.i.c., the women, infant and children's nutrition program, and we can address the challenges with tax expenditures like the one proposed here today. i happen to believe we need both of them, that we should be encouraging food banks and the businesses that donate to them to do some -- who do some excellent, some valuable work, we ought to encourage them to expand the work that they do. but when we tell a taxpayer that they don't have to pay the same taxes as their competitor if they donate for a good cause, we ought to be sure that that cause is good. just as we scrutinize the w.i.c. program and other food security programs to ensure no misuse, no

ineligibility, we want to see that every one of those dollars spent, is spent efficiently. we need to do some of the same with reference to tax expenditures, like what is proposed for permanent expenditure here. we need accountability and you lose that when this and the other provisions are extended forever and never carefully evaluated. now, the expenditure that is provided here for food donations is one that the law says is available for any food that is, quote, apparently wholesome food. the only problem is that apparently wholesome food includes much food that is not actually wholesome. for example, some potato chips that have long since had their expiration date, they qualify. a can that fell off and was run over by this forklift and is

very damaged, it qualifies. and most particularly, if you have candy at halloween and you overstocked and you have a significant amount of candy left, or for the easter bunny or at christmas, the shelves at some food pantries overflow with these products. and why is that? because the business that donates the twinkies or the stale potato chips is entitled to deduct, not the cost of what they cost that business, but twice the cost of what it cost that business and this bill makes that permanent. why should we at a time of great fiscal concern be paying twice the cost of stale potato chips and twinkies an sugary, nonwholesome, nonnutritious foods, why should we be paying for that? it is a tax break that goes too far that requires more careful evaluation. indeed, one recent -- actually,

enge it was 2011 npr report was entitled overburdened food banks can't say no to junk because some of the same retailers that they rely on and count on for wholesome food dump the halloween candy, dump the easter eggs there, and they're available an treated -- and treated just the way that wholesome food is treated. i say, mr. speaker, let's encourage donating the good stuff but let's not pay for the junk. and we have the power to correct that problem by instead of having a flawed permanent bill, having one that is available for evaluation on a more regular basis just as we do with reference to these other provisions. and the cost of this bill is part of the overall cost and strategy to wreck our budget and reduce hunger programs in this country. the same republicans that are advancing this include a group, do you have an adegreesal minute? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. doggett: a fwroup that characterize pell grants, school breakfast programs, senior nursing programs, they want to lump all that as welfare and say we can't afford that i don't believe we can't afford to target public resources where they're needed, whether they're tax expenditures or direct expenditures, but we don't need a permanent tax break for twinkies and stale potato chips. let's take the fiscally responsible, accountable approach, not the irresponsible approach being advanced today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock. -- mr. camp: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reck thesed. mr. schock: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the chairman for bringing forward this important legislation that is being supported by the salvation army, united way

worldwide, all want to see the i.r.s. charitable rollover -- the i.r.s. charitable rollover made permanent. it was a temporary act in 2006 but the past eight years we've extended the provision with strong bipartisan support. why? because republicans and democrats have known that our nation's charities comprise the most effective army of mercy and often are on the front lines of meeting the needs of our friends and neighbors when disaster strikes. the war against poverty, homelessness, illness and illiteracy is fought by our churches, private foundations and the public charities and communities throughout the united states and around the world. i've been working closely with one such organization, the global poverty project, with my good friend, hugh evans, who implemented a vision to eradicate extreme poverty and bring the developing world clean water, modern sanitization and the health care they need. it's organizations like this and the many public charities in my

district, like the boys and girls club of bloomington, the community foundation of central illinois, all of which stand to benefit from making this provision permanent. in the first two years congress made the option available, more than $140 million was donated to public charities in the united states. since that time, hundreds of millions more have been committed. in illinois, one single charity, the jewish federation of chicago, has raised more than $11 million just from 1,000 i.r.a. contributions since 2006. every dollar that is voluntarily contributed on charitable work means one less tchar that u.s. tax payers are forced to spend to mote the same base exhuman needs here in our communities. last year, charitable giving in the united states grew by 4.9%, topping $316 billion. globally, the united states gives more to charitable causes then any other country, according to the world giving index of 2013.

this provision helps accomplish that and that's why it should be made permanent. i yield -- i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves, the gentleman if michigan. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, another distinguished member of our committee, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. thank you very much mr. levin, mr. speaker. this is sort of an "alice in wonderland" experience here. we deal on an ongoing basis with provisions in the tax code. we routinely extended some, as has been referenced. but what we have attempted to do historically is work together to be able to weigh, to balance, in some cases pay for on a duration that is not going to have the

fiscal discipline evaporate. we need to be able to manage these provisions because they actually cost the treasury money and some are more valuable than others. there are tradeoffs. my friend the chairman worked for years producing a deficit neutral tax reform. which had much to commend it. and i commend him for his hard work. all of these elements were addressed in his tax reform. but they were dealt with in some cases, they were modified, some were repealed, some were made permanent, as part of a deliberative process to evaluate the impact and to not break the bank. he did it right. i appreciate it. i'm sorry that it's not been introduced and it was dismissed by the speaker. enge that was a mistake.

but today, what we've done, is we're continuing an effort to abandon any semblance that this congress is going to work before accomplish. major s. this week we passed legislation that if it were enacted would kick into the next congress our transportation bill. handing off that responsibility at least to the next congress, probably to the congress after that. we have found that we have -- they are giving up on deficit reduction with budget busting proposals roaring through here with no semblance of honoring their own budget rules under the budget resolution. ey've given up on tax reform because we're not going to be able to have meaningful tax reform if we're just willy nily

going to rush all these things through in an avalanche of spending. it takes away the tools that are necessary to make the changes we all know are necessary with the tax code and for what my friend the chairman worked on so hard. last but not least, they've given up on the previous tradition of bipartisan cooperation, forcing responsible members to oppose what they passionately support. luckily, this bill will not be enacted, will be able to work -- we'll be able to work with the senate -- mr. levin: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: this bill is not going to be enacted into law and we will be able to pick up where it left off and frankly where mr. camp left off as we work with our friends in the other body. my friend and fellow oregonian, senator wyden, the chair, has

already advanced some proposals we'll be able to work with. it is a little more even handed. and that's how ultimately we're going to go. but i'm sorry for what this represents in terms of this congress giving up. i think we can do better. i hope people will vote against this, and we will commit to move forward on the things that we're all committed to in a way that is fiscally responsible, is bipartisan and thoughtful, working with the interest groups that deserve us to work together to get the outcomes we all want for them. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields become, the gentleman from michigan reserve the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman pr minnesota, mr. paulson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to speak in support of the legislation h.r. 4719, the

america gives more act. this is important legislation that is going toin crease charitable giving for the benefit of individuals in need across the country. while also assisting those vital charities and foundations that serve them in all our nation's communities. these are bipartisan proposals, mr. speaker. and the bill will make many of these provisions permanent, it will provide a variety of tax rules, encouraging america's tax pay terse to give even more generously and enabling them to serve those in need more effectively. i'd also like to address a provision specifically that i authored that reduces and simplifies the provillings, the excise tax on private foundation investment income. private foundations make a world of difference in our communities. i look at minnesota. my home state. we have 1,400 different foundations and in 2011, it was about $1 billion annual -- is what they'd annually donate to

those in need. nationwide, we've got 81,000 foundations that donate almost $50 billion in 2011. these are impressive numbers, impressive figures, but as impressive as those figures and statistics are, the reality is they could easily be higher and the tax code is discouraging large and increasing larger donations given by private foundations. . today they face a very complicated system of taxation and there are actually perverse incentives for a foundation not to make a donation, not to give a contribution in times when those needs might be greatest. such as after a natural disaster. this legislation eliminates that disincentive so we can make large donations in times of need and replaces the two-teared system with a simple -- two-tiered system with a simple, flat, 1% excise tax on all foundation investment income. it also simplifies the tax planning process, especially for smaller foundations this is

important. so they can spend their valuable resources not on expensive accounts, not on expensive or high-priced lawyers but instead providing grants to grantees. we need to ensure that charitable giving decisions are based on the needs of our community, not based on the tax code. this legislation is strongly supported by the community foundations and the bottom line here, mr. speaker, members, is that every dollar that these organizations are either paying in taxes or they're giving to accountants or attorneys is one less dollar going to those in need. this bill makes compliance easier and ensures that more resources are available. thank you, mr. speaker, i comment the -- commend the chairman for his leadership. i urge my colleagues in supporting this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to the distinguished member our committee from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank the ranking member for yielding. cannot support $825 billion

in unpaid-for permanent and piecemeal tax cuts -- unpaid for, permanent and piecemeal tax cuts while our vulnerable citizens go unmet. i strongly support extending the i.r.a. charitable rollover, tax incentives for property owners who protect natural resources through conservation easements, tax incentives for charitable contributions of food inventory, and improving the private foundation excise tax to allow better response to communities during economic troubles and natural disasters, a bill which i introduced. however i oppose adding almost $1 trillion to the deficit that will imperil our economic recovery and the well-being of

our citizens. i oppose leaving behind other critical tax provisions that help the working poor, strengthen economically distressed communities, promote affordable housing, help cover transportation costs, incentivize businesses to hire hard-to-employ workers, and assist teachers with classroom expenses. many of these bills provide examples of smart federal investments. for example, the first two years the i.r.a. charitable rollover was available, more than $140 million was donated to support charities, with the median gift just under $4,500. i strongly support giving food to the hungry and helping the needy. however, i cannot vote in favor of this package of bills because of their fiscal impact

and the lack of fiscal responsibility to balanced policy. so i thank you, mr. speaker, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. first let me thank chairman camp for bringing this important set of charitable bills, the america gives more act, h.r. 4719 to the floor for a vote. the charitable giving extension act is a bill i introduced that would make a small change in the tax code but make a huge change in the lives of every american. this legislation would extend the yearly deadline for making charitable giving deductions from december 31 to april 15 of the following year. so that all americans can have an extra 3 1/2 months to give to charity. and include those donations in next year's tax returns. no longer would americans be

forced to complete their charitable giving by new year's eve. let me tell you, this is something that goes far deeper than that. mr. schock referenced it. according to the world giving index, america is the most big-hearted nation in the world. in the world. all this is is an affirmation of who we are as americans. believe me, my friends, this charitable virtue that we have is not a republican issue or a democratic issue. this is who we basically are as americans. and we look at what happens, i want you to think about any time there is any time of a crisis or tragedy in the world. who is the first responder? america. always america. it is just who we are. it is the very fabric of this nation. and what has been given to us. we have been so blessed by god. and then the question becomes, well, i'd like to give a little bit more. but i didn't know by the end of the year that i was going to have that little bit extra to work with. and i'm talking about guys and gals that get up every morning, the alarm goes off, they throw their feet out of bed and they go to work and they want to do

it for one reason. put a roof over their family, put food on the table, clothes on their back and prepare for their fewer you to -- future. and then they say at the end of the day, i have a little bit left over. i want to be able to give that to a charitable organization. is there anyplace else in the world that we see that happen? and happen on a regular basis day in and day out? this is not just thumping, i'm proud of america, this is a humble pride that says, i thank our lord and god for putting us in a position that we can actually share that which we have. to much has been given, much is required. i understand that, please don't turn this into a political argument when it comes to good policy. you know in the depth of your heart where the american people are. you know what they've done for year after year in, in good times and in bad times, and we turn this into political theater? we talk about policy that's good not just for every single american but for every person they help.

please, on the floor that sometimes seems to divided, and wants to pick sides, on who's doing the best job, i came here for one reason and that was to serve the people from pennsylvania's third district that sent me, both republicans and democrat, some that vote and some that don't vote, and to serve the needs of the american people. have we gone so far from those goals that we decide to make everything political? it's not just enough to agree with every single thing that comes forward, but then we use the hypocrisy of, wait a minute, this is not paid for. and the idea of paying for it is taxes people more. i would hate to be in a position where i -- mr. camp: an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kelly: we know how to spend the money better than you. we'll make the decisions of how it gets dolled out. in your heart of heart, when you want to give to a charitable organization, forget it. we'll make that decision, send the money to washington because we've done such a wonderful job with it. no, my friends.

that's not america. that's not who we are. that's not who we'll ever be. that's not the fabric of this great nation. look past your political ambitions and beating each other up and look at what's good policy for every single american. i urge the passage of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time and i thank the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: could you tell us how much time there is on each side, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 7 1/2 minutes. the other gentleman from michigan has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, a member of our committee, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, i don't know. here we are again. over the last few weeks, the ways and means committee has been bringing bills after bills to the house floor to make

permanent changes to the tax code. but a lot of the policy behind it, there's very little dispute and debate. it's the fact that they're bringing these bills to the floor without any pay fors, without any offsets, and instead leaving this legacy of debt for future generations to have to contend with. or to increase our borrowing costs with china. at a time when most of the discussion around this place has been about fiscal responsibility. but it certainly must be an election year. because any limits to fiscal responsibility is out the door. here again today week of got five bills that would make five permanent changes to the tax code, none of which was offset, one would extend the charitable deduction for firms that donate food from their inventories. one would permanently extend the charitable deduction for donations of qualified conservation easements. a bill i've been particularly working hard to find a permanent fix in the tax code, having seen the good work that our land trusts and the mississippi valley conservancy back home has been doing with this tax incentive in the code.

another bill would extend the free -- tax-free exclusion from income of charitable contributions from the individual retirement accounts, the so-called i.r.a. rollover charitable contribution. something that the chairman of the committee himself actually eliminated in his comprehensive tax reform discussion draft. that was introduced earlier this year. joint committee on taxation says, you add all these five bills up, it's at a cost of over $16 billion and again not a nickel of it, no offset to pay for any of this. at a time when unemployment, long-term unemployment benefits have expired at the early part of this year, the cost of this bill here today alone would cover 35 times the cost of those emergency unemployment benefits for the duration of this year. 35 times. we're doing nothing to permanently change the so-called s.g.r. or the doc reimbursement fix. week of got sequestration hanging over our heads that's about to do more damage to our military and to the federal

budget. and no work is being done on that front. last week we passed legislation scratching and clawing, trying to find a little over $10 billion in offsets for temporary extension of the infrastructure investment we have to be making in this country. to keep the highway trust fund funded. and yet here we are with another five bills that will cost us $16 billion and apparently some in this place don't even blink about spending that type of money. that's where we've got a problem. philosophically, i'm afraid. as far as our approach to this. there are better ways of doing this. i think one of the ways that could help jump-start this economy is working hard, making tough decisions, moving forward on comprehensive tax reform. to make our code more competitive globally. and now we've got an emergency situation of more companies here in the united states trying to find some small entity overseas where they're foreign shopping for low tax jurisdiction to avoid taxation here in the united states. and this place is doing nothing

about that. may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. levin: an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. kind: and i would submit between these bills, the nine bills that have already come out of committee a at a toecal cost of $900 billion, if we move forward down that track, there is no way, no ability for us to come back and address comprehensive tax reform in a fiscally responsible manner. i again commend the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, for the currently he demonstrated by offering that discussion draft. but in doing so he had to make some tough decisions on what expenditures, what loopholes we would have to go without in order to pay for a lowering of rates. if we give the store away today and with the previous bills that were passed and what might be come up tomorrow, there will be no ability for us to be able to seriously work on the comprehensive tax reform that our country desperately needs in order to put us in a more competitive position in this 21st century global economy.

i encourage my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from alaska, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: mr. speaker, i want to thank -- ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: i want to thank chairman camp's important work on this legislation. h.r. 4719, the america gives more act in 2014, is a package of bipartisan bills to improve the permanent several tax rules governing charitable donations. i would especially like to speak on a provision in the bill concerning the alaska native corporations. alaska native corporations generally pay the highest marginal rate of taxes but are not able to take advantage of many of the corporate tax credits as other corporations. one of the current tax codes the government provides tax treatment for conservation easements provided by certain corporations owned by farmers and ranchers.

considering the alaska native corporation lands have high conservation value and lack access to many other corporate tax credits, it makes sense to extend these favorable tax benefits to alaska native corporations. i must make it clear this provision does not mandate the creation of conservation easements but would allow the alaska native land holders to determine themselves which lands will be invested. i strongly support this provision and the underlying bill and it's always interesting, we talk about our good chairman, his proposal for tax reform. if i remember correctly, that side of the aisle criticized that tax reform badly. i'm not yielding. it's my time. criticized that tax reform. did not do it when they were in the majority. they passed obamacare, they passed cap and trade, they passed, you know, the stimulus package and they passed dodd-frank. didn't address this issue of being fiscally responsible. that mazes me. now i hear from that side to be fiscally responsible.

but what we're trying to do here is give an extension for those who want to give neds of going through this congress. let's let the private individual be the one to decide to help his neighbor, not the bureaucracy. it amazes me how this changes, somebody on this side can say, we need reform, we need reform that side.nored by i compliment the chairman for his work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. levin: i wonder where the gentleman from alaska was, i mean, pay-go existed under democrats, we tried to pay for things, and we did not dismiss out of hand the tax proposal, i

yield myself an adegreesal 30 seconds. the ones who are just throwing it to the wind to the republicans, it's the republicans -- i have the time. you're throwing fiscal responsible to the wind, you're throwing any kind of prioritization to the wind, you're coming here and just saying, do anything and pay nothing. how much time is there now on both sides, please? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has two minutes, the other gentleman from michigan has 7 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded again to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: at this time, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from montana, mr. daines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for two minutes. mr. daines: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the america

gives more act because it encourages charitable giving. this bill includes the conservation easement incentive act which is very important to the people of montana. rising property values and estate taxes making -- make passing down working lands to future generations very, very difficult. in fact new york 2010, the leap family a family that farmed in my home county since 1926, faced the challenge of transfering a family farm to the next generation. because of this incentive, they were able to donate land to the land trust, an organization that works on conserving working land and other areas valued for habitat and kept the land in production and in the family's ownership. the america gives more act make this is provision permanent and gives landowners the assurances they need to make long-term estate planning decisions. it is a commonsense, smart tax policy that makes a real

difference in the lives of montanans. i urge support for this measure and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: i thank chairman champ for tissue camp for his work -- i thank chairman camp for his work on this issue and i thank representative gerlach as well for his work on the issue, including the conservation easement tax program which has helped a lot of people. while this is another extension, what we need is to make it permanent in tax law. even with the temporary extension, so much good has been done. i remember coming here in 1999, a local elected official in bucks county, asked to testify before the senate on this topic,

on the federal government helping to preserve land throughout our great nation. in those 15 years since, in my community of bucks downy, we preserved over 10,000 acres of farmland, parkland, critical natural areas and it's important for so many different reasons. not just for good land use and planning and quality of life, but also creating food security for our nation. reduces the cost of providing local government services. so much good has come of the conservation easement program and this incentive act which is part of the greater america gives more act we're debating today, it's not only good tax policy but good environmental policy. i know these are issues that can bring us together as democrats and republicans in this house. by permanently removing the uncertainty for those communities that would set aside land through conservation easements, we're going to help ensure that we can pass on open spaces and wild places to future generations of americans yet to be born. mr. speaker, it's my hope that

this legislation will pass the house today, it will proceed swiftly through the united states senate and we can come together around an american ethic of preserving and conserving our open spaces and get this bill to the president's desk. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves, the gentleman from michigan is recognized. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman is recognized. pll camp: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lummis: i rise to support the conservation easement incentive act as well. conservation easements are a cost effective way of protecting valuable open space and farm and ranchland in the west, including my home state of wyoming. it's an alternative to government landownership and allows our local land stewards to continue the best management practices on private land. the expiration of enhanced tax

incentives for landowners discourages modest income and working ranchers and farmers from participating in a program to permanently protect their land resources and their way of life. while these enhanced tax deductions have been extended multiple times, their on again, off again eligibility makes business and tax planning difficult for donors, especially since they are often delayed by the federal government's timeline. mr. speaker, conservation easements leverage ranchers and farmers' love of their land and allows them to maintain operations that are beneficial not only for agriculture but for habitat, recreation, and our landscapes. i urge support of this bill. i thank the gentleman from michigan, the ways and means committee chairman, for this time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: how much time is remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has three minutes remain, the other gentleman from michigan has two minutes remaining. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. i am pleased to rise today, in support of this whole package but in particular the conservation easement tax incentive. this worthy provision incentivizes property donations to groups who maintain the property for conservation purpose, encouraging good stewardship and our environment. prk, the area in illinois that you and i represent, suburban chicago and areas outlying, are incredibly significant, and there's beautiful places in the five counties that i represent and the many counties that you represent, mr. speaker, and this

is an opportunity for the tax code to work in favor of land preservation and open space and to do it in a way that is thoughtful, to do it in a way that is inclusive and to do it in a way that ultimately saves and preserves these precious natural resources and uses them not just for our generation but for the generations to come. i i want -- i want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and i urge its passage and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: is my colleague ready to close in mr. camp: i'm ready to close. mr. levin: i'll do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. levin: this is a severe case of losing the forest for the trees. this is not about the benefits of charity. this is not about the benefits of foundations.

it's not about the benefits -- benefit of conservation easements. this is a dramatic challenge to republicans in terms of fiscal responsibility and fiscal priorities. they passed a budget that cuts severely into needed programs and then they come here and say, let's pass provisions that would add up to close to $1 trillion and not pay one dime. i don't think anything can be more fiscally irresponsible and hurt the priorities of this country and maybe they do this because they know it's a dead end in the senate. so they think somehow they can use this to their political

advantage. but it's reckless and it's to the harm of the nation and i ink the processes on a bipartisan basis of this institution. i urge everybody to vote no. there is so much a better path than this reckless one. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the provisions we're talking about today, the policies, whether it's donations to food inventory or i.r.a. contributions, excess dollars from an i.r.s. ar -- i.r.a. or whether it's a conservation easement, these are all item that was been extended unpaid for, if you will, time and time again. we've heard a lot about the cost but he other side,

charities, religious groups, foundations, food banks, if we could make these permanent, because right now these three are ex-peered. they can't be used. but if we could make these permanent, we'll see an increase in charitable giving, $8 -- in charitable giving. 850 organizations have written and said that would happen. all of them who serve the poor, the everybody -- who serve the needy who serve americans in trouble. also it doesn't go through the government. you know, what these charities do, what these religious groups do, what these foundations do, is beyond the power of government to give. let's make these permanent, let's extend these provisions, let's increase charitable giving in the united states and let's help people help themselves. i yield back and i urge a yes vote on the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired.

pursuant to house resolution 670, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. ealeal. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently expand and extend contributions for food for charity. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized the clerk: mr. van hollen of maryland moves to recommit the bill back to the committee on ways and means and men moos with instructions to report it back to the house worth fifth -- forthwith -- mr. van hollen: i ask unanimous consent to to dispense with the reading.

mr. camp: i object and i reserve a point of order against the motion. the speaker pro tempore: a point of ord is reserved the clerk will read. the clerk: by striking december 31, 2013, and inserting december 31, 2015, page 1, starting at line 1, strike by redesignating clause iii as clause 4 and ensert it. by redesignating clauses iii and four and clauses four and five respectively. page three, line 16, strike five and insert six. page hour, line seven striket six and insert seven. page five strike lines 15 through 21 and insert the following. section three -- >> i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the rule the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill, it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, this motion to recommit does two things. first it ensures that the charities we support, we support in a fiscally responsible manner. by extending these ensentives for two years rather than permanently in order to, number one, give taxpayers clarity, but also to give this congress time to work together on tax reform without piling up huge new deficits. mr. speaker, just yesterday in the budget committee, we had a hearing on the long-term deficits. our republican colleagues said they worried about the long-term deficit picture and yet in the last six weeks, they have added over $500 billion to the deficit in violation of their own budget including what we're doing today. so let's do this extension for two years and in a fiscally

responsible manner. the second thing this motion does is it denies the benefits of this legislation to any corporation that effectively renounces its u.s. citizenship and reincorporated overseas to avoid taxes. these so-called corporate inversions are generating outrage among families and small businesses around the country who can't simply tell the i.r.s., they've moved their residence to some tax haven country because they don't want to pay their taxes. and in recent months we've seen corporation after corporation jumping on this bandwagon. in fact, the financial press reports that walgreens, the drugstore chain, that has almost all of its stores right here in the united states is thinking about moving to switzerland. they're being driven by outside hedge fund stockholders to do this simply for tax purposes. so we have a situation where the management of an american

company is being forced to decide between pressure from hedge funds to exploit a tax dodge, and loyalty to the united states of america. the country where walgreen's was built into a company and where its customers are. just on tuesday secretary lew wrote to congress, expressing urgency to stop this flood of inversions now as we deal with broader tax reform. he called for a new sense of economic patriotism and i couldn't agree with him more. the ranking member of the budget -- of the ways and means committee, mr. levin, and others have worked together to do this. week of got to get it done -- we've got to get it done. the respected reporter allen sloan just wrote about this in "fortune" magazine this month and said he was angry about this. mr. speaker, we should all be angry, we should do something about it, we've already voted to say on the appropriations bills that you shouldn't benefit from contracts if you're just going to move your residency overseas. we should say the same thing with respect to tax benefits.

you shouldn't get a tax benefit if you're renouncing your u.s. citizenship and desserting u.s. taxpayers and the country -- deserting u.s. taxpayers and the country for tax schemes. i'm pleased to combreeled the remainder of the time -- yield the remainder of the time to mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. value hon -- mr. van hollen. to listen to the histrionics from the other side here today, would you think that we could run the pentagon through charitable giving. you would think that there was just a deduction for charitable giving, we would have people volunteering to give their money to the pentagon. the reality is, in this institution we've had time for benghazi, week of had time for the i.r.s., and guess what, next week and the week after we're going to find time to sue the president of the united states. but we don't have time to address the american tax code, whereas mr. -- where, as mr.

van sholen has just described, 40 -- van hollen has just described, 40 companies are lined up to leave. yesterday the acting head of the v.a. said, we're going to ed $18 billion to straighten out the v.a. based upon the men and women who have honorably served the nation. and mr. camp said yesterday in an email to "the wall street journal," our tax code is dysfunctional. let me refer to what the gentleman from alaska said just a few moments ago. he blamed democrats in this chamber for thwarting tax reform. i guess he didn't vote for the speaker of the house. because the speaker of the house looked at the issue and said, blah, blah, blah. about tax reform. even as $20 billion in terms of base erosion is about to abandon the united states. if you want to do something about charitable giving, and everybody in this institution

honors the description of what is known as habits of the heart , we do it naturally, it is the third largest expenditure in the american tax code. nobody is talking about disarming charitable giving. what we're say something that mr. camp is correct in his email to "the wall street journal" yesterday. the tax code is in fact dysfunctional. and we should be addressing it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. camp: mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. this motion would create chaos for the charitable community. americans are more generous than any other nation in the world. what we need is certainty in our tax code. certainty for those who want to donate food to food banks. certainty for those who want to make excess contributions to i.r.a.'s and certainty for those who want to preserve fragile land for future generations.

this motion makes it much harder to help those in need and god knows we have a lot of americans in need, with a contracting economy and the wort recovery since the great -- worst recovery since the great depression. we're the only nation in the world with temporary tax policy . some of these provisions have expired. they've been renewed time and time again and we need to admit it and make them permanent. let me just say when it comes to inversions, the administration agrees with me that the best way to address this issue through lower rates -- is through lower rates and comprehensive tax reform and we should be doing that. but this motion actually creates a perverse incentive for american companies to pack up and move overseas. that is the worst thing we could do for american workers. i urge a no vote on this motion to recommit and a yes vote on the underlying legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. van hollen: i ask for the

yeas and nays, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. van hollen: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill. this is a 15-minute vote. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 185, the nays are 227. the motion is not adopted.

the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. levin: ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 277 and the nays are 130. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring the majority leader-elect, mr. mccarthy, for the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you. i yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday, no votes are expected in the house. on tuesday, the house will meet

at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the speaker. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected to be no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow and which i'm proud to say will include additional bills to combat human trafficking. in addition, the house will consider two bills to support innovation and enhance financial counseling and higher education, h.r. 3136, the advancing competency-based

demonstration project act, authored by representative matt salmon, and the empowering students through enhanced financial counseling act, authored by representative brett guthrie. the house will also consider h.r. 3393, the student and family tax simplification act, it's a bipartisan bill authored by representatives diane black and danny davis, to ensure a simple and fair tax code so that students and families can afford a college education. the house will consider h.r. 4935, the child tax credit improvement act of 2014, authored by representative lynn jenkins, to help low and middle-income families to save for child expenses. finally, the house will also consider legislation to address the growing crisis is on the border and re-authorization of the terrorism risk insurance act. i thank the gentleman and yield

back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. he mentions in closing the terrorism risk insurance act. as the gentleman knows, that bill did not come to the floor this week as we may have thought it would. we think this bill is a very, very critically important bill that needs to be addressed before it expires at the end of this year. as the gentleman probably knows, the senate is expected to vote on passage of their bill, as i understand it, today. i expect that to be a bipartisan vote as tria has been a bipartisan vote in the past. and i hope that we can follow suit with that quickly so i'm pleased to see that the gentleman says that that may well be on the agenda for next week. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to make further comments but we believe that's a very, very important piece of legislation for us to move and i yield to my friend.

mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. i did say may come up. we would always like to work together on any capabilities that we can on legislation we move forward. and once the timing is finalized, the rules committee will announce a hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: thank you very much. again, hope we could do that as soon as possible to the extent that we pass it before the august break. i think that will give confidence to the construction industry, confidence to municipalities and areas around the country so that hopefully we can do that, as i said, sooner rather than later. another matter that is of critically time sensitive, in my view, mr. leader, as we all know we have a humanitarian crisis on the border and addressing this crisis is very necessary for us to do in a

timely fashion. i think almost everybody agrees on that. the is up is lamental is not on the schedule for -- the supplemental is not on the schedule next week but i wonder if you -- the speaker said we need to do it before the august break. we have two weeks -- three weeks left to go. and i wonder if you can give us some insight into the progress of that supplemental that the president has requested, and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: as i mentioned in the schedule announcement next week, members should be prepared for a possible consideration of legislation to address the ongoing border crisis. once again, once the timing is finalized, the rules committee will announce a hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the floor. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that news. that's good news. hopefully we will be able to move on this next week, because it's very important that we get this done as soon as possible

cause the crisis is posing immediate demands on our resources. i would say to the gentleman, n he illuminate at all whether or not that supplemental will be limited to the resources necessary to confront the crisis? i have heard some comments there may be changes in the underlying law with respect to how individuals at the border are treated, depending upon where they come from. while i think that both the administration's indicated and others have indicated that that matter ought to be considered, there is no doubt that it will be more controversial than i think the supplemental will be. can the gentleman tell me whether or not he expects the supplemental to include attempts to amend existing

immigration law or whether or not we can consider changes to immigration law in a more either comprehensive form or in an individual bill form and perhaps in conjunction with the border security bill that was passed out of the homeland security committee in this house, as i understand it, on voice vote? i don't know whether it was unanimous. i don't think there was opposition to it. and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: again, i thank my friend for yielding. as the gentleman knows, there's been ongoing consideration of this. as the gentleman knows from this side of the aisle, many of our members, including on your side of the aisle, have been to the border to see this crisis, and it is the intent that we solve this problem. and solve it for long term. so as i did mention in the schedule announcement for next week, members should still be prepared for a possible consideration of the legislation to address the ongoing border crisis, and we will keep you posted.

i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. again, i'd just reiterate, i think we both feel that we need to act on this but i would urge the gentleman to urge his committees and his side of the aisle to bring the supplemental . i talked to mr. rogers, bring the supplemental, whatever that upplemental may entail so we -- the resources to deal with the crisis and not to try to also deal with the legislative issue which i think is a substantive issue. as you point out, on both sides of the aisle people have raised this issue, but there is no doubt that will slow down considerably the passing of a supplemental for the emergency money that's necessary today. so i would hope that he would keep that in mind and would hopefully urge his party, his committee, the appropriations committee to report out a clean

bill at whatever levels they believe is appropriate for whatever objectives they believe are appropriate and let us deal with the resources now and the policy in a more considered way after hearings. if he wants -- if you have nothing -- i'll be glad if you want to respond. mr. t, lastly, mr. leader, speaker, we talked about a make it in america agenda. as the gentleman knows, there are some 70 bills that we have suggested as part of that agenda. we believe this house needs to focus on jobs and still the main concern of the american people. i know the gentleman indicated there were some bills on there trying to deal with jobs. it's my understanding that representative swalwell's bill will be on the calendar next week as a suspension bill, and i want to thank the gentleman for putting that on the

suspension bill. and i hope that i can work with him, mr. cantor and i discussed some of the make it in america bills and i hope i can work with him on these bills which are bipartisan. every member of this congress wants to see more jobs created, more stimulus to create jobs, provided there is a particular bill that was going to be on the suspension calendar some months ago and has not made it. the gentleman and i discussed it. mr. lipinski has a bill which deals with a plan for making america as competitive as it can be, and that bill passed out of the last congress unanimously out of committee and passed this house with over 350 votes. it is again passed out of the committee overwhelmingly. i don't know whether there was a recorded vote or not, but overwhelmingly came out of committee, and i would hope that the gentleman would with his staff review and consider

adding that bill as well to the suspension calendar sometime in the future. and i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: again, i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes, we have had those conversations and i appreciate the continued conversations. as the gentleman knows, the science committee has several manufacturing and jobs bills before it, and i'm confident they are reviewing and giving all due consideration. the bill that you speak of that passed out of last congress, it was changed within this congress and i know the process at which it is going. i do not anticipate any coming up next week, but we'll certainly notify the member of any consideration in the house in the future. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and i appreciate his comments and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion

at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. barber of arizona moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conference of the disagreeing votes on the two houses on the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3230, an act to improve the access of veterans to medical services from the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes be instructed to, one, received from disagreement with section 701 of the senate amendment relating to the expansion of the marine gunry sergeant john david frye scholarship and, two, received from the house amendment and concur in the senate amendment in all other instances. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7-b of rule 22, the gentleman from arizona, mr. barber, and the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of the veterans' access to care

through choice, accountability and transparency act of 2014, which was passed by the senate 93-7 on june 11 of this year. this scritcal piece of legislation is one -- this critical piece of legislation is one that must be implemented immediately to provide solutions to the many problems that have been discovered at the department of veterans affairs and to provide the necessary care and assistance that our veterans deserve. we must move immediately on an agreement with the senate and not further delay the long overdue care that our veterans need and have earned. the most expeditious way to do this would be to move forward with the senate bill, one that, as i said, was supported by 93 senators. republican, democrat and independent alike. i know that my colleagues in the house and senate are committed to serving our veterans. services for our veterans, i'm pleased to say, an issue of great importance is one that

receives -- continuously receives strong bipartisan support in both chambers, and i want to applaud chairman miller and the veterans' affairs committee and ranking member michaud for their hard work in bringing to light the many problems and the terrible corruption that we've discovered in the v.a. and working to improve care for our veterans. i'm here to fight for the veterans and military families in my district and for those across the country. mr. speaker, this is a deeply personal issue with me. my father was a veteran of world war ii. he joined the army air corps probably lied about his age so he can serve his country. he served in world war ii. he went on to serve in korea and vietnam, and when he left the air force, he extensively used the services of the veterans administration. were he alive today, i know he would be enraged by what has been discovered about the

neglect, misconduct and manipulation of the v.a. waiting lists so top executives could receive financial rewards and bonuses. the 85 veterans -- 85,000 veterans i work for in southern arizona and countless more nationwide deserve better from us and from the department of veterans affairs than they've been getting, and i've been pressing for better access to health care for our veterans since i first came to congress in 2012. one of the first bills i introduced was the veterans' health access act, to ensure that veterans could get the health care they needed in their communities without long commutes and even longer wait times. and i'm pleased that the house and senate are now working to address this issue. we must improve the quality and timeliness of care to our veterans, and that is why today, mr. speaker, i stand before you to call on my colleagues in the house and the senate to support the senate bill that increases access to

care and takes many more steps to improve services and supports for our veterans and their families. included in the senate-passed bill is the expansion of the john david fry scholarship so surviving spouses may have a chance to further their education and take care of their families. the marine gunnery sergeant john david price scholarship is a current education benefit -- benefit for the surviving children of our fallen military service members. it has sent many sons and daughters of fallen heros to college and given them the opportunity to get the american dream. however, it is important that we also offer this benefit to the spouses who are left widowed and must single handedly care for their families. this scholarship could provide many spouses an opportunity to get the education they need and the jobs that will help them succeed and support their families. this scholarship was originally

created in honor of and memory of john david fry a leader of marines from lorena, texas. gunnery sergeant fry, a member of the ordinance disposal community, demonstrated true service to his country and his soldiers in iraq. with only one week left in his his ce in iraq, he injured hand and was offered the chance to go home early. he refused and offered to go on sadly he ssion, but was killed, leaving behind his wife and three small children this type of courage and sacrifice has been sacrificed countless time in the past 13 years by our men and women in uniform. just recently orange may 12, a soldier from my district work 29 years of military service,

succumbed to the wounds he received in afghanistan. command sergeant major martin r. barreras of tucson was the leader of his infantry battalion on his sixth deployment to afghanistan. while on patrol with his soldiers, gunny, as his family likes to call him, was fatally wounded by small arms fire while leading his troops into battle. this was not the only time this respected leader saw combat. in 2003, sergeant major barreras helped rescue former prisoner of war jessica lynch from an iraqi hospital. he was the enlisted leader of the army battalion that conducted the mission he personally handed lynch to another soldier to transfer her to the helicopter that evacuated her from the area and to safety. according to report he then fended off multiple attacks to retrieve all nine bodies of the other u.s. soldiers missing in action. everyone in our country owes all

of our fallen heroes such as gunnery sergeant fry and command sergets major barreras a debt of gratitude for their service. but we must also remember the silent courage of spouses of our service members who must cope with thery fwors of military life and who must live with only the memory of their fallen husband or wife. these unsung heroes are the ones who maintain the home front for our deployed men and women in wrune form. they are the ones who maintain the morale of our troops, they are the ones who unite with other military families to develop a support network for those spouses and children while their loved ones are in harms way. they are the ones who live with constant worry of their service members' safety and they are the ones who must bear the burden in the absence of their husband or wife. our military spouses play a pivotal role in our nation and it is one we must never forget. this is a good way to honor that

service by providing a scholarship in memory not just of gunnery sernlt fry and command sergeant barreras but all the service members who died for our country and left behind a loving -- a loving family. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this motion, support the expansion with no limitations of the gunnery sergeant john david fry scholarship and i urge swift pass taj to pass the veterans' action to -- access to kear of 2014 in its entirety. we must act now. to enact this legislation and get our veterans the care that they deserve. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

>> as we have heard, the motion to instruct -- mr. miller: as we have heard motion, d instruct the imposing the rule of accountability is absent at v.a. and i think that is our first and most important obligation. because it's the source of many of the problems that exist within the department, many of the problems that were uncovered because of the oversight from both republicans and democrats on the house committee on veterans' affairs. and we're making good progress with our negotiations of our senate colleagues and now is not the time to try to tie the hands of negotiators with what i elieve is a partisan ploy. moreover, yesterday, senator sanders indicated that he wanted to expand the scope of the conference committee's work far

beyond what the senate bill itself had encompassed by adding v.a.'s request for an additional $17.6 billion into the mix. so today i say to my colleagues, i'm not even sure that the senate could receive -- could recede to the senate amendment because they keep moving the goal post. as i said yesterday on the last motion to instruct, inspector general and the g.a.o. have both stated on multiple occasions during our hearings that they do not have confidence in v.a.'s numbers. moreover, at every v.a. budget hear, the secretary has been asked, do you have the dollars you need to take care of the veterans that you are tasked with caking care of? invariably, we get the answer, every single time, yes. so why should we believe that suddenly v.a. sees the need to to an adegreesal $10 billion

hire 10,000 new clinical staff and $6 billion in new construction without having those numbers vetted? when our staff was briefed yesterday on this request for $17.6 billion, actually, i don't know if it's a request yet, but when the secretary talked about it, they came to brief our staffs and they brought three sheets of paper to justify a $17.6 billion number. so the members on both sides of the aisle, i caution that despite the urgency of the current crisis, we have got to root out the cause that has been affecting timely access to care and accountability. not secondary issues many of which we all support, including the fry scholarship fund expansion. if we don't, those of us fortunate enough to be here years from now will be right back where we are, debating once again how things went wrong at

the v.a. i would point out again, as i did yesterday, there are dozens of bills sitting, languishing, in the senate, including the authorization of 27 clin exs. the motion to instruct yesterday talked about receding to the senate bill that had 26 clinics. the house bill was passed in december of last year. 27 clinics. if the senate would just bring it up, pass it, send it to the president, we could immediately make a difference. i also talk about the expansion of the fry scholarship program. that's something we certainly should look at but it will do nothing, nothing to increase the care and break the backlog of the lines that our veterans are waiting in now to get the health care they have earned. i ask the senate to pass the dozen bills that sit over there on their side. send them to the president today. i would also point out that i am

willing to discuss and i think most members on our side, the fry scholarship issue, but we don't think they are in the scope of the emergency that exists today. part of the reason that i i believe that, section 701 of the senate bill does not address timely access to care or the cultural corruption that exists within the department. a surviving spouse, as my colleague mr. barber has already said, who has a spouse killed in active duty is already entitled to receive financial benefits that include 45 months of g.i. bill type education benefits. $500,000 in death benefits. dependencyin monthly and indemnity compensation benefits. so in short, i don't believe it's time for us to be talking about expanding the benefits without expressing them through regular order here on the house floor.

especially in the face of what i now understand is the senate's new effort to move the goal line in our conference committee work. so with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. barber: could you advise me how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 2 minutes remaining. mr. barber: -- has 22 minutes remaining. mr. barber: i would like to introduce a number of people to speak on this issue. but first i would like to say this. i have been here now a little more than two years and i have learned a few things. one is that when you have the public's attention and the chamber's attention and the senate's attention on an issue of importance like this, you act. and you to as much as you can to not only take kear of the corruption, the system exproblems within the v.a. but other issues that have been pending for a long time and to that end, i hope we will in fact receive -- recede to the senate version of the legislation. now i'd like to yield three mins to my colleague from arizona,

congresswoman ann kirkpatrick, ranking member on the oversilingt subcommittee of the veterans affairs committee who has been a strong fighter for our veterans her entire time in congress. i turn the mike over to congresswoman ann kirkpatrick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. kirkpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. barber, for yielding time to me. i support this motion to instruct the conferees. the senate amendments go beyond a short-term solution to solving the patient access at the v.a. as a member of the conference committee, i continue to push for the provisions in the senate amendment because they are good for veterans and their families. we must seize this opportunity to pass meaningful reforms at the v.a., our veterans and their families deserve better than piecemeal, short-term fixing. especially with report after

report of veterans struggling to receive timely care and benefits. and struggling to find good paying jobs. one provision in the senate amendment will give post-9/11 g.i. benefits to surviving spouses of service members who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country. we cannot forget about surviving spouses. a surviving spouse struggles with the loss of a loved one and often struggles with a financial loss that can make it difficult to provide for the family left behind. service members are able to transfer g.i. bill benefits to their spouses and children, but the benefits and the ability to transfer this benefit are based on time served on active duty. we can all agree that surviving spouses should not be cut out of receiving full bill benefits if

they lose a loved one before that loved one has served 36 months on active duty. the post-9/11 g.i. bill will give surviving spouses the opportunity to receive education and training so they are better able to provide for themselves and their families. it would be wrong of the conference committee and congress to pass up this opportunity to give surviving spouses this benefit. we cannot delay passing meaningful veterans' legislation. if we do not take this opportunity now, then congress will once again fail all the american people, veterans, and their families by refusing to act. passing a v.a. reform legislation in a meaningful way that gives g.i. bill benefits to surviving spouses should be an easy decision for every member

of congress. for those who are holding out the progress -- holding up the progress of this legislation, how will you go home to your district in august and explain to veterans and constituents why congress was unable to pass something as simple as giving g.i. benefits to surviving spouses? i know that all of my colleagues sincerely wish to help veterans and their families but it's not enough to pay lip service to our military and veterans. congress must act now. at the very least, the conference committee should agree to this provision in the senate amendment, thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my sometime time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arizona. the gentleman from florida is recognized. . the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: i hope the last speaker was not trying to say

that they were trying to delay. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. next, i'd like to yield three minutes to my colleague from nevada, congresswoman dina titus, a member of the house veterans' acares committee, who has introduced -- veterans' affairs committee, who has introduced the spouses of heroes education act, which would expand the scholarship. as a university professor at unlv for more than 30 years, congresswoman fithe us understands the importance of education and has been a strong leader in education issues, both in nevada and here in washington, as a former member of the education and labor committee. i yield three minutes to my colleague from nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. titus: thank you. i thank the gentleman from arizona for yielding to me. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of a provision that has been highlighted by my colleague from arizona in his motion to instruct and was also

discussed by the chairman of the -- disgusted by the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee. as a member of that committee, i am trying to make sure that our veterans in las vegas and those throughout the country have access to high quality health care in a timely fashion, so it's critical that this conference committee quickly finishes its work so we can send a reform package to the president for his signature. mr. barber's amendment highlights a critical piece of the senate proposal which is identical to the legislation i introduced, along with senator jeff merkley from oregon, just last year. h.r. 3441, the spouses of heroes education act. our importance pornt legislation amends the by making .i. bill surviving spouses of armed services eligible for this education benefit program.

the scholarship provides full in-state tuition, fees, a monthly stipended and a book allowance to children of service members who've died in the line of duty. our change would allow spouses to receive those same benefits. when a service member tragically loses his or her life on the field of battle, we owe it to their spouses to do all we can to support them and their families, not just in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy but going forward. we can ensure they have all the educational opportunities they need, because this will enable them to further their careers and increase the financial stability of that family. i was pleased that the senate included this bicameral bipartisan legislation in the mccain-sanders agreement that passed 93-3, and it's critical that our conferees maintain that provision. i was also very glad to hear the chairman say that he's

supportive of our looking at that provision here in the house as a stand-alone bill. and i hope to see that move also. so i thank them for their work on this important issue, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. next, i'd like to yield time to my colleague from arizona, sinn ma oman kirsten sinema.en as you know the first evidence of corruption and misdeeds was discovered in our v.a. in izona, in phoenix, and ms. sinema was first on the scene. i yield her three minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. sinema: i want to thank mr. barber for his work on behalf of veterans in arizona. john ill expand gunnery david frye scholarship and this scholarship covers the children of service members who were killed in the line of duty and after their tragic loss, the surviving spouse is hard to support his or her family. congress must expand this benefit to spouses and to help these military families begin to rebuild and it's important that congress and the department of veterans affairs take action to get veterans the care they need. veterans in my district, which is home to the phoenix v.a., are still waiting for congress to produce a bipartisan v.a. reform bill to send to the president's desk. but in arizona, we are not waiting idly for washington to take action. we're doing it ourselves. in phoenix, we've established a

working group of community providers, veteran service organizations and the local v.a. to work together to improve access to services. we recently co-hosted our veterans first clinic which brought together community providers, the phoenix v.a. and over 20 veterans' serving organizations to help veterans in a variety of ways. approximately 400 veterans and their families attended and got the care that they earned and that they deserve. these are examples of the good that results when we set aside partisanship and focus on putting veterans first to help meet their needs. but more action is required. i appreciate the bipartisan leadership and work the house, especially chairman miller and ranking member michaud, have done on this issue and i call on the conferees to move quickly to produce a bipartisan bill and get it on the president's desk. by working together, we can address this crisis and create a v.a. system that our veterans deserve. let's get this done for our

veterans. again, i thank my colleague from arizona for offering this motion, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: mr. speaker, might inquire as to whether or not mr. barber has any more speakers. mr. barber: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers but i do have some closing remarks. mr. miller: mr. speaker, again, i'd urge my colleagues to not support this motion to recommit, remind my colleagues that even though the number, 93-3 has been used for the passage of the senate bill, the house bill itself, which was much more narrowly tail ord to actually deal with the cry -- tailored to actually deal with the crisis today for access to care passed unanimously and immediately after that there was a motion to re-- prior to the final vote there was a motion to recommit or to instruct that did in fact want the house to recede to the senate amendment. the problem is, again, the goal posts are changing.

the house has been working with the senate. we have made an offer on our particular side. we are waiting for the senate to return a counter. things changed yesterday, unfortunately, because of the $17.6 billion additional that was brought before by the department themselves. we continue to stay focused. our intent is to complete this bill and get it to the president's desk before we leave in august. i appreciate my colleagues' comments today, and with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. barber: mr. speaker, could i ask for the balance of time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. barber: well thank you, mr. speaker. let me close with these thoughts. i came here, as you well know, following the resignation of congresswoman gabrielle giffords for whom i worked when she was a member. sher commitment to veterans was complete and deep -- her commitment to veterans was complete and deep and i'm

pleased to have picked up that mission and tried to move forward with it in every way possible. i also came here in the spirit of bipartisanship looking for partners on both sides of the aisle to move important legislation for our country. and i'm very pleased to say that i have found bipartisan ship in full measure in the manner with which we have worked together to ensure that our veterans are properly served. and now i call on my colleagues, the conferees to move quickly to bring our two bills together, to strike now while the opportunity presents. back home when i meet with veterans they say, what are you waiting for? we need you to act and act now, and i urge our colleagues to adopt the motion to instruct so that we can get this job done expeditiously and in full measure. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to instruct. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. barber: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. miller: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow and when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet on tuesday, july 22, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. stivers of ohio for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will recognize members for special order speeches. without prestigious to the presumption of -- the chair will entertain one-minute requests, request for one minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. five alfa: mr. speaker, million americans have given up on their search for a job. for 59 months straight, invisible unemployment has remained above 10%. the number of long-term unemployed americans has doubled the prerescission

figure. mr. speaker, among the 294 bills the democrat-controlled senate has failed to act on are over 40 house-passed bipartisan pro-jobs bills that would help put americans back to work. we passed legislation to help the long-term unemployed get training for new jobs, a measure to restore hourly wages cut by the 30-hour workweek mandate and regulatory reform bills to cut the red tape, holding back key energy and construction projects that will help create jobs and boost our economy. these measures are commonsense solutions our economy needs right now, policies that provide america to be self-sufficient. where are the jobs, where are the jobs bills? we hear that over here on that side of the aisle. you can find them over on harry reid's dusty desk drawer waiting for action in the senate. however, the senate has refused to vote on them, refuse to take action to help our economy and refuse to consider any approach but bigger government. it's time for the senate to

work and take action on jobs bills that americans need. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: any further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. last week's energy and water appropriations bill provided another glaring example of an opportunity squandered. we could have invested more in clean energy and certainly weaned our nation off its heavy dependence on fossil fuels. we could have heeded the warnings of the scientific community and taken greater steps to reduce emissions and adapt our dams and ports and coastal infrastructure to new conditions. we did neither. even worse, the bill contained riders to prevent the modeling and study of climate change.

the climate deinsiders are condemning us -- deniers are condemning us to a future of crisis management. global manufacturers, governments, aid organizations and the insurance industry are examining risks to key infrastructure of supply chain disruptions, water shortages and increased political unrest. instead of suing our president for taking action, we should be joining him and organizations around the world in the effort to understand and meet this formidable challenge. failure to do so will be costly and failure to do so will be tragic. we must do better. we should start by doing something. ith that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. any further requests for one-minute speeches? seeing none, under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman

from maryland, mr. hoyer, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in solidarity with our good ally and friend israel as it defends its people from hamas' deadly rockets. every nation has the right to defend its citizens. inteed, it has a moral obligation to do so. and no people ever ought to live in constant fear that their homes, schools, businesses, places of worship and hospitals might be the target of terrorist rockets. mr. speaker, there's a town in outhern israel that's been the target of over 6,300 rockets

since 2007. mr. speaker, i've been to this town and i've talked to some of the families there. as the rockets fall, they gather their children this bomb shelters and sing them songs. i've been in the recreational gymnasium. it is itself a bomb shelter. preschoolers learn to run for cover before they learn to read and write. american communities were -- if american communities were subjected to the residents of that city and even cities as far north as tel aviv and jerusalem have had to endure, i doubt seriously we'd show as much restraint as israel has shown. there are two major challenges, i hear, to israel's exercise of its legitimate self-defense. i want to address both of them.

first, undertaking this necessary response was not an easy choice for israel. nor was the decision to agree to a cease fire on tuesday. israel abided by the cease fire without any commitment from hamas and prime minister tanyahu even fired, removed, his deputy defense min fer -- minister for questioning that decision, so committed was the israeli government to trying to reach a cease fire and cessation of danger to israelis and palestinians. tragically, appallingly, but i suggest not so surprisingly, hamas not only rejected the cease fire, but continued to rain missiles on israeli communities even while israel

had unilaterally stopped its defensive strikes. secondly, israeli forces have continued to do everything possible to prevent civilian casualties as they strike hamas' leadership and its rocket launchers. mr. speaker, it's shameful that hamas' reign of terror extends not only to israelis, but to their own people, the palestinians in gaza. where hamas continues to use innocent civilians as human shields while firing rockets -- firing rocket after rocket after rocket after rocket at israel. prime minister netanyahu summed up his country's struggle early this week in the following way -- we, meaning the israelis, and

i'm quoting prime minister netanyahu, we are using missile defense to protect our civilians. and they are using civilians to protect their missiles. we are using the, the prime minister said, missile defense to protect our citizen, while hamas is using its own citizens to protect its missiles. how sad. just today, while israel was observing a five-hour cease fire to allow humanitarian supplies to reach gaza, we've seen news reports that hamas continued firing mortar shells into israel in violation of that truce. this week has seen bitter tragedy from both israelis and alestinians.

we have to listen carefully to the words of rachel frankel, the mother of one of the three murdered israeli teenagers. when she learned of the brutal ll offings the a pal stain-- palestinian teenager, humid abu abir, she said this, and i quote. there is no difference between blood and blood. and of course what she meant by that, the loss of her son and the loss of the palestinian oung man was an equal tragedy. -- d down by people angry people, angry, motivated by the acts of terrorists, seek revenge on innocent, noncombatants. in this case, on children.

mr. speaker, hamas has the power to end this violence. i call on them to do so. before more innocent blood on both sides is shed. the united states, of course, will continue to stand by its ally, israel. and we will continue to hold in ur hearts all of the families, including rachel frankel and the family of mohammed abu cabir, who are grieving the loss of loved ones as a result of hamas' reprehensible and criminal actions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern is recognized for the balance of the hour.

mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let me begin by saying the obvious. we are living in a chaotic and dangerous world. but contrary to what some in this chamber suggest, the solution to every problem is not expanding the u.s. military footprint. there are many of us who are deeply concerned about our renewed military involvement in iraq. we believe we need a debate. we believe we need a vote. we believe the congress ought to live up to its constitutional responsibilities. and i'm pleased to be joined by a couple of my colleagues here today who share those concerns and who want to express their beliefs about how we should proceed on this issue. i'd like to first yield to my colleague from california, congresswoman barbara lee, who has been a leader on these issues and i yield her such time as he she -- as she may consume.

ms. lee: thank you very much. first let me thank congressman mcgovern for your tireless leadership and for hosting this special order today. for many years, you have been raising the level of awareness with regards to the responsibilities of congress, ur duties as it relates to war making, as well as the impact of these tragic wars on our brey men and women. thank you for once again coming forward with now a privileged resolution that directs the president to remove all united states military forces stationed in iraq within 30 days or by the end of the year. this is a very reasonable resolution. it is very consistent with what i believe the american people, and we know, based on what the american people have said over and over again, they're war weary and mr. mcgovern has given vote the rtunity to

views of the american people. this resolution supports the need for military and diplomatic personnel. we're familiar with the reports out of iraq about the horrific sectarian violence taking place. we hear many of the same choices who championed the unnecessary war in iraq one against beating the drum for a renewed war in iraq today. so we must not let history repeat itself. we must remember history. we must not be dragged back into a war in iraq. this must be rejected. many of my colleagues agree and i want to remind us that over 100 members of congress now, from both party well, signed a letter, congressman mcgovern and from , many, scott rig el virginia -- rigell from virginia, we call on many to come to congress for debate and authorization before any

escalation in iraq. last month, during the consideration of the 2015 defense appropriations bill, over 150 bipartisan members supported our amendment that would prohibit funds from being used to conduct combat operations in iraq. there's no military solution in iraq. this is a sectarian war with roots.anding any solution must take into account all sides. the change that iraq needs must come from iraqis they must reject violence in favor of a peaceful democracy that respects the rights of all citizens and represents everyone. the future of iraq is in the hands of the iraqi people. our job is to continue to promote regional and international engagement, reck necessary of human rights and women's rights and political rights. although these -- only through these actions can iraq and of course the united states and the

rest of the world begin supporting a process of reconciliation and help the iraqis secure long-term national stability. mr. speaker, after more than a decade of war, thousands of american lives and billions of dollars, the american people are rightfully war weary. the american people are looking for congress to act. we must heed their call and bring this privileged resolution to the house floor for an immediate up or down vote. as our president told the american people in may, the united states military action cannot be the only or even the primary component of our leadership in every instance. this is one of those instances. before we put our brave service men and women in harm's way again, congress should carry out its constitutional responsibilities in both -- and vote on whether or not to get militarily involved in iraq. but we must vote on this resolution immediately. because i think this would give

the american people a clear understanding of what this administration and congress intends to do and that is remove all military forces stationed in iraq. so i want to thank, again, congressman mcgovern for his leadership, for bringing this forward, it's time that we have a clear up or down vote on this. i want to thank congressman jones for co-sponsoring this and also finally conclude by saying that sooner or later, sooner or later, we've got to go back and repeal the authorization for use of military force which has become a blank check for this war, this past decade, and set the stage for perpetual war. we need to repeal it. the american people deserve a vote on this resolution and they deserve a vote on repealing this authorization. thank you again for your leadership and let's move forward and vote the will of the american people. mr. mcgovern: i thank the

gentlelady for her eloquent words and for her leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i'm happy to be here with my colleagues, congresswoman lee and congressman jones, to talk about i think, an issue that deserves a lot more discussion than it's getting. we need to take a look at the recent return of the u.s. military to iraq. iraq is a complicated country with a long history of ethnic and religious divisions. it is now facing a crisis of governance and a crisis of invasion by extremist militant forces. sadly for iraq, the two are closely intertwined. in large measure, iraq is falling apart because of a sectarian government currently led by prime minister mall key. that excludes -- maliki, that excludes and repressing sunnis, kurds, and other religious minorities and an army that thinks more about saving its own

skin than protecting the iraqi people. this is what set the stage for extremist forces to enter iraq and take control of territories. i do not believe we can fix this. only the iraqi people can fix this. i certainly don't believe our brave and stalwart military men and women can fix this. i believe that we should never have invaded iraq, i also believe it is foolish to once again commit u.s. troops to try and save an iraqi government, an army, that cannot stand on their own. as was written last month in "defense one" magazine, and i quote, this debacle was predictable. it was predicted by dozens of analysts who knew a great deal more about iraq than those who cheerleaded the envation of iraq in 2002 and 2003. this is not to say we told you so, but to warn that the desperate quick fixes now being

offered are false hopes. the hard truth is that there is little we can do to save the corrupt, incompetent government we installed in iraq. if ten years, millions of hours of work and hundreds of millions of dollars could not build a regime that can survive, it is difficult to imagine any fix that can. those seeking to blame the obama administration for the collapse are engaged in political game, end quote. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter the defense one article into the record of this special order. the speaker pro tempore: without bjection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: i believe that president obama has done the right to send u.s. troops to iraq to help our diplomatic facilities and personnel. so far he's sent two contingents, the first, 275 military troops on june 15, and a second deployment of 200 additional troops on june 30. with respect to the second deployment, he noted they would

be used to reinforce the security of the baghdad international airport. they will consist of additional security forces, rotary wing aircraft and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support. the president noted that they were ready for combat. the president announced on june 19 and notified congress on june 26 that he was sending 300 military troops to train, advise and support iraqi security forces and to establish joint operation centers with iraqi security forces so we could share intelligence and coordinate plans on how to confront the threat of isil. quite frankly, mr. speaker, this deployment concerns me, concerns me deeply. in each of these deployments, the president has rightfully informed congress consistent with the war powers solution. the only reason that president has to tell congress with such overseas deployments, i'm

quoting now from the war powers resolution, has introduced, and i quote, the united states armed force noose hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, end quote. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the three notifications the president has sent to congress on deployments of troops to iraq. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i think the president did the right thing to inform congress because i believe that our troops have been introduced into a situation in iraq where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. in fact, more simply put, if iraq wasn't engaged in hostilities and in a moment of crisis, we wouldn't have sent troops over there. this is why last friday on june 11, my good friends and colleagues, representative walter jones of north carolina and barbara lee of california introduced privileged resolution, house concurrent

resolution 105, to direct the president to remove u.s. troops from iraq within 30 days or no later than the end of this year except for those troops needed to protect u.s. diplomatic facilities and personnel. we did this for a simple reason. congress has the responsibility to authorize the introduction of american troops where hostilities are imminent. less than three weeks, in three separate deployments, the u.s. has sent at least 775 additional troops to iraq. we don't know what might happen next to those troops or to yet another deployment of additional troops. but we do know that congress should debate it. we do know that congress should vote on whether to authorize it or not. that's what the constitution of the united states demands of congress. that's what the constitution demands of us. now is the time for congress to

debate the merits of our military involvement in this latest iraq conflict. openly, transparently. do we approve of these deployments and any future escalation? if so we should vote to authorize it. if we do not support it, then we should bring our troops back home. it's that simple, mr. speaker. congress has the responsibility to act on iraq now. mr. speaker, we did not introduce this privileged resolution lightly. by doing so we started a process to hold a debate on our engagement in iraq in the coming days using the tools under the war powers resolution. while this is not a perfect tool, the house must take this up after 15 calendar days. like most of my colleagues, i'd brother for this house to bring about our engagement in iraq and nothing in this resolution

prohibits such being brought before the house for debate and a clean up or down vote. frankly that is not happening and i don't know if that is even under consideration let alone being prepared for debate. i regret to say i only hear -- i only hear how we can avoid having such a debate. so my colleagues, mr. jones and ms. lee and myself, we introduced this concurrent resolution because we strongly believe that congress has to step up to the plate and carry out its responsibilities when our service men and women are once again being sent into harm's way. the time for debate is now. not when the first body bag comes home from iraq, not when the first u.s. air strikes or bomb fall on iraq, not when isil held ded into towns and not when our troops baghdad. shot at in

we can weigh the pros and cons of supporting the maliki government or whatever government should maliki be forced to step down. now before we afford to take sides in a religious sectarian war. now before the next addition of troops take place. and make no mistake, i firmly believe we will continue to send more troops and more military -- more military assets into this crisis. now, mr. speaker, before we are forced to fire our first shots, launch our first missiles or drop our first bombs. now, mr. speaker, is when the house should debate and vote on this very serious matter. for those who say it is too early, to premature for this debate, i respectfully disagree. the administration has signaled when it notified congress that our troops had been sent to a place where the threat of hostilities is imminent. the longer we put off carrying

out our constitutional responsibilities, the easier it becomes to just drift along. and this is what congress has done over and over. we kind of just drift along, and it has to end. it has to end, mr. speaker. congress must speak. congress must act. this resolution should have passed, would direct the president to send our troops home from iraq within 30 days or should the president determine that such a rapid withdrawal would pose a security -- security questions, then no later than by the end of the year, nearly six months from now. it would not -- and i repeat -- it would not require those troops that have been deployed to safeguard the security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel from withdrawing. they could remain and carry out their crucial roles of protecting our civilian personnel on the ground in iraq. mr. speaker, we need to take up this resolution. we need to debate our military engagement in this latest war in iraq. we need to have a clean up or down vote, whether we stay in iraq or whether we bring our troops home.

we owe that much to our troops and their families. we owe that much to the american people. and we owe at least that much to our own democracy and democratic institutions that require congress to be the final arbiter on whether our troops are sent into hostilities abroad. and mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield to my colleague -- >> will the gentleman yield for unanimous consent? mr. mcgovern: i'll yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker,ry send to the desk curent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate -- concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 108, concurrent resolution providing for the correction of the enrollment of h.r. 5021. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, at this time it's my privilege to yield to i think the conscience of this congress on issues of war, you know, a man who i have great admiration for, my colleague from north carolina, mr. jones. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you and i thank the gentleman from massachusetts, and i want to thank him for being a leader on bringing to the bring of the house not only this resolution, asking for a vote about bringing our troops home from iraq, but in the way that he speaks about the fact that our little children in america, over 17 million, go home at night hungry, that's another issue. i understand that. but it all ties in because when we continue to not debate whether we should be sending our young men and women to die, we are shirking our constitutional responsibility that we in this congress have raised our hand to swear that

we will uphold the constitution of the united states. but we don't do that, mr. speaker, when it comes to war. and i blame myself in 2003, i bought the lie that was told by the previous administration about the weapons of mass destruction that saddam hussein had and how he was going to use that against the american people. the misinformation that was given by the previous administration caused us to go into iraq, and i voted to give the president at the time president bush the authority to bypass the constitution. it was called the aumf, the authorization of military force, and i regret that and will to the day i die because i gave up my constitutional responsibility to debate and to vote on whether we should go to war or not, and that was the constitutional responsibility of this congress and of me being a member of congress. mr. speaker, i have beside me a poster of a funeral.

it's a military funeral where a soldier has given his life for this country. and his wife is there with her sunglasses on holding the hand of her literal girl who can't quite understand why her daddy is died, why her daddy is in a flagged-draped coffin. that is why we need to be on this floor, as mr. mcgovern and ms. lee have said, to debate whether we continue to allow the president, in this case president obama, to use the war powers act to send our troops into iraq and yet we sit here idle. we don't even hardly debate the issue of war, when we're going to pass millions and billions of dollars to be spent by military overseas, it does not make any sense. and i want to say about my own side, i regret that my side, the republican party, we've become the war party now. it's not so much the democrats who were the war party during the vietnam war. now it's the republican party.

i'm a great supporter of pat buchanan. i love his position on foreign policy and his many articles. this is kind of from a recent article he wrote. and i'm going to quote. pat buchanan says, it is astonishing that republicans who threaten to impeach obama for usurping authority at home remain silent as he prepares to usurp the war powers to march into syria and back into iraq. are republicans now prepared to sit mute as obama takes us into two middle east wars on his own authority? this is what mr. mcgovern and ms. lee and i are trying to say. it is time that this congress start speaking out, because we listen to the american people when it comes to war, and the american people, mr. mcgovern, are tired. they're worn out. a recent survey actually said that 71% of the american people

said that the first intervention in iraq was wrong. it was a mistake. it should never have happened. and yet that's why i admire you and ms. lee and the others who are willing to speak out on this. just a couple other points. i want to make -- you know, people always say, well, you know, those who wrote the better tion, they maybe understood war than we do, to be honest with you, and yet they didn't have the sophistication that we have today in the wars that we fight. but that brings me to a quote by george washington in a letter to james monroe, i have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a write to intermeddle in the concerns of another, that everyone has a right to form and adopt whatever government ey like best to live under

themselves. that's george washington in 1796 in latter to james monroe, mr. mcgovern -- in a letter to james monroe, mr. mcgovern. and i think that i, along with other members of congress, gave away my constitutional right to declare war when we gave to president bush the authority to use military force. that in itself is something, again, as i will be repetitive for a moment, i'll always, always regret. another quote very quickly. james madison, this is mr. mcgovern's point, the power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. we are the legislature. it is our responsibility to meet our constitutional duties. mr. mcgovern, i have signed

over 11,000 letters to families in this country since we went into iraq because i have asked god to forgive me for listening to the misinformation and the distortions by the previous administration to go into iraq. that is my pain and i will live with that pain. i am on the floor with you today and ms. lee, who's already spoken, to say thank you for taking the lead in trying to force this congress to have a debate. i'm not going to restate what pat buchanan has said, but i will say to my own side many times, why do you sit idly by when you complain about mr. obama and spending, spending, and we've already spent $1.5 trillion in afghanistan and iraq? and we're still spending money in afghanistan. we will for 10 more years because of a bila rat rale

strategic agreement -- bilateral strategic agreement but today we are saying we are not going to make another mistake in iraq and that's why i'm pleased to join you today in this effort to aware -- to make aware of the american people that we do care and we want the american people to contact their members of congress and say join in this concurrent resolution, this privileged resolution to bring a debate to the floor of the house. i'm going to stay around for a few more minutes, mr. mcgon, but i yield become to you. mr. mcgovern: i look forward to a continued exchange with the gentleman, and i thank him for his passion on this issue. and for reminding our colleagues, and the american people, that there are consequences to war. one of the things that has frustrated me is that for too long, we have avoided talking about the wars in this congress,

not just iraq but also afghanistan. my colleague, mr. jones, and i had an amendment to the defense authorization bill a few weeks back, which said that president obama had mentioned a couple of years ago we would be out of afghanistan by 2014. and clearly that's not going to be the case. so we -- the amendment said the president had to notify congress of what our military plans were going to be in afghanistan, and then congress should consider that and vote up or town on whether we should continue our military involvement in afghanistan. i mean, that's hardly a radical bill. it's simply a bill that says congress, do your job. you have an obligation, a constitutional obligation, when it comes to war. and this amendment, which was germane, it was in order, on the

defense bill, no less, at the last minute was -- we were told we could not offer, it would not be made in order because the leadership of this house didn't want that debate. they didn't want -- they were afraid it might pass. well, that's the way democracy is supposed to work. if a majority in this place does not want to continue an endless war in afghanistan or does not want to start another war in iraq, that ought to mean something. and my criticism right now is not with the white house. i may have some disagreements with the president in terms of what his policy on iraq might be but he has done his job. he has notified us. he has sent letters up to congress that have announced the deployments that he is making and it says, consistent with the war powers resolution. so this is not a complaint about the white house.

we may disagree with their policy but they did what they were supposed to do. our complaint is with this institution. that we are not doing what we're supposed to do. you know. so the foreign affairs committee, you know, in consultation with other relevant committees ought to bring a resolution to the floor if they want to authorize the use of additional force in iraq. i would vote no. there are some in this chamber who would vote yes. but there ought to be a debate. we ought to go into any new deployment, any new military intervention with our eyes wide open. enough -- we look to enough deception. we've been lied to over the years too many times. it is time for us to demand some truth when it comes to war. people ought to know what we're getting into. and by the way, one other thing that has troubled me greatly about these wars that we have

been involved with is that we don't pay for them. we all complain about the deficit and the debt and all the, you know, we have to dig ourselves out of this hole of debt. trillions of dollars of that debt are directly related to these wars. we don't pay for these wars. we put them on our credit card. i believe -- you know, i offered a bill a few years ago calling for a war tax, saying that if we're going to go ta war, then we ought to pay for it. the american people ought to pay for it. and if the american people don't want to pay for it, maybe we ought not to go to war. but this notion of going to war and putting it on a credit card and making believe like it's not a big deal has to stop. has to stop. the first george bush, when he went to war in iraq, when saddam hussein invaded kuwait, i wasn't for that war, i wasn't in congress then, but nonetheless

when he went to war, he got the cooperation of all the ashe states in the region to pitch in. to pay for it. and what wasn't paid for, congress paid for. but it wasn't added to our debt. now, it has become common place. we don't even question it. there are huge costs to these wars, not only in terms of blood but also in terms of treasure. we nitpick on this house floor over whether or not we're going to feed hungry children, you know, or make sure people have adequate housing. we say we don't have enough money but when it comes to these wars, the sky's the limit. you know. whatever you want you get. and here's the deal. i would argue with you that that money has not been spent wisely. not withstanding the incredible service of our men and women, we are in afghanistan right now, propping up one of the most

corrupt governments in the world. in the world. nd in iraq, we are now re-entering a situation where even our own administration is saying, the maliki government is lousy and we obviously hate the extremist group called isil, so we are going right in the middle, you know, and i worry we're going to be target practice for both sides. and one other thing. the iraqi army, as i mentioned earlier, has been trained by the very best of american mill tear personnel. they have the best equipment, the -- they have the best weaponry you can imagine, they outnumber overwhelmingly these extremist groups that are now attacking iraq. and we read in "the washington post" last week that commanders of the iraqi army and areas that

come under fire decide to leave. they basically desert. and so do the troop. now, if they're not willing to fight, after all that we have sacrificed, why the hell are we going back in there and thinking of fighting this? this is the beginning, this is the very beginning of our re-entry. as mr. jones and i have said, we hope that it doesn't go any further than this. but this is the time when we ought to have a debate about what might happen and what we're prepared to do. i'm happy to yield to my colleague. mr. jones: thank you very much. i want to pick up on a few things you said a few minutes ago. iraq is in total chaos. it's kind of ironic, in 1983, i found a photograph of donald rumsfeld, who was a special

envoy sent by president reagan to thank hussein for what he had one in trying to defend iraq against the iranians. that brings me to where we are today of why this resolution that you have sponsored is so important. i have the former commandant of the marine corps for the last six years has been my advisor on afghanistan simply because i don't have the military background and he is a very dear friend of mine. i emailed him a weak ago and asked him what do you think about all these advisor going to iraq, something you were just talking about. he emailed me back and he said, we should not put boots on the ground. middle easttated, a

east n, it's a middle issue that needs a mideast solution -- middle east solution, not more troops. that's why your resolution and my resolution needs to be debated. a couple other points very quickly. after i found out i had been misled with the first war in iraq, i contacted lieutenant general greg newbold, because he wrote an article for "time" magazine and i want to read just a little bit of it very quickly. general newbold was director of operations for the joint chiefs of staff from 2000 until 2002 and describes himself a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of iraq and unnecessary war, mr. mcgovern, unnecessary war. he further stated, in this

article, it was titled "why iraq was a mistake," and i want to use a paragraph at the end of his article because it is so appropriate to what we're trying to do today and what we're trying to do with this resolution to force congress to meet its constitutional responsibility about sending our young men and women to die. and i quote from this article. in 1971, the rock group the who released an anti-war anthem. titled "won't get fooled again." newbold is saying this, to us its lyrics evoke a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. he further stated, never again, we thought, would our military senior leaders remain silence as

american troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. it's 35 years later and the judgment is in. the who had it wrong. we have been fooled again. we were fools to go into -- fooled to go into iraq and i'm with you, i know mr. obama came out against the iraq war, i thank him for doing that when he was a senator, but you are right, it's not the administration we're talking about today. it is the role of congress and our lack of fulfilling our constitutional duty, one last point very quickly. four weeks ago, i went to walter reed hospital, i was told that two marines from camp lejeune in my district had been severely wounded, so i go to walter reid hospital, as i go into the area where they teach them how to walk without legs and

prosthesis, they teach him how to use the artificial limbs to pick up a spoon. i met three army guys from fort bragg, which is not in my district but in north carolina, all three had lost one leg each. each one of them. then mr. mcgovern, when i went over to look at the -- to meet these young marines from camp lejeune, 23 years of age, and he's on what they call an exercise mat about three feet off the floor, he's lost both legs and an arm. his never will forget father's eyes, the saddest eyes i have ever seen on a man in my life. i saw pain, i saw worry. is his son -- here's his son, both legs gone, one arm gone, 23 years of age, and the second

marine that i saw from camp lejeune had lost both legs by stepping on a 40-pound i.e.d. in afghanistan. the more that we have troops in iraq, the longer they stay, there will be someone killed or wounded before it's over. that's why your resolution, that's why it is necessary for my party, the republican party, to stop being the war party and being the party that wants to defend the constitution and my party needs to allow us to have this debate that you have introduced. so as i leave, i want to thank you for giving me a little bit of this time today, i want to thank you for your friendship, i want to thank you for what you do for america. i want to thank you for what you do for our military. i want to thank you for what you're trying to do for the house of representatives to say we have an obligation. no kid should ever die again if

the congress is not willing to follow the constitution and demand a declaration of war and have that debate and that vote. so i thank you so much for giving me this time and may god continue to bless our men and women in union forl. i yield back to you, sir. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for his eloquent remarks and i want to associate myself with every single word he has said. i believe deach down that the president of the united states does not want to get involved in another end -- i believe deep down that the president of the united states does not want to get involved in another endless war in the middle east. but sometimes things have a way of happening, they have a way of spinning out of control. that's why this debate is important, so timely now. . mr. speaker, the iraq was has already claimed 4,54u7b american lives. 4,500 americans have already been killed in the iraq war. according to one study, over 500,000 iraqis have also perished over the past decade of war. the unhcr estimates that over

one million additional people have been displaced in iraq this year alone. an expert in public finance at harvard university estimates that the total cost of the iraq war for the united states will be $4 trillion. when we take into account the long-term costs of health care and benefits for the veterans of that war. the human and financial cost for us, for the iraqis, have been severe. but let me just quote a few experts on military and foreign policy about this possibility of re-enter the iraq civil conflict. gordon adams, a former senior white house budget official, said in mid june, quote, what is happening in iraq right now is both a cautionary tale and an unfolding tragedy. the caution is about the blythe american assumption that the united states is om nip tent. that with enough money,

goodwill, expertise, equipment and training, americans can build foreign forces and bring security to troubled areas around the world. the tragedy is that what the u.s. does and has done leads down the road to failure, end quote. retired u.s. army lieutenant general robert guard jr. stated on july 6, i quote, the collapse of the iraqi army was not due to a shortage of trained iraqi troops or their inferiority in fire power or equipment. the cause was their lack of confidence in and commitment to iraqi national institutions and leadership. both military commanders and political authorities. this intangible but essential element in combat effectiveness depends upon legitimate governance, not admonishes for foreign military advisor,ent quode -- end quote. and retired general barry mccalfry in june, 2012, said, at the end of the day, if your army won't fight, it's because

they don't trust their incompetent, corrupt generals they don't trust each other. this is an enduring civil war between the shi'a, sunni and kurds. i don't think we have any options and would be ill-advised to start bombing where we really can't sort out the combatants or understand where the civilian population is, end quote. mr. speaker, i do not believe in the united states should be involving itself militarily in a civil war, a sectarian war, a religious war, a struggle for power that has been going on for generations. we shouldn't be taking sides in this conflict. i do believe that a region in turmoil is not in the best interests of the united states. but as so many have said, including the president, this requires a political solution. and it requires the political will of all the key actors in the region, not just outside actors like the united states and the europeans, but those in the region. the countries and leaders in the region need to step up to

the plate and actually lead on finding a political solution or watch their neighbors go up in flames and hope the fire doesn't jump to their homes and to destroy them as well. this is why we need a full debate on what is happening in iraq in the region, what our occupations -- options are, and whether or not we should keep sending troops to iraq or not. mr. speaker, on use it -- tuesday the bipartisan tom lantos human rights commission, which i co-chair with congressman frank wolf, held a briefing on the crisis in iraq. we had witnesses from the administration, the u.n. high commissioner on refugees office, and several n.g.o.'s. the situation on the ground in iraq that they described is horrifying. but it stretches back over a year. the human rights and humanitarian crisis in iraq did not begin with i.s.o. coming back into iraq but that's certainly worsened and accelerated the protection and basic rights for the civilian

population. yesterday antonio gutierrez said, and i quote, there will not be a humanitarian solution for the iraqi crisis. it is absolutely crucial that the iraqi political system find a way to overcome its political divisions and contradictions, end quote. he urged iraq's neighbors and western countries to work together to find a political solution as quickly as possible. mr. speaker, this is where we should be putting our energy. not trying to find some sort of military path to civilian iraq, because there is none. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to enter into the record today's "the washington post" article on unhcr's assessment of the humanitarian crisis in iraq. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. r. mcgovern: mr. speaker, my colleagues, mr. jones, and ms. lee, and i have come to this floor because we are worried.

and we are worried because we have lived through the last many years of war. and we have seen how things have gotten out of control. i remember when the war in iraq began, then vice president cheney was on all the news shows saying it would be over in a few weeks or a few months. no big deal. don't worry. that was in addition to being told that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which we all now know was a lie. but the fact of the matter is, all those rosie predictions did not come true. we were involved in iraq for many, many years and there was a high cost in terms of blood and treasure. afghanistan. we were told that it would not be an endless conflict. and here we are today, still

involved in afghanistan, the longest war in american history. i hope that history doesn't repeat itself. and i know president obama does not want history to repeat itself. i know he deeply wants to find a political solution. i know he does not want to see more troops be involved in the iraqi civil war. but the fact of the matter is, none of us know what's going it happen. and in a couple of weeks, this congress will adjourn for several weeks of our summer break and then we come back for only a couple more weeks and we adjourn again for many more weeks for the campaigns. i don't want to come back to a situation and have to react to a situation that's engulfed in an all-out mess, quite frankly. i think we ought to be debating these issues now.

we ought to be debating these issues with an open -- with open eyes. we ought to have a transparent system. and we ought to live up to our constitutional responsibilities. what happens when there are the first american casualties in iraq? what happens? what's the reaction? you know, some say, well, you know, maybe we don't have to send military troops, maybe we'll just bomb them. we'll send drones, we'll send missiles. as a military expert tweeted, and i quote, unless the u.s. has bombs that can install wisdom and leadership into prime minister maliki, air strikes in iraq would be pointless. and imagine the civilian casualties. that would be associated with that. >> would the gentleman yield? govern i'd be happy to yield -- mr. mcgovern: i'd be pappy to yield to the gentleman. >> -- happy to yield to the gentleman. >> earlier you made a statement

about there being no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. i would respectfully ask the gentleman to maybe rephrase that. there are mass graves in iraq. as somebody who -- mr. mcgovern: i reclaim my time. there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. the vice president of the united states, the president of the united states, the secretary of state came to congress and told us there were weapons of mass destruction. implied there were nuclear weapons of mass destruction. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i'm not going to yield at this point. the bottom line -- and the deal was, it was a lie. 4,500 americans died. 500,000 iraqis died. we didn't pay for the war. we didn't pay for the war. the brave men and women who served our country, they paid, their families fade and -- paid and the rest of us were asked to do nothing. and what i am suggesting to everybody in this chamber now, whether you want to go back nto iraq or not, that's almost beside the point for the

purpose of this debate. the issue is, we ought to do our job in congress. we have a constitutional responsibility that we seem to waive, that we seem to ignore. we're doing -- we're bombing in pakistan, we're bombing in yemen, we had a military incursion of libya. none of that was authorized by congress. we were lying on these -- we're relying on these vegas aumf's that were negotiated over a decade ago to justify more military involvements in different parts of the world. what is wrong with debating these issues? >> that's what i would like to know. would the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i'd be happy to yield. >> so tens of thousands of people in mass graves as a result of cremcal weapons in -- chemical weapons in iraq, killed directly by the regime of saddam hussein. mr. bridenstine: when you continue to perpetuate this idea that there were no weapons of mass destruction, w.m.d. includes chemical weapons,

biological weapons. mr. mcgovern: i reclaim my time. as the gentleman knows, that's not what the vice president or the secretary of state or the head of the national security council or the president of the united states were talking about. he knows that. and what was presented to us was not truthful. it was not truthful. we were deceived. vice president of the united states said the war was only going to last a couple of months. said that on tv. on news shows. that was a lie. it was a lie. and i'm sick and tired of being lied to. and one of the things -- one of the lessons i think we should have learned from our involvement in iraq and afghanistan is that we need to ask the tough questions before we get involved, not in the midst of the conflict. not later on in the conflict. we have a responsibility. read the constitution of the united states. the notion that the president

of the united states, and again i don't believe he wants to get involved in a lengthy, unlimited endless war in iraq, but the notion that we are ramping up the number of troops and those in congress here are saying nothing, the leadership in this congress says nothing, there's no authorization. i guess it's easy to sit back, as an elected official, and not have to vote yes or not -- no. it's a lot easier. you don't have to take responsibility. if things go well, you can say, hey, that was a good idea. if things don't go so well, you say, well, i would have been opposed to that. but we are not doing our job here. we're not even paying for these wars. to my friends on the republican side who complain about debt, where's the outrage on the fact that we don't pay for these wars? can't quite understand why people approach war in this chamber with such indifference.

my colleague, mr. jones, and i tried to bring an amendment to the floor as i said earlier, to debate whether we should stay in afghanistan longer. we were not even allowed a vote. the amendment we offered was germane, it was relevant. and the leadership of this house said, you can't even debate or vote this. on the defense bill, we're at war. what could be more important than debating whether we should be involved in this war? so, look, this is the time. what mr. jones and ms. lee and i are saying is that this is the time to debate this. before the first soldier comes home in a body bag. and the major proponents of a new war in iraq are those who disastrously got us involved in the first place. people like dick cheney and john bolton, senator mccain and

senator graham. we were deceived. we were deceived and we should never let that happen again. we should never let that happen again. we should demand a truth. congress should carry out its constitutional responsibilities and vote on whether or not to get militarily involved in iraq again. that is what this privileged resolution that mr. jones, ms. lee and i have suggested. that we vote. i don't know why that's such a controversial issue. but for some reason in this congress, big issues like that don't seem to make their way for debate on the house floor. this should be not be a democrat or republican issue -- this should not be a democrat or republican issue. in fact, there are democrats who disagree with my position. there are some democrats who believe we ought to continue to send more military aid and potentially more troops to

iraq. and there are republicans who agree with me that we ought not to. so this is a bipartisan concern. so i will close by simply saying to the speaker of the house, give us a vote. let us debate this issue. and to my fellow members of congress on both sides of the aisle, live up to your constitutional responsibility, demand a vote. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. flores: i request unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flores: mr. speaker, on july 1, our nation lost lewis theodore getterman, jr., a businessman a dedicated

philanthropist and a legend at baylor university. he was born october 1, 1924, in baltimore, maryland, and later moved to waco, texas, attend baylor university and to eventually become an active community leader. ted lived his entire life with excellence. at the age of 18 he, volunteered for the army and served our nation for 3 1/2 years during world war ii. he was on the beach with his fellow soldiers preparing to invoid japan when the atomic bomb was dropped, thus ending the war. upon his return he, attended baylor university where he reso -- received both his b.b. and and j.d. degrees. he was dedicated to his alma mater, baylor university he upheld the university's motto educate men and women

and encourage excellence in a christian community. he was awarded the baylor athletic director's hall of honor achievement award, the victory with integrity award and the baylor founders' medal. he was also a fellow in the golden bears circle. he was even recognized as a distinguished alumnus by the baylor school of business. the baylor softball field was named in his family's honor. in addition to his love for his university he, he was -- he was also successful and active as a businessman. he was a partner of the 7up bottling company which owned franchises in 29 texas counties and bottling plants in waco, bryan, and austin. he served in leadership for various business organizations, including having been the chairman of his chatchter of the texas manufacturers association and the president of the state bottlers' association.

as an active community leader he served on the waco city council and was mayor of waco for two terms he also served tirelessly on various boards and organizations, including the waco chamber of commerce, the rotary club of way ke, the hillcrest baptist medical center, the salvation army, the family counseling and children's service, baylor stadium corporation, the bear club, baylor development council, gridgewood country club and the mcdonald observatory of texas. was awarded the filan othro -- philanthropist of the year by the organization in texas. he enjoyed family time with family, friends and his rescue dog, noodle he was a faithful husband to his loving wife sue and a mentoring father to his

sons and an inspiration to his numerous grandchildren and great grandchildren. when i was growing up, my dad used to tell me the same thing each day. those words were, go mac a hand. in other words he was telling me to add value, to make the world a better place. mr. speaker, i think all of us in the 17th congressional district of texas can unanimously say without reservation that ted getterman made a hand. before i close, i ask that all americans continue to pray for our country and for our military men and women and for our first responders who served selflessly to keep us safe and free. my thoughts and prayers are with the family an friends of ted getterman, he will be forever remembered as selfless, hardworking and a devoted man of god. he left a legacy of love, dignity, fwrace and philanthropy. god bless his family as we mourn his passing. i yield back the balance of my

time to my friend from georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 55 minutes as the designee of the pll woodall: le thank you, mr. speakerful i appreciate the -- mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i have a festival of charts with me, not because they're protoity, not because they're attractive, but because i have something very important i want to talk about today and i can't do it without tremendous direct quos. i want to talk about the separation of powers. if you remember the conversation that the gentleman from massachusetts had, he was down here on the floor with the

gentleman from north carolina, they were talking about constitutional powers, they were talking about what we need to do in this body to fulfill our constitutional powers. you know, it's hard, i don't envy you at all, mr. speaker, i come down here, you know, folks at home always ask about this time at the end of the day, they say, what goes on during that time? i say, they yield time for long periods, about an hour at the time, they'll yield members time to come down there and debate the issues of their choice, but your job of sitting there, the impartial observer, while anybody says goodness knows what down here on the house floor is a hard, hard job. hard job. and so i didn't want to come down here today and come up with something divisive that would try to get you out of your chair or bring your gavel down on me, i wanted to come up with something that would be something we could agree on as a people. i don't know what your understanding, mr. speaker, is of who we are as a people.

i was just visiting with some young constituents out in the hallway, ages 6, ages , ages 10, what does it mean to be an american? and it's a set of ideas. it's a set of values. a set of principles. now most of those principles i would argue are contained in our united states constitution. that's a pretty simple document. lays out a vision, a vision that's governed this country well for other 200 years. and sadly, and i mean sincerely, i do think it's sadly, we have crafted a resolution up in the rules committee, we just had a hearing on it this week, where we're suing the president of the united states over his adherence to the constitution. now i take absolutely no pleasure in that. to be fair, i'm a hard core republican, i'm from the state of georgia, but i take no pleasure in suing a president of the united states. i take no pleasure in it because i represent the article 1 united

states congress. it's not my power that's in my voting card, it's the power of 650,000 constituents back home in georgia. it's the people's power that is represented in my voting card. and i will tell you that not just during the time you've been here in congress, mr. speaker, not just during the three years i have been here in congress, t for a long period of time, the people's power that is represented here in this institution, has been slipping and sliding right down down pennsylvania avenue behind me and accumulating in the united states white house. the administration, both republicans and democrats, have been taken one fiber of freedom, one fiber of power at the time, taking it from the people, taking it from the congress and amassing it down at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. and the reason i say i take no pleasure in the lawsuit, mr. speaker, is, i don't want to have to go across the street to

the supreme court and ask a co-equal branch of government, those article 3 tort courts, to return to me the people's power that i lost. i should have never lost it to begin with. i wasn't here in congress when so much of that was going on, mr. speaker. it's only been three years. but -- three years that i've had a voting card, but i feel responsible. here's what the resolution says. resolved that the speaker, speaker of the house, may initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the u.s. house of representatives in federal court. it's saying that we have experienced an institutional harm here in the article 1. article 1 in the house, we've experienced an institutional harm. it authorizes the speaker to file suit not on his behalf but on our behalf. he's not the speaker of the republican, he's not the speaker of the democrats, he's the speaker of the whole house. to file suit on our behalf. and it's a suit on the implementation of the affordable care act.

i know what you're thinking, mr. speaker, you've not had a chance to see this resolution, you're think, here go those republicans again, they're just filing one more lawsuit to try to stop the implementation of the affordable care act. not true. not true. this is a lawsuit to require the implementation of the affordable care act. i want you to think about that. that's why we're in this constitutional crisis. i didn't want the affordable care act. i wasn't here at the time, i didn't have a chance to vote for it. i knew i wasn't going to be able to keep my doctor, i knew i wouldn't be able to keep my insurance policy. i knew if we wanted to take care of the needs of the uninsured there were better ways but i didn't get a chance to vote on it, i wasn't here. the senate passed it, it got jammed through the house, it turns out it didn't work the way the president wanted it to. he decided to implement some of it and not other parts of it. you don't get to do it. we're the article 1 congress, we pass the laws, the president can

sign it or veto it. the supreme court decides if it's constitutional. the presidents don't want to -- don't get to see de-side which laws thapet to -- they want to implement. so this is a lawsuit to require the president to follow the law that he signed. i wish we would repeal the law. turns out, and it's been said many times by leaders in this country, the best way to do away with a bad law is to require its aggress i enforcement. i want you to think about that. the best way to end a bad law is to require its strict enforcement. because then the people will make that decision. i don't mean to pick on the president. again, the president is a hard job. i was with my mom on mother's day at church, mr. speaker, and someone came up and they said, oh, ms. woodall, we love your son, we hope he'll think about running for the white house one day and my mom looked them in

the eye and said, that's a terrible thing to say about my son. and it is. it's an awful job. i'm glad we have men and women who are willing to pursue it. but it must be pursued not as an all-powerful executive buts a caretaker, as a caretaker of the constitutional responsibility invested in that position by article 2 of our constitution. not more than 30 days ago, mr. speaker, the supreme court ruled on that. this is what i want you to understand. mr. speaker. i know you followed the decision but what the supreme court said noelle canning vs. nlrb, not more than 3 days ago. you've looked at that court. there are some hard core, rock-ribbed conservatives on that court. and there are some fringe liberals on that court too. i suppose if i was in the other category i'd say there were fringe conservatives and rock

ribbed conservatives. what i say -- what i'm saying is they don't agree much, you see decisions, five believe this, four believe that, but not so when it comes to the united states constitution in this noelle canning case. in the noelle canning case, the court ruled 9-0, the court ruled unanimously, mr. speaker, that the president of the united states exceeded his constitutional authority in making appointments to positions without consulting the united states senate. the president made appointments to positions that the constitution requires that the nate approve, the democratic senate approve, he made those appointments without senate approval. he said he thought he could do it, he said he thought it was the right thing to do, he thought the ends justified the means and the supreme court said 9-0, can't do it. the constitution doesn't allow it. but that's not the pint. the point is that happened --

that's not the point. the point is that happened two years ago. the president made these appointments two years ago. and you have not heard one peep out of that united states senate. this wasn't a lawsuit that the senate brought to say wait a minute, mr. president, you're stealing the power of the people out from under article 1 on chill. this wasn't a senate lawsuit but a private sector lawsuit. this was some company out there across america that said, i've been disadvantaged because the constitution has been breached and i'm seeking relief from the united states supreme court. the senate did not stand up when the president stole their power. the only way our system of government works, mr. speaker, is when we stand up for the people to preserve their power here in this constitution. -- here in this institution. this is what the court said. i so identify with this. the recess appointments clauss, that's what we're talking about,

where the president said, i'm going to make these appointments because the senate is not in session, the senate said, yes i'm in session, the president said no you're not, you're mistaken. the supreme court said this, the recess appointments clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. it simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the senate is away during a recess. here's the money line, mr. speaker. here, as in other contexts, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. i've got a copy of the constitution here, mr. speaker. friction, the supreme court says is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. if you don't like friction, you need to rewrite your constitution because the constitution creates this friction to create that balance between the article 1 congress, the article 2 executive, and the

article 3 courts. . this is not news to the president of the united states, mr. speaker. in fact, it's not news to the country at all. this is george washington's farewell address. t was 1796, mr. speaker. 1796. this is our unwilling president , right? president washington didn't want to be our first president. he was drafted to do the job. some of the best presidents are those who don't want the job but have it thrust upon them. president washington says this, farewell address, 1796. he said, it was important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration. to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres. avoiding in the exercise of the

powers of one department to encroach upon another. president george washington, having fought that revolutionary war, having given us the benefit that no other nations toen planet of had self-governance, -- no other nation on the planet had of self-governance. in his parting words, in the final wisdom that he tries to pass on to preserve this fledgling nation that he pledged his life and his fortune to create, he said, it's important in the habits of thinking in a free country that those habits should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres. i want you to think about that, mr. speaker.

where we are today. where we are today, where the supreme court is ruling unanimously that this president of the united states has overstepped his constitutional bounds. where the house of representatives is considering a lawsuit against the president of the united states for even more overreaching of his congressional -- his constitutional authority. from the very beginning of this nation, our leaders knew that he nation's success depended on confining each branch of government to its respective constitutional sphere. now, i know what you're thinking, mr. speaker. you're thinking that was 1797, things change. well, let's take a look and see. here's a quote from senator barack obama. 2007. senator barack obama, 2007, says this, he says, i was a

constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president i actually respect the constitution. it's pretty powerful. it's pretty powerful. now, in fairness, there were presidential campaigns beginning then, people sometimes say inflammatory things during campaigns that they later regret saying. but then senator barack obama said, this current president, george bush, he doesn't respect the constitution. maybe he doesn't understand it, but i, president obama said, then senator obama said, i'm a constitutional law professor. i understand it. i get it. and i respect it. not so, says the supreme court this summer. 9-0 that the president overstepped his constitutional ounds. i know what you're thinking, mr. speaker. you're saying you've been around this town for a short

period of time and you know how people game these quotes, right? they go out and they pull the most awful quote out and they pretend that that represents someone's entire body of thought. well, i've gone much further here, again. senator barack obama, 2007. the last few years we've seen an unacceptable abuse of power here at home, here at home in america. he said, we've paid a heavy price for having a president whose priority is expanding his own power. the constitution is treated like a nuisance. think about that, mr. speaker. i want to come back to that. then senator barack obama, observing what happened in the bush administration, says, we've paid a heavy price for having a president whose priority is expanding his own power, the constitution is treated like a nuisance. now, what i hope to take -- the take-home message is, mr. speaker, that you'll share with your constituents back home, that i certainly share with mine, is we've just had a

debate over constitutional responsibility on the floor of the house, where both our democratic friend from massachusetts and our republican friend from north carolina both agreed that we need to stand up more for our article one powers. i want to associate myself with the comments of senator barack obama in 2007. had republicans done a better job, again, i wasn't in congress at the time, you weren't in congress at the time, mr. speaker, but had republicans done a better job reining in the overreach of then president bush, we wouldn't be having so many of these conversations today. but something very destruckive -- destructive is happening in this country. very destructive. where republicans prioritize protecting republicans in the white house more than they prioritize protecting the constitution. where democrats prioritize protecting democrats in the white house more than they prioritize protecting the constitution. i don't know how that happened. we had giants in this institution, mr. speaker, on

both sides of the aisle. both sides of the aisle. robert byrd from west virginia always comes to mind. i couldn't agree with him on many policy issues, but boy did i love his affection for the united states of america. man alive did i admire his commitment to the constitution. and the thing of it is, mr. speaker, if we don't stand up for it, no one else will. president obama said he was going to stand up for it. he said we paid a heavy price under president bush for treating the constitution as a nuisance. but let me go a little more current. president obama in a press conference, august 13 of 2013. he's talking about the affordable care act. he's talking about that ban on which the house is getting ready to file a lawsuit and his is exactly what he said.

in a normal political environment it would be easier for me to call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law. he's talking about delaying the employer mandate. he's talking about taking that part of the law that says, this must happen by this date, and deciding, it's not going to happen by that date. in fact, it might not happen at all, but it's certainly not going to happen this year. ordinarily he would have called up the speaker and said, we need to tweak this. he says, let's make a technical change to the law, would be what he would ordinarily tell the speaker. he said, that would be the normal thing that i would prefer to do, but we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to obamacare. we had the executive authority to do what we did and so we did so. our president, who as a senator recognized the erosion of power from article one, our president

who as a senator wanted to rein in what george bush was doing, in fact accused george bush of considering the constitution a nuisance, our president when then a senator said he was a constitutional law professor, he understood the nuances of the constitution, when he became president, mr. speaker, he said, you know what, i understand that what's supposed to happen is that i'm supposed to go to capitol hill, i'm supposed to talk to the speaker and i'm supposed to get the law changed, but these aren't ordinary times. these aren't times like last year or two years ago or 10 years ago or 200 years ago. these are special timets -- times. and in these special times i'm just going to do it myself from the white house. incredibly dangerous. incredibly dangerous. he could be right. he could be 100% right about what he wants to do, but the ay he wants to do it is 100%

wrong. don't believe me, listen to the supreme court. which said 9-0, unanimously, the president has overstepped is bounds. then senator barack obama, mr. speaker, i taught constitutional law for 10 years. i take the constitution very seriously. this is 2008. there's a war ongoing, the economy is collapsing, america is in crisis and this is what then senator barack obama says. the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with george bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through congress at all. i want you to think about that, mr. speaker. 2008, in the midst of crisis in

this country, a presidential election year, where candidates are telling the american people who they are, what they believe and what the american people can count on them to do if elected to office. and looking at that landscape of crisis in this country, president obama, then senator obama, says the biggest problem that we're facing right now has to do with george bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through congress at all and here's the money line. here's the money line, mr. speaker. and that's what i intend to reverse when i'm president of he united states of america. this body is getting ready to file a lawsuit, unprecedented, against the president of the united states for failure to

stay within his constitutional reins. the lawsuits filed by the private sect railroad coming back from the supreme court -- sector are coming back from the supreme court 9-0 that the president has overstepped his onstitutional lanes. he ran that presidents doing that is destroying the country. he pledges to reform it. and i would argue, mr. speaker, in the 40 years that i've been watching the governance of this nation, i have never seen it any worse. but to be clear, i've seen it bad. i've seen it bad and i've seen the failure of this house to stop and i've seen the failure of the senate to stop it. there's plenty of blame to go around. i'm not interested who to to blame for it, i'm interested how to solve it. because here's the question that i think all the board of directors of america has to answer. i gesture to this chamber, mr. speaker, as if the board of directors live here. they do not.

the board of directors of the united states of america live at home in peach tree corners, georgia, in lawrenceville, georgia, they live in to kipsy, they live in l.a., they live in new york. they live in sioux city. they live in new orleans, they live all across this land. the board of directors are those people with voter registration cards in their pocket. they are the ones who run this country. to whom we ones are accountable. the president knows. he knew when he was in the senate. he knew when he began his campaign for office. he knew, he knew what george washington told us in his farewell address. which was, only a reverence for the division of powers crafted by the constitution would allow ur country to be strong. he knew it.

he campaigned on it. and the pressures of the job, the pressures of this horrible, horrible job i'll tell you that is president of the united states have caused him to lose sight of that constitutional mooring. and we, the board of directors, must bring him back. now, we're goinged to introduce try to do it through a lawsuit here in the u.s. house, the private sector has already done it through multiple lawsuits, through the supreme court, the american people need to do it not at the ballot box, because this president will never seek election again. they need to do it through the court of public opinion. getting our goals accomplished is important. how we get those goals accomplished maybe even more so. - may be even more so. senator barack obama, 2008, mr. speaker. one of the most important jobs

of the supreme court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of the other branches. and i think the chief justice has been a little bit too willing and eager to give the administration, then the bush administration, president obama goes on to say, whether it's mine or george bush's, more power than i think the constitution originally intended. think about that, mr. speaker. now, this is, again, an election year. this is 2008. the president's running to be the president of the united states. he's being asked about what that separation of powers means, he's being asked whether or not the constitution matters, he's being asked, how do we continue this great experiment in self-governance that is the united states of america and he said, one of the most important jobs of the supreme court is to guard against the encroachment of the