bites dog. here is a machine to destroy the most karen this weapons we make -- terrible weapons we make. host: bucky mcmahon, thank you for your time. to go to the house where they are about to start their morning legislative session. e gavel-to-gavel coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [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.]

e speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 23, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable cynthia aluminum miss to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. -- lummis to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize

members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: madam speaker, in the sky above eastern ukraine, a surface to air missile was a malaysian airliner. appears the missile and launcher were russian. they were russian-backed separatists. pro-russian sympathizers has been compromised by unknown

contents. it appears that president putin appears to have his fingerprints on this. this is the latest attacks by the russian bear. -- the aded the protestors protested loudly but they were glad it wasn't their homelands. then they moved on. the russian tanks are in there. the bear woke up hungry in 2013 and invaded crimea, apart of the country of ukraine. to satisfy the appetite. now they occupy crimea. the world leaders once again voiced opposition but went back to their policy of appeasement. but crimea did not fill the

belly of the bear. still hungry, the bear moved into eastern ukraine and looked for more prey. it supported insurrection against the ukrainian government to gain more territory. reports indicated that russian special forces are playing the role of pro-russian separatists. battles are being fought, people are dying. russian empeerialism exists. and the malaise yash airplane was shot down ukraine. in the last 24 hours, two ukrainian jets were shot down by russian-backed rebels. the world is outraged. however, nothing has stopped the russian bear. what will the heads of state do? will they take the position that since the bear has not eaten then they will do little but pontificate and hope the bear is satisfied?

maybe the bear will hibernate again, madam speaker, but when it wakes up, like it always does, it will wake up hungry and then when it roars who will be devoured next? the rest of ukraine or maybe mull defensia or estonia or maybe poland or maybe a group of innocent men, women and children on a civilian airline? only putin knows what the awakening roar of the russian bear will bring back to humanity. appeasement certainly does not seem to be working and stopping aggression. madam speaker, is there not one bold churchill to be found among the midst of the boastful chamberlains among us and that's just the way it is, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. minutes.r five

mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today alongside my republican colleague from illinois, representative aaron schock,who --, who is here, to speak about the full community schools act of 2014 which we will be introducing later today. this is something that i have been working on for several years, one that will close the achievement gap that too many of our children face. it will expand the full service community schools model across the country. full service community schools are an innovative approach to help students and their parents access a full range of critical services all in one place. let me emphasize, these are services that are currently

available but not as accessible because they are not centralized. we will encourage communities to put together the services that they already provide in an accessible way for children and their families. working, come parents finding time to provide them for adequate checkups and medical screening is often difficult. the full community services low indicates these services at their children's school along with nutritional counseling, financial literacy education and adult services, services in most communities are already offered. to access these services under one roof and it will ensure the arents will have the tools for the children's learning. studies show that when children

are healthy they learn better and have a better chance. maryland has been employing this model for several years now in the form of judy centers, named for my late an , judy-hour, who was administrator in principles george's county. they perform better than their peers who did not when tested for kindergarten readiness. i know the gentleman from illinois has similar evidence from a full service community school program in his state. in fact in his district, in fact, his university from which he fwrad waited partners with -- graduated partners with bradley university in peoria. the results are clear that the full service community model has the potential and in fact in our own state we realized that potential to help millions of low-income families across

the country ensure that their children can do well in school and have a better shot at being college or career ready when they graduate. it's good for america, it's good for the children, it's good for their families, it's good for our competitiveness. this legislation, madam speaker, is an example of what is possible when we set differences aside and we work together. aaron schock is a republican, i'm a democrat and some say well, that doesn't really happen in washington. aaron and i have worked on a number of pieces of legislation and i'm proud of the fact that we worked on thregs on behalf of the families -- on this legislation on behalf of the families. this is something we can work across the aisle, make progress for those who are trying to make it in america, for themselves and for their

families. i want to thank representative schock for working with me and i hope this congress can come together as the two of us have done and work in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill without delay. and at this time, if there's no objection from my colleagues, i'd like to yield to my colleague, aaron schock. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. schock, for five minutes. mr. schock: i rise today in support of the full service community schools act of 2014 that i'm pleased to be introducing with my friend, mr. hoyer. a strong education is a foundation that our children need to succeed in life and issues affecting home life affects their ability to achieve their true potential. one thing that will help them is full community service schools. in my hometown of peoria, illinois, three schools have

been operated with the support of bradley university. the harrison full service community school have many of these diverse programs. harrison has fitness with firemen which teaches students the importance of a healthy lifestyle or hawkeye news will let students write, produce and read the news in both english and spanish. legacy gives young people the skills they need to go to high school and beyond. the utility of these schools wind. ustrated at tree the writing tigers horse club allows disadvantaged students ride and take care of horses. the riding program has been so successful that it attracted the attention of parents. and tree wind gets parents more actively involved with the

parent advisory council. we all know that parental engagement is key to a learning environment. and programs like this impacts our communities. the program that best captures the collaboration between a full service community school and the local community is manual academy's academic conference, the a.p.c. he a.p.c. program provides a platform to share their report from the community and receive feedback from local community members. these gatherings have given community members a greater insight the challenges these students face in the community while strengthening the ties between the students and the students' neighborhoods. you see, full service community programs have received positive feedback from both school leadership and the parent. and parents said they promoted

creativity outside the classroom and allowed students to experience relative school activity that is matched to their personal interests. i can tell you as a former school board member and the youngest school board member at district 150, i mow the challenges that these teachers -- i know the challenges that these teachers face every day. motivating them to learn, teaching them and it is a daily reality for everybody involved. if we don't do it doesn't happen. the full service community schools is an important tool in this effort. although relatively new to the peoria area, these schools are making a difference to educators, parents and most importantly the students. the full service community schools act of 2014 will expand the opportunity for more schools to become full service community schools and to see the benefit to the neighborhoods as well. as congress continues to seek innovative solutions to address our national educational needs,

the full service community schools should play an important role. i again want to thank my friend, mr. hoyer, for his leadership on this important note, nd on an important -- i once again thank you for your leadership. i look forward to working with you, mr. hoyer, on this effort, and i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important program throughout our country. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for his remarks and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes.

xcuse me, mr. kelly. the gentlewoman is recognized. s. jackson lee: let me thank the speaker for recognizing me and thank her for the time given for this important subject. . on monday i joined other houstonians to express our sympathy by greeting citizens from the netherlands and malaysia for the enormous tragedy that occurred just four days ago. or more than four days ago. the shooting down of the malaysian flight over ukraine an tory manned by

illegitimate government that thought it was appropriate to shoot missiles where no knowledge allegedly was gained or understood as to what it was. and hundreds of souls lost their lives. i hope that today as the remains will be reaching the soil of the netherlands, we'll all take a moment to reflect on that enormous tragedy. as a senior member of the homeland security committee, i'm obviously extraordinarily disturbed because it pierces the sanctity of the international airwaves and it says that there is no respect, dignity, or protocol as relates to the commercial flights and international airways.

that, first of all, for all countries must be abhorrent and outrageous. and then we must take knowledge of the atrocious behavior of russia, and it should not be silenced. their behavior is outrageous. and it is inappropriate because mr. putin is a head of state. bodies of another sovereign nation lay in a field, many sovereign nations, mr. putin did absolutely nothing to avoid the dess secretary of transportation -- the desecration and insult and indignities given to those lost souls. i'm reminded of crashes over the years when countries or airlines were able to take the family members within days to the site for prayer or acknowledgement. giving them added comfort. so i think it is important to understand and i refer my colleagues to an article, yes,

in the "wall street journal," why putin is taking major risk in ukraine. he is still living in the world of the soviet union, but it is imperative to know that we have something that we can offer besides request of peace, reconciliation, and international investigation unfettered. we have something that we can acknowledge. even the transportation secretary indicated that energy resources, natural gas, oil and gas, natural gas, l.n.g., are resources that we can utilize to substitute for the dess podic hold that he has over europe. the secretary of transportation indicated it is a creator of jobs. but we need to start having europe turn to the united states to ensure the opportunity for freedom and ceasing this

aproshese hold on europe. let me state just for a moment to acknowledge the tragedy and terrorism of boko haram. i will go to the nigerian embassy today, madam speaker, to acknowledge that the girls in captivity have been held for almost 100 days and i look -- i will look to introduce legislation to seize some of the nigerian assets seized through criminal activity to establish a real victims fund, even though i congratulate president johnson for creating one, but there's been no money given to these victims, and i will say that we need to watch this place because boko haram has now seized a whole town in the northern state, the very state we were in when we went to nigeria and spoke to the governor. now a whole city like new york or sit -- chicago or houston has been seized. we have elements that we can do something about. russia and its misbehavior, mistreatment of lost souls, and

the terrorists and terrorist activities of boko haram. i implore my colleagues to work together to find a solution so souls may be buried in dignity and never have this happen to them again and as well so that boko haram is in essence brought to justice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, for five minutes. mr. kelly: i rise today to pay tribute to a truly extraordinary and exceptional american. man by the name of john to recognize a major milestone to find a better way to treat cancer. this was the completion of the cancer research foundation's mission. when i first came to washington i was amazed by the number of researchersers thinkers, and intellectuals that work and reside in our nation's capital. you listen to these people, my goodness we are so blessed as a

country have this great wealth of knowledge. the shear brainpower around here is incredible. then you learn about something even more incredible even more remarkable. it happens right in your own home district. in a town that you represent. you say wait a minute. in erie, pennsylvania, a guy named john can seeas recognized there had a to be a better way to treat cancer. john is truly an inspiration, not just to me and his family, but the entire country, especially to the cancer community. let me tell you a little bit about john. john was born in washington, pa in 19 . he made a living as a radio and tv engineer and one time station owner. when he retired john and his wife, they had already completed their successful professional life and headed to floor like a lot of americans to enjoy their retirement. but that's not what was in store for john. in 2002, john was diagnosed with terminal leukemia and had

undergone countless treatments of toxic chemotherapy. this is the worst kind of luck that john put him on a new path. and a miraculous path. it gave john the idea maybe you could use radio waves to kill cancer cells. while john didn't have a medical background, he did understand radio waves. when he was diagnosed with terminal leukemia in 2002, his knowledge of the deficiency became first hand. it wasn't john's sickness that motivated him. it was the sad and helpless eyes of all those children he would see in the cancer ward when he went in for his chemo, and would he see these kids sitting there. their heads bandaged up. their frail bodies knowing that they couldn't go outside and play the way other children did and he looked at that and said there's got to be a better way to treat this horrible disease. that's what motivated him. now, i want you to think about something because john, anybody

who's been through this, my sister died of pancreatic cancer, you start to feel what they are going through. john couldn't sleep at night. rather than wake his wife up, one morning at 2:00 a.m. he got up and went downstairs. he grabbed some copper wire, some boxes, antennas, and mary ann's pie pans and starts to build a machine. this is just an average, everyday guy who just got it. he understood that technology. he's weak and weary from his own cancer. by the spring of 2004 john was feeling better and he started getting the word out about his discovery and started to raise more money for research. could radio waves be the key to a nontoxic, noninvasive way to treatment? if one could find a way to direct metal to cancer cells, could radio waves be the answer to the prayers of countless people, young an old, suffering health failure and an uncertain

future on account of this cancer? confronted with his own battle and suffering of so many young people, john's can-do attitude kicked in and he set out to prove radio waves could kill cancer cells without harming any other tissue. this endeavor became the mission of the research foundation in erie, pennsylvania. in the midst of undergoing dozens of rounds of toxic chemotherapy, he encountered so many sick young people facing the ordeal, the cancer and chemo were stealing these children's health and john was tormented by the reality reflected in their faces. he knew there had to be a better way enhe went -- and he went about it. last month on june 30, the research foundation announced the organization would be closing its doors after raising more than $15 million in donations. a day that john had only dreamed about. why? because the research team are now entering the next phase by submitting an application to the

f.d.a. to initiate human trials to test the possibility of john's vision of curing and treating cancer. the foundation has funded all the research necessary for the team to demonstrate how the technology works and begin the first phases of these trials, which will target pancreatic and liver cancers, two of the particularly deadly forms of cancer. if successful, the treatment will be a game changer for so many of these people, these two types of cancer. when john is not around to see the culmination of his life's work because he passed away in 2009 at the age of 64, i only trust, know that john can see what's going on today and i'm so happy to be here and talk about the research center and some of the people in the gallery, actually, my good friend, mark, who is the executive director. the board president, mary ann, to name a few. again an exceptional american. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. today, oregon begins a campaign that may turn the corner once and for all on our illogical, ill-advised approach to marijuana. we have reached a critical point where over the last 40 years a misguided policy of prohibition as -- as potent has patently failed. it simply doesn't work. it criminalizes behavior most americans feel should be legal. it cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year in a futile enforcement of prohibition. it feeds billions more into the covers of drug cartels, which destabilize mexico. while they terrorize central american countries, sending tens of thousands of children fleaing to our borders. -- fleeing to our borders. imagine a situation so desperate

a parent would send a child on a treacherous journey thousands of miles. the current policy undermines the credibility of government drug prevention programs. how do we expect people to respect an authority that pretends marijuana is more dangerous than methamphetamine or cocaine? that cannot answer the simple question, has anybody ever died of a marijuana overdotion? -- overdose? why respect an agency that wastes time and money that should be spent on drugs that are much more deadly and addictive? the winds of change are blowing through the capitol. yet we have seen in the recent weeks we have had five consecutive victorious votes on the house floor to have a more rational policy. but the real leadership is at the state level. forcing the issue are 23 states and the district of columbia where now over a million patients have access to medical

marijuana, usually in programs authorized by the voters. in 2012, voters in colorado and washington both legalized adult use and have now started commercial markets. this month in washington state alone. the campaign in oregon is going to be key. it's a carefully drawn statute which will be considered by the voters. make no mistake, the one size fits all prohibition fanatics will be out in force. and we'll hear about any hiccups in the neighboring state of washington, largely blown out of proportion. but we are going to hear everybody talk about their legitimate concern for keeping marijuana out of the hands of children. we all agree that young brains should not be subjected to it. but frankly this is one of the biggest failures of our current program of prohibition. we have a huge underground

shadow market. no one thinks a 12-year-old has a harder time getting a joint than a six-pack of beer. nobody checks. -- nobody checks i.d. nobody has a license to lose. the success in oregon will usher in i think, a new era where the states have the right to regulate marijuana just like alcohol. there will be more money for things we care about like education, drug treatment, and drug enforcement to keep and protect our children. the failure of the current federal prohibition is obvious. i'm hopeful that voters in oregon can help shaller in this new era of regulation for adults and protections for children and i think it's going to be a fascinating public policy debate. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. hompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker.

madam speaker, the environmental protection agency regular another attack on our economy and way of of life in sen 2r58 and northwestern pennsylvania has been growing for some time. in recent months the e.p.a. moved forward with an egrogeous power grab to redefine the agencies' jurisdiction under the clean water act through a new proposed rule commonly known as the waters of the united states. . in pennsylvania agriculture is our number one industry. our farmers and ranchers know that clean air, clean water and being good stewards of the environment in which they live and work is a fundamental importance to their livelihoods. despite local prerogatives and successful state and regional initiatives to protect our natural resources, the federal government has chosen to cut these efforts with regulations. march the e.p.a. issued a rule that it -- no matter the

water or land under the jurisdiction. while the e.p.a. argued the actions over the bodies of water are jurisdictional under the law. unfortunately this is a far cry from the truth. this represents an unprecedented expansion of power that will harm our economy and erode the rights of both states and private landowners. e clean water act was to better identify pollution sources. through programs such as setting waste water standards. he scope of the law is for -- the e water and it law was never intended to hinge pon states and was not supposed to be part of streams,

ditches, creek beds which would pose unnecessary burdens on economic activity. unfortunately, that's exactly what the e.p.a. has proposed. despite the supreme court rulings interpreting the regulatory scope of the clean water act more narrowly than what the federal government asserted, the new rule moves in the opposite direction. all waters could be potentially be subject to regulated permitting. the obama administration and the e.p.a. said that it was to limit ambiguity and create better protections when in fact it will create more regulatory burdens, more ambiguity and more uncertainty. gene mccarthy talked about the waters, which has come from both republicans and democrats as, quote, ludicrous and silly and summarized the backlash as a growing list of

misunderstandings. madam speaker, it is no misunderstanding. e.p.a.'s new waters of the u.s. role is a historic power grab which affects our way of life in pennsylvania and for commubtse across the country. -- communities across the country. what is more ludicrous is a punitive one-size-fits-all approach to environmental stewardship is the best way forward and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. murphy, for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to recognize an outstanding group from my district. boy scout troop 772 of fort pierce, florida. troop 772 was established last year at dan mccarthy middle school as a community effort to keep young men to be part of after-school activities by providing support and guidance. troop 772 is no ordinary boy

scout troop. it is much more. for too long, fort pierce has been plagued by gangs, by rampant violent crime that has taken the lives of colleagues, friends and loved ones. for the young men of troop 772, this violence isn't something they see on the television or hear about in the abstract. it's the terrifying reality they face. i want to share what these scouts have said what it's like community. their i want to wear clothes of any color without having to change. we will be better if people stop fighting. when i hear this i am both saddened and outraged. no one, let alone our youth, should have to live in constant fear of violence. but at the same time i'm hopeful. what brings me hope for fort

pierce is troop 772. troop 772 was born out of violence but in them i see a solution to that violence. when troop 772 was just an ea, there was a lot of skepticism. it was skepticism of whether they can move these young men away from the community. the adult leadership of the troop has given much-needed support for these young men. they have been a constant presence in the lives of these scouts at a time when they needed the most, at time when those in their community would do them harm. it's true that this troop will make it a better place to live. these young men who struggled or had bad behavior are starting to thrive as a result of troop 772 and a poss -- in a positive environment it provides. i was privileged to visit with the troop and see their hard work and dedication firsthand while they worked on an environmental project.

it's this kind of hard work and commitment for them to become leaders of tomorrow. it is this kind of hard work and commitment that has brought today.72 to washington it is truly an honor to recognize them with this major accomplishment and dedication that has brought them here. i want to take a moment to recognize those individuals who has helped them reach their monumental point today. i want to thank the scoutmaster for teaching them leadership and scouting rules as well as making this an enjoyment for these young men and the community who has helped make a lifetime possible. and of course i also want to thank scout van douser who has made troop 772 a reality.

bettering our community is unwavering. our community will be forever grateful for all of their work who has touched so many lives and inspired an entire community. lastly and most important, i want to thank the scouts of the troop. our community is so proud of what you've achieved. individually and together. this troop is a testament to what can be accomplished when youth are given the chance to succeed. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for five minutes. madam speaker, last november i filed articles of impeachment against our attorney general, eric holder.

this was a serious action. i'm not happy that i had to do it. the trust of the american people in their government is at an all-time low. they wonder, where's the constitution? is it still law? is it alive? it is still law. it is still alive. took a sacred oath to defend it. all of my colleagues took that same oath. mr. holder took that oath. sadly he has broken that oath many times. he has a long record of enforcing laws he likes and

ignoring laws he doesn't like. the oath he took doesn't give him that choice. he is the number one law enforcement official in america. we are having an immigration crisis on our border with mexico. kids are coming across in record numbers. next year our border patrol hinks that 150,000 kids will cross illegally. that's roughly the same number of allied forces that invaded normandy on d-day. we have laws on the books to stop this crisis. and yet mr. holder won't enforce those laws.

instead, he made up new rules that refuse to report people who have come here illegally. he chose to break our laws. oath. e to break his the internal revenue service harassed americans because their political views are opposite of the administration's. the watchdog over the i.r.s. begged mr. holder to investigate because crimes may have been committed within the i.r.s. by senior officials. mr. holder chose not to investigate the i.r.s. he chose politics over our

laws. e chose to break his oath. finally, mr. holder under oath to tell the truth told congress that he had no involvement in operation against a reporter working for a network mr. holder didn't like. yet, mr. holder's signature was on the paper approving that operation. laws. e to break our e chose to break his oath. remind mr. holder about his oath and his duty to enforce all of our laws, congress held mr. holder in conterpt in june -- contempt in june of 2012. he made history with two

bipartisan votes holding him in contempt of congress. sadly two years later, mr. holder continues to break his oath. the only weapon congress has for federal officials who break their oath and our law is impeachment. i have 28 co-sponsors of my resolution to impeach mr. holder. i ask my colleagues to remember that we are a nation of laws. show the american people that our constitution is alive and well. co-sponsor h.res. 411, articles of impeachment for eric holder. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries, for five minutes. mr. jeffries: madam speaker, we have a humanitarian crisis at our border that challenges the capacity of the united states of america to address it from both a resource perspective and from a compassionate perspective. tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors who are eeking entry into this country , children who are fleeing extreme violence in the rthern triangle countries of honduras, el salvador and guatemala. now, there are some in this caucus, some in this institution who want to lay blame for this crisis at the feet of the obama administration. this is is not a surprising development because these individuals are members of the b.b.o. caucus, the blame barack

obama caucus. when anything happens in this country or in this world, they want to blame the president of the united states. something goes wrong in iraq, a war that was prosecuted, that was botched, that was mismanaged by the previous administration, the b.b.o. aucus blames barack obama. we're seeing a similar phenomenon as it relates to this humanitarian crisis. first they claim it was brought about the president's decision related to defered action connected to individuals falling into the dreamer category. but they fail to note that in order to be eligible for defered action you have to be in this country since 2007. that claim has no basis in reality. then, they say, well, the president refuses to enforce

our nation's immigration laws. how silly is that argument? hundreds of thousands of individuals have been deported by the obama administration each and every year in record numbers, particularly when compared to the previous republican president. . then they say this has to to with comprehensive immigration reform. comprehensive immigration reform is not the law of the land. the bill was passed by the senate. it hasn't even been acted upon by the house, let alone sent to the president for his signature. and even if a pathway towards citizenship were created, if you look at the legislation, only individuals in this country since december of 2011 would be eligible. yet the blame barack obama caucus doesn't care about the facts. well, here are the facts.

the individuals, the children who are fleeing, who are coming to this country are trying to escape extreme violence, gang activity, drug trafficking, sexual abuse, intimidation, the northern triangle countries in central america, el salvador, guatamala, and hon door rass are among the most-hon door rass are among the most violent in the world. el salvador is number four. guatemala is number five. how to we know? that this phenomenon is not simply uncle sam throwing his hands up saying come into our country? well, here's another reason. all of the central american neighbors to our south, outside these northern triangle countries, have also experienced

an exponential increase in unaccompanied minors. mexico, belize, panama, costa rica, nicaragua have all experienced signature increases in children coming to those countries. more than 400% increase collectively in asylum applications in 2012. this is not a poll from the united states. these children are running for their lives. and so we've got to address it with an understanding of what is the root cause of the humanitarian crisis. several of us on the judiciary committee have introduced a vulnerable immigrant voice act because we believe these unaccompanied children should have access to counsel. it would benefit the taxpayer in making immigration proceedings more efficient and ensuring

expedited removal when merited. in making sure that unnecessary detention doesn't take place. now, many of these children will not have a valid legal basis to remain. but some will. some will have asylum claims or special immigrant juvenile status and for that reason we should give them access to counsel and do what's right for these children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. jefferies: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. wagner, for five minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise today in support of a package of human trafficking legislation to be considered by the house today. i also rise to recognize and support all the good works done by my colleagues to combat the hideous crime of human trafficking. madam speaker, as a former united states ambassador, i was exposed firsthand to the horrors of human trafficking on an international level.

i witnessed and reported on the devastating consequences of human trafficking, but never in my wildest dreams did i ever think human trafficking was so rampant right here in the united states of america. madam speaker, right now there are young women and children being forced into prostitution in virtually every district across this nation. in fact, i was shocked to learn that my own hometown of st. louis has been identified as one of the top 20 areas for sex trafficking in the united states. madam speaker, this problem is hiding in plain sight. every year thousands ever young americans' lives are impacted by this despicable crime. however, i take hope from all the good work being done by law enforcement and those who work in victims services. most importantly i take hope from all the survivors of this hideous crime. their strength gives us

strength. their resolve gives us inspiration, and their steadfast commitment to ending sex trafficking gives us all the courage to fight. madam speaker, because of the efforts of many individuals and groups, i am happy to report that congress has taken notice of this very serious problem. years of work have raised awareness of this issue and have laid the foundation for the long overdue action that congress is presently taking. i applaud these efforts and i look forward to continuing this work for years to come. however, madam speaker, there is much work yet to be done. as legislators we have an obligation to come together and do something because we can, because we should, and because we must. i urge senator reid to take up the bills that the house has already passed that take steps to address this horrible crime, including the stop advertising victims of exploitation or the

stave act, which i had the pleasure of passing with overwhelming bipartisan support. i thank you, madam speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: we have a crisis in firefighting funds here in the united states of america, and what has this congress done about it? nothing. absolutely nothing. zero. ngata. hasn't even held a hearing. right now there are 11 major fires burning in oregon, five in washington, one the largest notice history of the state. two in utah, two in idaho, one in california, one in arizona. there are forecasts for a substantial amount of new lightning storms moving through. that means more fires. our resources are about at their maximum, and the department of interior and the forest service are about to run out of funds.

now, if this was predictable, the budget set by the republicans and paul ryan was totally inadequate, and there was a proposal, which is the rarest of things, a bipartisan republicans and democrats, bicamera -- bicameral, senate and house, proposal supported by the president of the united states. that was to look at what's happened over the last 10 years, the dramatic increase in the severity and the occurrence of fires, particularly in the western united states on publiclands, and to give the forest service a budget adequate to fight those fires year in, year out. and also for those extraordinary fires, the ones that are pretty much unprecedented in history because of mismanagement and climate change and a number of other things to fight those with emergency funds. just like we deal with tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes.

that money should not come out of the budget of the forest service and the department of interior, because what do they have to do? starting later this month they are going to devastate the remainder of their budget. that means instead of going out and reducing fuels on fires through contracts, using private contractors and mitigating the future risk of fire, they are going to have to cancel those contracts this year because they are going to have to spend the money to fight the fires. then it's not only firefighting contracts that have to cancel, they have to devastate across their budget, including recreation programs. their timber sale programs. things that bring in revenue to the federal government. any state that has federal lands administered by the department of interior forest service, most of the states in the union, much more of an impact in certain states than others, will see a detrimental impact because the forest service and department of interior are going to have to rob their budget to pay for the cost of these fires. it also means that we didn't

have as many people pregloyed -- predeployed. we didn't have as much equipment predeployed. we didn't have as much resources ready. we need a whole new firefighting fleet. we are using world war ii aircraft. they are find of at the end of their useful life. and we are now pressing into service planes that are not particularly efficient at fighting fires because we don't have a fleet of planes, modern pleat of planes, to assist our firefighters, help save their lives on the ground, help save the lives of people in communities that are affected. what has this house of representatives done? nothing. not even a hearing. now, we can blather on forever about all sorts of things. we can have the 50 investigations of this or that, day in, day out. but can we take an action on something that's staring us in the face which is the forest fire crisis in the western united states right now? come on. wake up and smell the smoke

before it's too late. take action. pass this bicameral, bipartisan reform, supported by the president of the united states. give us the resources we need to fight these fires and to prevent future fires so we won't have more years like this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, for five minutes. mr. pierluisi: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to provide an update on puerto rico's political status, which is an issue of national significance. puerto rico is an unincorporated territory of the united states. territory status is although it's home to more american citizens than 21 states, island residents cannot vote for president, are not represented in the senate, and have one nonvoting delegate in the house.

territory status is also unequal. as the recent g.a.o. report confirms, puerto rico's deprived of billions of dollars each year because it is streeted worse than the states under a range of federal programs. every objective observer understands that territory status is their underlying cause of the economic, fiscal, and demographic crisis that has enveloped puerto rico. history teaches a simple lesson. no people have ever reached their potential while being deprived of political rights and denied equality under the law. puerto rico is no exception to this rule. if the people of work work wish to discard territory status, there are two and only two paths forward. the territory can become a state on equal footing with the other states, or the territory can become a sovereign nation, either fully independent from

the u.s. like the philippines, or with a compact of free association with the u.s. that either nation can terminate like the republic of pa lou. if puerto rico becomes a sovereign nation, future generations of island residents would not be american citizens and would receive reduced federal support. in a 2012 referendum, sponsored by the government of puerto rico, a majority of my constituents expressed their opposition to territory status, which means that puerto rico's being governed without its consent. statehood received more votes than territory status, which is unprecedented. and statehood, object taped far more votes than either of the two nationhood options which demonstrates that puerto rico has no desire to weaken or break the bonds forged with the united states over nearly 12 decades. at my urging and in response to this landmark vote, the obama

administration proposed an appropriation of $2.5 million to fund the first federally sponsored referendum in puerto rico's history, with the stated goal being to resolve this territory status. earlier this year, congress approved this appropriation with bipartisan support. although the law does not specify how the ballot should be structured, it does require the department of justice to ensure that any option on the ballot is compatible with the constitution and laws and public policy of the united states. therefore, the ballot cannot contain the status proposal known as enhanced commonwealth that one political party in puerto rico has consistently put forward over the years and that federal officials, including the obama administration and senators widen and murkowski, have just as consistently rejected as impossible. moreover, the ballot should not contain the current territory status as an option because it was rejected in the 2012

referendum. it is the primary source of puerto rico's problems, and it does not resolve the island status. since as long as puerto rico remains a territory, it has the potential to become either a state or a sovereign nation. last week, the governor of puerto rico announced his intention to use the $2.5 million to conduct a federally sponsored vote by the end of 2016. i have proposed that the federal funding be used to hold a yes or no vote on whether puerto rico should be admitted as a state just as alaska and hawaii did. this approach would yield a definitive result that nobody could reasonably question, and it has broad congressional backing, garnering support from 135 members of the house and the senate. if the governor of puerto rico resists this approach, he will face a problem. the party he leads has never been able to agree upon its status proposal that does not

conflict with u.s. law and policy. but let me be clear, if a vote does occur, statehood advocates will show up in force. any time, in place, an army of men and women will be there to speak equality, seek equality and justice, and we will prevail. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, for five minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to speak for five minutes and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. s. moore: thank you so much, madam speaker. i rise in support of a clean terrorism risk insurance act re-authorization. now, many of us on the house financial services committee have worked on a bipartisan

basis. et me repeat that and let me emphasize that. we've worked on a bipartisan basis for more than a year to put a bill before this house that can pass. we have worked cooperatively because the lessons of 9/11 revealed to us the raw exposure that this country faces and our conomy faces as insurers exited terrorism risk insurance after 9/11. but unfortunately some other members are working on a partisan basis to derail the terrorism risk insurance program. now, unfortunately, this fringe minority is more interested in promoting anti-government ideology than governing on behalf of the american people and securing for americans a

safe harbor in the event of nuclear, biological, chemical or other acts of terrorism. the dysfunction of the tea party-driven agenda that thrives on crisis after crisis, whether it's the flood insurance or the debt ceiling or keeping the government open or passing a transportation bill, they just thrive on keeping this place in chaos. and here we have once again some must-pass legislation, the terrorism risk insurance has bipartisan conken suss, bicameral -- consensus, bicameral support, and how does the tea party-driven leadership in this house respond to the attempts to reason with them regarding the urgency of passing a clean re-authorization of tria without the unworkable triggers and the bifurcation provisions?

what we get is an arrogant rebuff, channeling "dirty harry," quote, you got to ask yourself, do you feel lucky? now, colleagues, this is not constructive and be clear, colleagues, the tea party is not symbolically throwing tea overboard but their anti-government agenda is throwing the american economy overboard. i mean, we have real-world knowledge of what happens if tria is not re-authorized. following the september 11 attacks, the insurance industry met their claims and liabilities related to the insurers quickly removed terrorism risk insurance. the result led to the loss of 3,000 jobs. you hear them say they want

more private capital in the market, but their bill has exactly the opposite impact by diminishing market capacity. in fact the rand corporation says that the terrorism risk insurance saves the government and taxpayers money that would otherwise be spent on disaster assistance following an attack. in the case of an attack as destructive of 9/11, the study estimates that tria saves the federal government $7. billion. at this point -- $7.2 billion. at this point, not even the republican majority can have their voice heard in this house. i don't understand why this house needs to be constantly held hostage to a fringe minority of the majority that has no interest in governing. i can tell you, madam speaker, that tria is the orderly response to a major terrorist attack. why are we providing confusion,

uncertainty and partisanship to helping this country recover in the unthinkable event of another successful large-scale terrorist attack? i hope that the voice of the merican people prevail and a bipartisan tria bill can be brought to the floor swiftly. thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to compliment the previous speaker on her color coordination, and as co-chair of the state medicaid expansion caucus, i rise this morning to talk about how important expanding medicaid is for my state and for the country. first, i want to thank my good friend from north carolina, congressman g.k. butterfield,

for agreeing to co-chair this caucus. he's the driving force behind medicaid expansion, that portion of the affordable care act. there are few people in congress who understand this issue as well as g.k. does. and it's good that he agreed to work on this issue with me and i am proud that 33 members of this congress have joined the state medicaid expansion caucus. it is so critical that every state expand medicaid. medicaid expansion is a choice that states can make because of the supreme court's ruling. however, when the court struck down the requirement and gave states the choice to expand medicaid, it did not strike the facts that make medicaid expansion the correct budgetary economic health and, yes, moral choice. 27 states and a majority -- 27 states, a majority of the

states of this great country, looked at the facts and made the choice to help their people become healthier and therefore better able to lead productive lives. expanding medicaid in those states provided health coverage to approximately 10.5 million people who otherwise wouldn't have had it, according to families u.s.a. despite the political wins that are around the affordable care act, medicaid expansion should be a bipartisan issue. the republican governor of arizona, for instance, pushed her state legislature to expand medicaid because governor brewer and her allies knew that expansion would allow the program to help 300,000 low-income arizonans who otherwise would not have had health coverage. in ohio, that state's republican governor expanded medicaid, grounding the move in

his faith and belief that ohioans should benefit from their federal tax dollars. because of the governor's action, ohio will see $13 billion from the federal government over the next seven years to cover those newly eligible medicaid recipients and approximately 366,000 ohio residents are thus eligible for coverage beginning this year. according to some estimates, as will s 789,000 people ultimately benefit from the governor's decision. in california almost three million people have benefited by getting access to health care when that state expanded medicaid. niece are just a few of the -- these are just a few of the success stories. the federal government will cover 100% of the cost of expanding medicaid during the first three years and 90% of the cost for the duration of the program in every state.

like in ohio, this investment will bring billions of federal tax dollars back into the states which will help states develop their health care infrastructure and thus improve those states' economies. it will also help low-income americans access our health care system. we must remember that the people who will benefit from expanding medicaid are no less deserving of health care than flynn -- than anyone else. according to a recent report, states that have expanded medicaid have seen 17% more people enroll in the medicaid and chip programs. these are children across the country who now have an option for a healthier life. unfortunately, millions of low-income americans are being denied health care by their state legislators and governors. they are being punished for being poor and for living where they do. "the new york times" recently

an a story entitled "uninsured and on the wrong side of a state line." it describes the harsh realities for those who live on the wrong side of the state line. the author wrote that texarkana is the starkest example of how president obama's health care law is altering the geography of the country. the poor living in the arkansas half of the town want access to a government benefit worth thousands of dollars annually, yet, nothing changed for the texas side of the state line. in my home state of georgia, expanding medicaid would mean access to health care for 684,000 people according to the center for budget priorities. my governor reacted to this -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: by signing a bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz, for five minutes. the gentleman will suspend.

mr. johnson: and with that i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz, for five minutes. ms. schwartz: thank you. let me commend by thanking my fellow congressman, hank johnson, and congressman butterfield for their initiative and their advocacy in fighting for and speaking up for medicaid expansion in each of our states that have not taken it. more than five million people in this country now have health coverage. using federal dollars available to every state to expand medicaid eligibility to hardworking americans and their families. but not in my home state of pennsylvania. instead, hundreds of thousands of people in pennsylvania are left out. 305,000 people in pennsylvania could have health coverage today but for the decision of

our governor. this is morally unconscionable and economically shortsighted. months have gone by, people are sicker, hospital bills go unpaid and health providers struggle to stay at the forefront of innovation. health care, whether it is to detect an illness or to treat a chronic condition or to save a life, is not optional. consider the working mother who earns just enough to cover her basic expenses but not enough to get that mammogram. so her breast cancer is not detected early and once it is, it is is well advanced and life threatening. or the 9-year-old girl whose parents work full time at minimum wage and neither can afford to lose a day's pay to visit a pediatrician. so her need for glasses, simple simple and correctable, or the

early -- something simple and correctable, is missed. with serious consequences not only for her health but her success in school. or the 52-year-old man who knows he should get that test that his doctor recommended but simply does not have the $2,000 it costs, so he puts it off thinking he'll get it one of these days and never gets that simple prescription, that medication that could well save his life. these are hardworking men, women and children across this country and in pennsylvania who could have health coverage today but do not. th $8.2 billion available to pennsylvania, these are federal dollars, dollars that pennsylvanians have paid, they're not coming back to pennsylvania but would be available to us, are available to us over the next three years, we should use these

funds to get health care to our people, to hire tens of thousands of health care workers, to contain costs, to improve the health status of the people of our state and, yes, to save lives. there's no more time to waste. pennsylvania should seize this opportunity, so should the other states that have federal dollars available to them to do the same thing for the people of their state. we should use these federal resources to expand these life-saving health coverage to help our kids succeed and to help us be healthy, to create jobs and to ensure economic growth. let's do the right thing in pennsylvania and across this country. these states should take medicaid expansion and do right for the economy and our states, for the people of our states and for the nation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. mr. butterfield: i thank the

speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to announce to my colleagues the formation of a new house caucus to be known as the state medicaid expansion caucus. i am delighted to co-chair this caucus along with my good friend, congressman hank johnson from the state of georgia. madam speaker, this caucus is 33 members strong. we want to demonstrate to recalcitrant governors and state legislators the overwhelming public support of providing health to low-income adults particularly ages 18 to 65. the majority of our caucus members are from states that have made the shortsighted and politically motivated decision to exclude the very people the medicaid program was established to help in the first place. to date 21 states and the

district of columbia have seized the opportunity. they have made the wise and moral decision to not only ensure their residents can get the care that they deserve, but they made a smart economic decision to pull billions of dollars in additional federal funding into their economies. these funds have the triple benefit of yielding better health outcomes for the low income and poor, creating health care related jobs, and driving down the aggregate cost of health care over time. in contrast, 24 states have not yet expanded medicaid. they have irresponsibly chosen to turn their backs on more than five million americans that need this coverage. what are those five million americans going to do when they get sick? what are 500,000 north carolinians going to do when they need medical care? madam speaker, will i tell you what they are going to do. they will either not seek the treatment that they need, causing their condition to get

worse, which will lead to miss work and therefore unable to pay their bills. ultimately they will find themselves in a much worse situation than if they had coverage that they deserve. the other option is that they will do what many uninsured people have always done out of necessity. go to an emergency room, be treated, and walk out with a bill that they have no ability to pay. hospitals will then write the cost of treatment off, as uncompensated care. in order to recoup some of the lost money, hospitals will then increase the cost of their procedures which results in higher premiums for the insured. medicaid expansion isn't just good for our insurance premiums, but it's also good for the state's bottom line. in north carolina alone, expanding medicaid will save the state more $65 million over the next eight years, expansion would benefit our economy in north carolina, adding nearly

$1.5 billion to the state's revenue. north carolina drugmakers and medical device manufacturers will need to expand their work force, adding a total of 23 jobs to the state. that's just in our state. the benefits of expansion nationally are far greater. yet the same scenario is playing out in nearly half of all of the states. 24 states' decisions to not accept billions of dollars in federal support defies logic and will prove catastrophic for the very people that medicaid program is intended to help. a critical point that many people overlooked is the fact that under the act the federal government will pay 100% of the cost of expansion through the year 2016, and 90% of the cost thereafter. the public demands actions in states that have not expanded and members of this caucus are tired of inaction. we are disgusted that these states have such careless disregard for poor people. we will continue to press this issue until all 50 states have

expanded their medicaid program. again, i thank congressman hank johnson and the 31 other members of the state medicaid expansion caucus and the many advocacy organizations for their courage to fight for those who are being blocked from the most basic level of health care. i thank you for the time, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. garcia, for five minutes. mr. garcia: thank you, madam speaker. today i'm proud to be one of the founding members of the state medicaid expansion caucus, and i want to thank congressman butterfield and congressman johnson for their leadership. in my home state of florida there are more than 750,000 people who would benefit from medicaid expansion. these are people who fall within the coverage gap. people who make too much to receive medicaid but too little to receive subsidies.

this makes a difference in florida and in many states who have rejected medicaid coverage. just like many states across the country, our governor, governor scott reject $51 billion of federal tax dollars, our tax dollars, noney that could have provided insurance to those in need and could have created over 60,000 jobs. this is money that will strengthen our economy, help florida grow jobs, and supporting hospitals and individuals who need help. i urge governor scott and florida's leaders in the state legislature to do what's right and take action and accept this funding. madam speaker, thank you for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to sclause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

so we can do it in the right order which is that my hearing in march, we agreed the next priority after we completed the determination issue was to provide all the emails we had and we had a discussion back and forth and committed that would be our next priority and we are getting close to completing that. >> i guess what i'm getting at is i assume you wouldn't have a discussion with based upon what the i.g. told you, you wouldn't have a discussion with an employee of the i.r.s. now because the i.g. told you not to? >> that's correct. so when we had witnesses coming

to testify and give depositions here, we have not talked to them before-hand. they've simply come up. we don't feel we want to do anything that would interfere with the i.g.'s investigation or this committee's investigation. so people have come up and to the extent they've been interviewed they've done that without any conversations to me. >> the gentlelady asked you about more alat the -- morale at the i.r.s. and the nobody seems to like the i.r.s. on the other hand, if you don't get revenue you have a problem. we have a problem as a nation. but when you think about the reduction in employees and based upon what mr. caine said, that the gentlelady just read, seems like something has to give and i'm just curious as to what's giving. you follow what i'm saying? based upon what mr. caine said,

you're pulling people from different areas to do certain things. you said that some of them have have responsibilities and deadlines. the point is something's got to give. something. can you tell us what we -- what we're losing? >> well, what has to give is we obviously have 10,000 fewer employees than we had a few years ago. and fewer in the office of chief counsel. what happens is people have to -- spend a lot longer working. at some point you run out of things we can do. we've taken people around the agency and put them on the production effort. to do that means work they otherwise would have done does not get done because we have no capacity to add more people, to hire more people. we're replacing one in five people that leave the agency. so we're continuing to shrink rather than expand. we haven't complained about it.

we produce documents as fast as we can. we explained our biggest problem and obstacle is that we have this sort of arcane, archaic system where you have to search each hard drive to get it in a search machine which we'd like to change going forward. it means particularly in the office of chief counsel you put them under more stress, it makes it more difficult for the ongoing day job that they have. my concern more importantly is over the course of certainly the 3 1/2 years i've been there, we have issues. as we ask people to do productions and respond to congressional inquiries, if they become subjects to depositions and cross-examinations it will be harder to get people decide to leave their day job and respond to congress. that's our broader concern. again, we think it's appropriate and we're happy to cooperate with the committee as best we can. >> i'll just make one point. witnesses testified they don't talk about this issue and prepare and discuss and prep

for it, that's not accurate. we testified one yesterday and he said when one came and briefed the ways and means committee, there was prep sessions done to get to mr. manning to come before congress. as you say you don't prep people as they come before congress, that's not accurate. regarding the morale issue, if the i.r.s. would have been willing to let tom caine come and be interviewed, we wouldn't have had issue to subpoena. one thing that impacts morale is to get a subpoena. you made it to get the subpoena, mr. koskinen. we had to issue the subpoena and we got all kinds of information that contradicts testimony you've given in front of congress. so that's the issue. we're talking about morale. you could have helped morale of the very employees you represent, if you let him be interviewed -- >> mr. chairman -- > we actually -- when they

come for an interview it's still under oath and a advance described interview and it looks like a deposition. people that have not done it before they get nervous. >> that only adds to the anxiety of the employee so that's your creation. >> we're delighted to work out a schedule where there won't be subpoenas. >> we appreciate that. but it took a subpoena to get throoling. and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> wait a minute. i just asked you for one -- we have a tendency to ask questions and not let him answer. i just want -- i want to understand this. i think it's for the benefit of the entire committee. why did mr. caine have to be subpoenaed? why is that? >> because we tried to -- >> i didn't ask you. >> i didn't know who you were asking. >> that's fine. he can answer. >> we were in the process of discussing production of witnesses. we were concerned about

interviewing with the -- interfering with the i.g.'s investigation. while we were doing that, as the chairman said, then mr. caine got a subpoena which did allow him to appear without any further ado and basically have a consideration about setting up a production schedule of witnesses. so the chairman is right. we were in the process of trying to do this, but i would say we take some responsibility for the fact that you had to do a subpoena, i agree with that. >> you take all of it. mr. caine told during his deposition because he had to be subpoenaed, he told committee staff that he wasn't even notified by you, mr. koskinen, or ms. duvall or whoever that we requested an interview. he didn't know that. all he knew is he got the subpoena. you didn't try him that we were trying to interview him. that's what he told in the deposition last thursday. it's not -- it's all on you.

you were the reason we had to subpoena the individual to get his testimony. >> well, he eventually came voluntarily, is na right? >> -- is that right? >> yeah. after he hired counsel and after we sent him the subpoena. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's good to see you again, commissioner. i want to read a quote to you from june, 2014, and see if you know who said it. we confirm the backup tapes from 2011 no longer existed because they had been recycled pursuant to the i.r.s. normal policy. do you know who said that? >> sounds like me. >> it is you. >> can you tell you who we is in that quote? >> the we is the i.r.s. i tend to take responsibility for the agency and talk about it. i was advised when the draft report was submitted to me that people had talked to everyone in the agency to ensure that in the course of our several months of looking for backup tapes and --

>> so we is the royal we just speaking on behalf of the entire i.r.s. how about the work confirmed? what does the work confirm mean to you, that you confirm the backup tapes no longer exist? >> the question was told -- >> by whom? >> i don't know. four, five people were working on the report and was told and i gather mr. caine said in his testimony that was accurate as of june, 2013. >> what does the word confirm mean to you? >> that somebody went back and looked and made sure that any backup tapes that had existed had been recycled. >> are you still confirmed? >> at this point i have no basis for not being confirmed. i do understand the i.g. advised me they were looking at tapes. i have not been advised as to any of those tapes -- >> confirmed is a firm word. are you confirmed that no backup tapes exist? >> well, at this point i know

the i.g. is looking and haven't found anything. >> i'm glad you mentioned the i.g. i find it conveckses that nobody can do anything. that's not supported by the law. can there be a criminal investigation while there is an i.g. investigation? >> there can be all sorts of investigations. >> and a congressional investigation while there's an ongoing i.g. investigation also, correct? >> of course. >> and there can be an i.r.s. investigation. if there were sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace, are you telling this committee you would wait until the i.g. investigated it before you would stop some insidious practice? >> we would take whatever action was necessary. >> precisely. you would not wait until an i.g. concluded his or her investigation. >> can i answer that question? >> sure. >> our policy, and my understanding when i chaired the council of inspector general across the government that if the i.g. starts an

investigation, the agency will not themselves run a competing investigation to try to get there first. basically the i.g. advises us what the investigations. we will allow them to proceed. >> let me give you an alternative view, mr. commissioner. people cite ongoing i.g. investigations when it suits them to not cooperate and they don't cite ongoing i.g. investigations when it doesn't suit them. >> that's not my policy. >> well, you can certainly understand how a cynic might view it that way, right? because there's nothing about an ongoing i.g. investigation that will keep you from doing your job. just like it will not be an ongoing i.g. investigation that will keep a congressional investigation. >> in this particular case, as a general matter, my policy has been if there is an i.g.

investigation, we won't interfere with that investigation. >> well, words have consequences, mr. koskinen. and nobody's asking you to interfere. you can have a dual investigation without you interfering? >> i think it's difficult. >> so you're saying if there is an allegation of sexual harassment or racial discrimination within the i.r.s. you would not look into that until the i.g. completed his or her investigation, is that what you're telling me? >> no. i'm saying that's not what the i.g. would be investigating. they would come to personnel and be investigated by our legal department. >> with the well-, the i.g. doesn't have jurisdiction over legislative policy. the i.g. doesn't have jurisdiction over appropriations. all three of those are important areas so those should be ongoing even while an i.g. is doing his or her investigation, correct? >> well, the i.g. does criminal investigation. >> well, they refer to an

entity that actually has the power to indict which does not include the i.g. >> they actually -- my understanding -- >> you should go -- it might be the same people who gave you the understanding that you were confirmed that the tapes don't exist. so my advice is to be very careful who you take your advice from. i'm going to say this in conclusion, mr. koskinen, i really could not believe the colloquy that you had with one of our colleagues about the morale at the i.r.s. i -- it takes a lot to stun me but that stunned me. here's a piece of advice i'd give. if the folks like lois lerner and others would have spent more time working on the backlog, had more time working on their caseload and less time targeting groups and less time trying to overturn supreme court decisions they didn't agree with, maybe morale would be better and maybe their backlogs would be lessened. >> if the gentleman will yield? >> i'd be thrilled to. >> commissioner, i just want to maybe summarize what the

gentleman was asking you with a question. do you have full faith and trust that your i.g. is doing a thorough investigation at the same level as would be done if you were doing it as the commissioner? >> i do. i said earlier i have a lot of confidence in the inspector general. they have far more capacity in some of these areas. they have 15 people working on this. i am very comfortable and confident that they're doing a thorough job and i've told them we'll do whatever we can. >> so at least to your own investigation, you consider the i.g.'s investigation to be your investigation? >> i do not. we do not control the i.g. he's very independent. he's done an independent investigation of all of this. i am satisfied that when he gets done we will have an independent review and investigation of what went on. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from virginia. >> will the gentleman from virginia yield for just one follow-up question? >> i give the time added --

it's his call but if you yield i'll -- i've been very generous. >> i thank the chair. >> i thank the gentleman from virginia. i want to follow-up on the gentleman from south carolina's point. what you're saying is your belief is that it is wrong for you to do an investigation at the same time as an i.g. is doing an investigation, is that correct? >> as a general matter, if we were doing an investigation it would interfere. >> what you're saying is your predecessors who did exactly that in 2012 were wrong? because when the i.g. started it, they did their own -- under sworn testimony, they did their own investigation. so what they did was not right. >> everybody has their own policies. i don't know what they did or didn't do. >> in your opinion, that wouldn't be right? >> the i. dwmplet -- >> i want to show the hypocritical point that it's not consistent with that i.r.s. has already done.

>> my point only was, it's consistent with how i behaved in the past and how i'll behave in the future. my view is the i.g. is an important independent source of investigations. whenever an i.g. is doing an investigation, i think it's important to cooperate with it and not interfere with it. >> all right. i thank the gentleman from virginia. >> i ask unanimous consent that his time be -- >> i thank my friend from north carolina and thank the chairman. welcome back, mr. koskinen. >> always a pleasure to be here. >> i can tell it must be a thrill and the highlight of your week and i guess we're going to do this, you know, as long as we're in session. by the way, as sort of a sidebar, i wish my friend from south carolina was still here because the concern of morale at the i.r.s. is really touching and, gosh, if we were really that serious about it, ybe we wouldn't have slashed

800 million-something last year. >> recommended another $1 billion on top of the $350 million. so at this point we're $1,350,000,000 under water. >> the morale, we'll keep on flogging people until the morale is improved. that seems to be the philosophy from my friends on the other side of the aisle. i'm glad we're talking about he i.g. because i'm amazed that j. russell george thought it wise or prudent to leave out from the audit report any mention of a critical and i think astonishing analysis that was conducted by the investigations headed up to the report. mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the report the inspector general investigation which was sent in a may 3, 2013, email to

the directing principal deputy, inspector general for audit, chief counsel, assistant i.g. for exempt organizations, and two employees whose names have been fully redacted, it's just a one pager. >> without objection. >> this astounding report from the investigator concluded that after obtaining and reviewing 1,500 emails of the exempt organizations division in cincinnati that in addition to there being no email directing staff to target tea party or other political organizations d no conspiracy or effort to hiding emails and i quote, review of these emails revealed there was a lot of discussion between the employees on how to process the tea party and other political applications. there was a be on the lookout

list specifically naming those groups. however, the emails indicated the organizations needed to be pulled because the i.r.s. employees were not sure how to process them. not because they wanted to stall or hinder the application. there was no indication -- i'm still quoting -- that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated. the email traffic indicated there were unclear processing directions and the group wanted to make sure they had guidance in processing applications so they pulled them. this is, he says, a very important nuance, unquote. would you agree with that finding, mr. koskinen? >> sounds right to me. >> have you any idea about the inspector general would not include such a critical finding after all of the press compliantly giving the headline to my friends on the other side of the aisle every single time, tea party targeted, here's a

critical piece of information, maybe even a smoking gun if we're looking from exoneration from the head of investigations in their own office, why would that not be included in the may 14 final audit report? >> i have no idea. >> is it worthy of your time to ask that question respecting the independence, of course, of the two offices? >> that -- i would not ask the i.g. that question. he's done his report, he's done his investigation. we -- when they do investigations they have any number of them going on. when they do the reports, we agree and most of the sometimes disagree with the recommendations, sometimes disagree with the provide sess but we do that in the orderly course of responding to their report. thereafter we don't ask about it. >> probably not the last before this committee and your reputation and that of your organization, you know, has been called into question with

a charge that has unfortunately not been critically examined as often as i'd like by the media despite our reference on this side of the aisle, here is the head of investigations under your organization that says otherwise that directly allenges the purr pounded -- propounded thought that own teleparty was challenged and they don't put it in the final audit report. by the way, an inspector general who has been questioned by a number of us up here and we have formally requested an investigation of his conduct before the council of i.g.'s so he's under a cloud himself. and i heard my friend, mr. jordan, question other employees of the i.r.s. because of their political giving. mr. george was a republican staff member of this committee,

he's given political contributions to republican candidates. he's a bush appointee and he met solely with the republican side of the aisle in getting ready for his audit. that raises serious questions. if it's sauce for the goss it's sauce for the gander. this is a critical piece of information, it seems to me, and i can't imagine you could -- from the elimination from the audit report which is a critical audit report for your organization. >> well, it's an interesting piece of information which is obviously for useful for people to review. as i said, i do have confidence in mr. george that he's independent. he actually is the treasury department inspector for the i.r.s. and we supported him the

-- i think his independent review of all of this and i look forward to his response and findings about what happened with regard to the hard drive crash. >> what about in his response to why he didn't include this important missive from his head of investigations in the final audit report of may 14? >> that's a question i'm probably not going to ask him. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i would just ask the gentleman which way we want it? this committee can't get access same time criticize the work he did before where he targeted conservative groups and seems like we can't have it both ways. >> well, mr. chairman, there are a number of us who have been quite consistent in raising questions about the object tift and professionalism, frankly, of mr. george.

mr. cartwright and i filed a formal complaint. i'll be glad to share with the chairman. >> with all due respect, then you should be advocating we should have access to the witnesses. >> well, maybe a new inspector general is maybe the answer. >> well, other than mismanagement, 80% were filed by advocate groups. according to the ways and means committee, the i.r.s. approved every single group with the word progressive in their name. the i.r.s. didn't approve an application filed by a tea party group from may, 2010, to may, 2012. they approved dozens of liberal groups. if it was mismanagement it was mismanagement in a targeted way because none of the treatment to conservative groups was given to -- mr. chairman, i have a memo from gregory kurtz saying targeting was not accurate. i have materials that were

presented to i.r.s. that have elephants and donkeys, they have tea party, they have patriots -- >> 98 cases in the i.r.s. backlog, only three had the word progressive. four use the word progress, none use the word occupy. no progressive group was denied c-4 status. hundreds of tea party conservative groups were in fact denied. some still waiting. some still waiting, just for the record. >> well, i guess you and i can argue that all day, mr. chairman. we need to get on with this hearing. and allow mr. koskinen get back to his job. > mr. koskinen, why june 13, why that day? let me ask you this. why not -- why not february 2 when you first learned there was a big gap in a bunch of emails that looked like they were missing? why not february 4 when, as mr. caine testified -- and mr.

koskinen, you know mr. caine. do you know tom caine? >> i do know mr. caine. >> is mr. caine a solid lawyer, professional good employee at the internal revenue service? >> certainly is. >> all right. so why not february 4 when mr. caine, who testified just last thursday, said they knew her hard drive had crashed? will not tell us, look, we might have a problem will not disclose that to somebody on february 4? how about this, how about mid february when mr. caine said last thursday that we know we knew then in mid february that e data on her computer was unrecoverable, why not tell us in mid february? or how about the hearing we talked a lot about, mr. desantis raised in the opening questions, will not march 26? will not disclose on march 26 when you were in front of this committee and everyone on both sides of the aisle asked about lois lerner's emails and you assured us you would produce

all her emails and you knew, according to mr. caine's testimony, good, prolvingsal employee at the internal revenue service, -- professional employee at the internal revenue service -- >> you should be careful to note that's what mr. caine knew, that's not what i knew. >> that's a problem, too. mr. caine is a high ranking official in charge of documents and did you not know? >> i did not know. >> do you know kate duvall? >> kate duvall i do know. >> and what is kate duvall's responsibilities -- what's her title at the internal revenue service? >> she's counselor to the commissioner. >> she's counselor to you? >> yes. >> she's your lawyer? >> yes. >> she knew in mid february, according to mr. caine's testimony, and she did not know you? >> i'm happy to stand by the testimony if you want to go mid to late , in

february i knew we had taken the -- lois lerner emails that had been produced and instead of looking from them -- >> not the point. tom caine said they were unrecoverable and kate duvall -- he said he knew kate duvall. did she tell you they were unrecoverable? >> she did not tell me they were unrecoverable. >> why not tell us april 4 when ms. duvall briefs this committee, both republicans and democrats staff members, and the briefing was how we would deal with -- how the i.r.s. would deal with committee requests for concerns about the loss or, excuse me, producing lois lerner's emails? ms. duvall could have told the committee at the time. >> i testified at some length in the past that our -- and earlier today -- >> here's the key question. let me jump in here a second. why not mid april when you knew? in fact, let's put up the

slide. here's a question we had earlier in our hearings. hy not when you knew, what secretary of state -- what date did you learn could you not get her emails? >> as i testified then and i testified on numerous occasions, my judgment was, a, we needed to find out what emails we did have. we needed to put together -- >> why not any time in april. someone at the i.r.s. told someone at treasury who then told the white house, according to press reports. so if it was good enough to pass on the treasury and white house, why not tell us sometime in april? >> i didn't know the full information. >> you learned in april they were unrecoverable. your chief lawyer in charge of document production that they knew they were unrecoverable. kate duvall knew they were unrecoverable. why june 13? >> i would note, all of those

emails to determine that she had a hard drive crash are emails provided to this committee in -- and the tax writers knew as early as the fall she had a hard drive crash. the emails were about the email chain about trying to restore her hard drive were produced to the tax righters. -- tax writers. >> you didn't tell us there were emails you couldn't give us. why say that the i.r.s. destroyed emails that belonged to lois lerner? >> it's not clear. first of all, emails from ms. lerner may or may not have been lost. they were not destroyed as a conscious effort. >> the tapes were recycled and -- backup tapes were destroyed and recycled. why did you not tell us could you not produce those emails that they were lost in april? >> this hearing is noted to be

an update on what we're doing. i've given you at least two different occasion deficiency >> why june 13, why not june 12, will not june 10, will not may 10? if you couldn't do it in april -- >> we'll be here a long time -- >> you know what i think. >> let me answer this question but i've answered it before and i'm happy to answer it again but it's in the testimony that i've given before that you read very closely. e were producing lois lerner emails. our strategy and thoughts were and i thought the most efficient way to proceed was to complete the production so we would know how many lois lerner emails we had from her account and how many emails we were able to retrieve from other accounts. i hoped we would find out how many other problems we had with custodians and we would produce all of that as a report to the committees and a public report that would explain what our email process is, why it's so

complicated, what we determined about lois lerner's emails and her crashes and what the emails we've been able to recover and it would be a full report. june 13 was a friday. i should have known friday 13 was going to be an interesting day. we were asked by the finance committee which was trying to come to closure on their report whether we would give them an update on our march letter which we advised the tax writing committees that we completed the production of all the information we had about the determination process which was the start of the investigation. that's what the i.g. was focused on, as you discussed. they called -- we were going forward, we didn't know then. they called and said they would like that report no later than friday because they were going to have a meeting the following week. so we pulled the document together at that point. we didn't have the review of how many custodians that were involved of the hard drive crashes. we didn't know that one of the custodians and one of the custodian hard drive crashes

was in february of this year, not very relevant. to meet the friday deadline we actually produced that document and shared it with everybody on friday, june 13, and it was to meet a request from the finance committee which was having a meeting the next week and wanted to consider whether they had enough information. >> your testimony was the senate finance committee drove the timing when you disclosed that you lost lois lerner emails? >> yes. >> i think it's something different. i just do. obviously you're going to disagree. i think you were never going to tell us. you got to remember what happened here. judicial watch does a foia request and they learn on april 18 of this year that the i.r.s. and are the department of justice had been working on possible ways to bring false claims action against tea party groups. and there was an email from that foia request, a lawyer

from the justice department, and ms. lerner had an exchanges in 2013 after a senate hearing. we got a -- we saw that email. we said we'll talk to the lawyer at the justice department who was meeting with ms. lerner just days before the report went public in may of 2013. on may 6 we interview mr. h -- mr. pilger. in his opening statement in that deposition we learned this, i'm reading straight from mr. pilger's statement. turning to my contacts to ms. lerner in the fall of 2010. shocked. we didn't know they were meeting back in 2010. that the justice department was meeting with the i.r.s. in fall of 2010. the chief of the integrity section of the justice department, jack smith, i contacted the internal revenue service. when i contacted them they directed me to lois lerner.

who met once at the public integrity section with some of her staff, my chief, jack smith, other personnel from my section and the f.b.i. so now we learn in 2010 the justice department with the f.b.i. is meeting with lois lerner and so we said, you know what, we ought to subpoena documents from the justice department and we said from the justice department, we want any communications from lois lerner that you've had. and we get this slide. we get this email. let's put this up, if we can. we get this communication. om lois lerner and richard pilger. now, mr. koskinen, did you give s this email, do you know? >> i don't know. >> i can tell you didn't. we got it from the justice department. after we got this from the justice department we contacted you all on june 9 and we said,

hey, how come we didn't get in email from you? there's no 6103 issue with this email. we were concerned. this email from 2010. we contact you, mr. koskinen in a letter and said, we're wondering why the i.r.s. hasn't sent us this email from four years ago. and then suddenly four days later, you tell the finance committee, the congress, more importantly, the american people, you know what, we lost lois lerner emails. we lost a bunch of lois lerner emails from that time period. my problem is, mr. koskinen, you guys weren't going to tell you. there was a foia request. we took that email. we interviewed mr. pilger. mr. pilger said he met with lois lerner in 2010. the justice complied with our

subpoena and gave us the email. we contact you, why didn't you give us? and you knew you were caught. you knew we didn't give it to you because we don't got it. now we got to tell the whole world that we lost it. what time better than june 13, saying you're complying with some senate concern, sent in a letter, put it on page 7 of the 1/3 addendum and say, you know what, we may have a problem with lois lerner emails, that's what i think. >> good. >> i think all kinds of people logically going through this, you know what that's what prompted these guys, four days after getting a letter, well, we better come clean. because -- plus, you've already told us you knew clear back in april that you lost them. so you wait two months and say, we better do it june 13, just four days after they figured out justice and the i.r.s. were working together in 2010 and

they got an email that indicates that and we can't produce it. >> when you find any direct evidence to support that assertion, i'd be happy to see it. if you think this organization in four days could produce that report, you don't understand how large organizations function. there is a whole series of people, that report was under production for a long time. >> i'm not saying it wasn't. i'm saying including the statement we lost lois lerner emails was put in that report. >> it was in that report and it was in that report -- >> and one thing i learned in these investigations, it's always important to look at the timeline. >> look at the timeline. >> look at the timeline. you knew in april. you didn't tell us until june 13. what events happened between april and june 1? one key event was the foia request from judicial watch, finding this collaboration between the i.r.s. and the justice department, us getting that email, because we subpoenaed the justice department. they give it to us. it's in a relevant time frame

between 2010 and 2012 when you lost lois lerner emails and say you got us. we got to come clean. >> the committee on the i.r.s. -- the entire hearing is available on the c-span video library. live now to the u.s. house. members taking up a bill allowing students to get federal aid for test projects that provide college degrees. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] for for the freedom to pursue your will for our lives and for the honor of service to the people and nations of the earth we give you thanks. we thank you that we live in a land of opportunity and we pray that