the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 193, the nays are 218.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 195 and the nays are 219. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227. the nays are 187. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

he house will be in order. would members clear the aisle, clear the well, take your conversations from the floor?

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. would members please remove their conversations from the ?loor, clear the aisles for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my colleagues, as co-chair of the dutch caucus here in the u.s. house of representatives, i rise today with a heavy heart to express our condolences at the tragic loss of life of nearly 300 on malaysian airlines flight 17. on that flight there was one

american and a number of others from australia, malaysia, a number of other countries but counted among those were 193 dutch nationals. huizenga:, just to put that in -- mr. huizenga: just to put that in perspective, it's like the united states lose 3,600. that's the impact it has had with our friends in the netherlands. this attack on innocent civilians can only be described, i believe, as an act of terror as it was flying over ukrainian airspace. we are rising today jointly in a bipartisan fashion to express our condolences to our friends in the netherlands and the netherlands was the first nation to ever recognize our nation, the united states of america, officially back during the revolutionary war and they ave been stall -- stalwart partners and stalwart friends

throughout the history of our country. with that i'd like to yield to my friend from maryland. vonvon i thank my friend and colleague and i'm honored to stand with him and all of us in solidarity with the people of the netherlands and the families and loved ones of all e victims of that act of terror. mr. van hollen: we look forward to working together to make sure that this situation is resolved as quickly as possible and the perpetrators are held accountable, and i know we all stand together on that as well and i'm grateful to my colleague for bringing this together for this purpose. mr. huizenga: today, we humbly ask our colleagues to join us in a moment of silence as we pay respect of all 298 passengers of mh-17 that had their lives tragically cut short. the speaker pro tempore: all members of the people's house and those in the gallery, please rise for a moment of silence.

without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to instruct on h.r. 3230 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. peters, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees or h.r. 3230 offered by mr. peters of california. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to instruct. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

ifment on this vote, the yeas are 205 and the nays are 207. the motion is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet until 10:00 tomorrow morning.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. clay: i ask unanimous nsent to remove my name as a co-sponsor from h.r. 4098. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. clay: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. would members please remove their conversations from the floor, clear the aisle and clear the well.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> i hereby give notice of my intention to instruct conferees, the conference report on veterans, access and accountability. mr. speaker, i move that the manager's on the part of the house at the conference on disagreeing votes of the two houses on the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3230 and the for other purposes, be instructed to, one, receive from disagreement with section 203 of the senate amendment relating to the use of unobligated amounts to hire

additional health care providers for the veterans health administration, and two, receive from the house amendment and concur in the senate amendment and all other instances. the speaker pro tempore: will ppear in the record. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion at the desk. the clerk: managers on the part of the house on the conference of the disagreeing votes on the two houses to the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3230, an act to improve the access to veterans to the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes be instructed to one, receive from disagreement with title 5 of the senate amendment

relating to health care related to sexual trauma and two receive from the house amendment and concur in the senate amendment in all other instances the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlelady from california, ms. brownley and the gentleman from colorado will each control 30 minutes. ms. brownley: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. brownley: i rise to express any strong support in the provisions that were included in h.r. 3230 and urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct conferees to accept these provisions. as you know, the statistics on military sexual assault are staggering. in 2012, a pentagon survey stimated that 26,000 women and

and men were sexually assaulted. however, the pentagon only received 3,374 formal allegations. clearly there remains a deep-seeded cultural problem in the military that discourages our servicemen and women from coming forward to report cases of sexual assault. nonetheless, if one counts those cases reported, more and more men and women are currently leaving the military with ptsd from sexual assault. this cannot continue. military sexual assault is the ultimate violation of the basic principles of trust, respect, honor and dignity that is the bedrock of the principles our military men and women expect and deserve. and they are principles our

country rightly demands. changing culture as anyone from the public or private sectors know, those of us dealing with issues at the veterans administration know all too well, changing culture is very difficult, but the culture of our military must change and we, my colleagues need to accelerate that change from the military chain of command to reforms of our military justice system. clearly preventing military sexual assault in the first place is critical but it is equally critical that we provide service members leaving the military who have suffered from sexual assault to make access to care at the v.a. easier and safer, to make sure survivors get the benefits and services they need and to ensure that the v.a. provides the very best

treatment possible. compassion and care are a critical part of healing for those who have been sexually assaulted. we need an environment where it is safe to speak up and where we would never find anyone's story unjustly dismissed or treated with indifference, which would only make the trauma and the wound even deeper. we have a bill before us. we have a bill that provides relief, not only for those who have endured sexual assault, but for so many of the issues facing our veterans at this very moment. i deeply appreciate the leadership from our chairman on the committee who has done a tremendous amount to help our veterans and he continues to do so, but the time to act is now. the crisis is clear. we have a path to address it.

we have veterans who deserve it and a congress willing to provide the resources needed. we have said time and time again in our hearings, we need big change and big ideas. we need real transformation. and most importantly, we need a v.a. whose sole purpose and mission is to serve our veterans with the same vigor and sacrifice that our veterans have served our country. our veterans must come first in everything we do. and there is a lot of work ahead of us that the v.a. needs to do and our committee must continue to do so. persistent and consistent oversight every step of the way on our part will leverage the leadership and the strategic plan from within the v.a. to ensure that we deliver timely and quality health care with a

compassion that our veterans and their families have earned and deserved. i have no doubt that the leadership of the chairman has been instrumental to our committee being able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to get us to this point, and it is imperative that we continue to work in a bipartisan fashion. our veterans are counting on us, our country is counting on us. as ranking member of the house veterans affairs subcommittee on health and someone who has respected all of the work of the committee on these issues, it is my belief that our veterans simply cannot and should not wait another day. we have a bill that the senate has passed that we know the house would pass. we are currently scheduled by the speaker to recess next thursday. if the speaker keeps to that timeline, we need to accept what is on the table, a bill that we

know can pass both houses, that we know the president will sign so that our veterans receive the care they deserve. and we must include the provisions to improve the a treatment for survivors of military sexual trauma. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct conferees. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamborn: the motion to instruct would require the house to recede to the senate amendments. on identical motions to instruct last week and again last night, the foremost goal of the house and senate conference committee are one, to improve timely access to high quality health care for veterans who have been

waiting for weeks, months and even years. and two, to improve the accountability and overall operations of the department of veterans affairs health care system. this was the central charge of the conferees and remains so today. i have no doubt that my colleague from california, the ranking member of the subcommittee on health, shares these goals. however, this motion does not further our pursuit of them. tonight, our attention is best spent on devoted to finding a true compromise, one that best serves our veterans and taxpayers and lays the foundation for correcting the departmental deficiencies that have brought us here, and not tying the conference committee's hands with an nun necessary, unhelpful, unbinding and time-consuming motion to construct. as the gentlelady knows because she was in the hearing with the acting v.a. secretary, this

morning chairman miller offered a proposal that would largely agree with nearly everything in the senate bill with a few minor exceptions. chairman miller's proposal would accept title 1 through title 7 of the original senate bill with amended language to include all 27 leases authorized by the house last december in h.r. 35 21, rather than the 26 that the senate provide, provide v.a. with $102 million for fiscal year 2014 to address the department's internal shortfalls, provide $10 billion of no year mandatory emergency funding to cover the cost of the senate's choice provisions with the remaining provisions subject to appropriations. so i'm supportive of chairman miller's proposal because it is a fair approach to ensure that congress can continue its oversight to ensure that taxpayer funds are spent wisely.

as we all know recently, senator sanders and co-chair of the conference committee, has indicated his desire to expand the scope of the conference to include v.a.'s recent request for an additional $17.6 billion. we call that an air drop. unfortunately, there is virtually no parachute in the form of detailed justification for this request and to a great extent, congress' acceptance of unsubstantiated funding requests in the past have helped us get to where we are today. this summer, the committee has held multiple full committee oversight hearings to discuss the access and accountability failures v.a. has been subjecting our veterans to. these hearings confirm that the problems require long-term and large-scale reform. adding more people, more money

has not proven itself to make effective use of the existing resources that it has been provided without first implementing reforms does not serve our veterans well and will not prevent them to confront long patient waiting times. it has been proven time and time again by the government accountability office, the administration and others that v.a. has been suffering from widespread data manipulation and a lack of integrity. given that what confidence do we have that the $17.6 billion resource request that v.a. is now making is based on data that is valid or reliable? particularly given that the committee has received very little analysis, justification or verification of these numbers. before congress can contemplate devoting such a significant

amount of taxpayer money, it is imperative that v.a. provide a full accounting of each additional dollar that is being requested. the resource request that the department has put forward so far has not been thought out and justifyable position that our nation and taxpayers deserve. it is an unsubstantiated guess put together in a back room of massive bureaucracy. i truly believe we could have come to an agreement if not senator sanders insisted on the moving the goalpost. the house has passed a dozen bills reforming the v.a. that have waited months for senate consideration. we could send them to the president to become law today. i would remind ms. brownley one such bill already 2527 would extend the trauma counseling

along with care and treatment programs for veterans for sexual trauma that occurred during active duty to veterans who experienced such trauma during inactive duty training. we are continually trying to work out a deal with the senate, but these motions to instruct are unproductive, slowing down the conference process and unfortunately have become nothing more than a political ploy toll distract from the true issues that are facing our veterans and the conference committee. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to instruct. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. brownley: mr. speaker, i just want to recognize my colleague from the committee, the gentleman from colorado, he has worked hard on this committee. i want to make clear that what we are talking about today is the bill that passed the senate

93-3. so we're not talking about an air drop or moving goalposts, but talking about the bill that passed out of the senate 93-3. at this time, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from nevada, who has been a leader on this issue and introduced the military sexual trauma claims administration reform and eligibility act. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. titus: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me and for addressing this important coverage of sexual assault for those in the national guard. i rise in support of the motion to instruct. this proposal addresses an unacceptable gap in current law that effectively leaves some victims of military sexual assault without the support and treatment they need. members of the national guard and other reserve components of

the armed services have fought bravely for our country. many completing multiple tours of duty in iraq and afghanistan. since the attacks on september 11, more than 50,000 guardsmen and guardswomen have been called to service, both at home and abroad. we recognize the value of their service, of the national guard, and of other reserve components and we thank them for their sacrifice. unfortunately, some guardsmen and guardswomen, like other members of the armed services are victimized by sexual assault while on active duty. if that happens, they are provided all the v.a. resources and services they need to recover and heal, physically and emotionally. these benefits, however, are not offered to members of the national guard or other reserve components who experience sexual assault while on inactive training missions. for example, members of the guard are required to participate in training missions

one weekend a month and two weeks a year. but benefits and services such as counseling and medical care do not extend to victims sexually assaulted during those mand tear -- mandatory training missions. this oversight is unacceptable and leaves so many who have served our country so bravely without assistance or support during a devastating time. on may 28, the house unanimously agreed to a solution to this problem by passing legislation i introduced last year, the bipartisan national guard military sexual trauma parity act. this legislation is supported by a number of the leading veterans' service organizations. the national guard military service -- i'm sorry, sexual trauma parity act would fix this omission and clarify that all victims of sexual trauma in the national guard or other reserve components have access to the care that they need to help them

recover from acts of sexual trauma while they're on inactive or reserve duty. the senate wisely included this language in the v.a. reform bill that passed their body 93-3. and it's important that this provision which has been passed by the house already, be included in the final version of the bill. i was pleased to hear it mentioned by our colleague from colorado, so i'm glad that there's support for keeping it in the conference report. i encourage my colleagues to support the brownlee motion to instruct, to ensure that all the victims of sexual assault, regardless of what kind of duty they're on, have access to the care they need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. >> i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. brownlee: ethank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield three minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from new hampshire a valued and insightful member of the house veterans' affairs

committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, representative brownlee. i rise to support the brownlee motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 3230. ms. kuster: it's been one of the most humble honors for me to serve on the veterans' affairs committee, one of the most bipartisan committees in this congress. this week, i had the honor to join my constituents, sergeant ryan pitts -- my constituent, sergeant ryan pitts has he was awarded the presidential medal of honor at the white house. my husbandened adjoined ryan and his wife amy and their son luke at the pentagon as he was inducted into the hall of fame. he honored his colleagues, the chosen few who lost their lives in afghanistan. and on his behalf and on their behalf, it's a tremendous

privilege for me to continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in service to our nation's veterans. mr. speaker, we were all shocked and outraged when our committee uncovered long wait times, secret wait lists and manipulated records at the veteran's administration. when our men and women in uniform returned home after fighting for our freedom, they should never, ever have to fight just to receive the medical care that they have earned and they deserve. that is why i was proud to work with republicans and democrats to pass common sense reforms to hold v.a. leaders accountable and increase access to care for our veterans. i also partnered with our colleague, representative ann kirkpatrick of arizona, to co-sponsor legislation that puts forward even stronger v.a. reforms. and which has already passed in

the senate. both chambers of commerce have -- of congress have passed bipartisan bills in response to the scandal at the v.a. and now it's time to finish the job and reconcile this legislation. we owe it to our veterans to stay right here in washington and to work together until we can send a final bill to the president's desk to improve care for all our veterans. and we must ensure that this final legislation contains strong protections for veterans -- veteran survivors of sexual trauma. mr. speaker, sadly, sexual assault in our military is a full-blown epidemic. according to the department of defense, an estimated 26,000 servicemens have suffered unwanted sexual contact in just 2012 alone.

this is an outrage. when a young woman or a young man signs up to serve our country, they know that they may face danger in combat. but it is unacceptable that so many of these brave americans are attacked every year by their own colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. brownlee: i yield a few more seconds. -- ms. brownlee: i yield her a few more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: would the gentlelady be specific about the time? s. brownley: 30 seconds. ms. kuster: when they are attacked by their colleagues and when they come forward, our military justice system often turns a blind eye. mr. speaker, i was proud to work across the aisle with our colleagues, jackie walorski,

loretta sanchez, and many others to pass strong whistleblower protections into law and help prevent retaliation against those who bravely report these crimes. we need to continue to work together and i implore our colleagues join us in voting yes on the motion to instruct and to guarantee that our veterans will be protected. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. >> i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. brownley: i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from massachusetts, who has been an extraordinary leader and champion and also the co-chair of the military sexual assault prevention caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you for allowing me to speak on this worthwhile bill.

as many as one in five women are sexually assaulted while serving in the military. receiving benefits from the v.a. remains a challenge. ms. tsongas: last year the action network, the aclu and the aclu of connecticut released a report showing that veterans who experience sexual assault have their benefits claims denied more than veterans with other types of ptsd. the report also found the rate of granting these claims varied greatly, depending on the particular v.a. regional office. the st. paul, minnesota, office granted only 26% of the military sexual trauma claims they received while the office in los angeles granted more than 8% of the claims they received. anyone who has seen the powerful documentary, "the invisible war" sing an westerned along with kory who survived a severe

sexual assault while serving and suffered severe injuries to her face and jaw during the attack. she waited for answers for years for an answer about jaw surgery she needed, but her claim was shockingly denied. in the senate provision of section 503 of the senate bill would make sure congress is better informed on how the v.a. is treating military sexual trauma. section 503 would also atres what the v.a. is doing for male victims of sexual assault. according to the defense department, by the numbers, men in the military are more often victims of sexual assault than women. yesterday, senator jill brand of -- gillibrandd of of new york screened a documentary about men who has been sexually ais alled and who

were isolated after reporting the attack. we must do a much better job of taking care of these men after these incidents. the senator bill allows taos start to do that. finally, section 501 expands eligibility for counseling services, so often important to people's healing. about two years ago, a woman veteran came to my office to talk to me about being sexually assaulted while she was in the military. she hadn't spoken to many people about what had happened to her before and it was difficult to do so. but she had just come from a summit where she had met a number of survivors just like her who had had similar experiences. this opportunity to meet people with similar stories and share their experiences strengthened her. she was similarly strengthened through counseling and group therapy. she's become more and more comfortable speaking about her story because of the treatment she has received. i've now seen her bravely telling her story to a rapt audience after a screening of "the invisible war."

i urge a yes vote on this very important motion that will help improve care for so many former service members. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. >> i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. brownley: how much time remains on our side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 14 minutes remaining. ms. brownley: i'd like to yield three minutes to the yom from my home state of california who has been instrumental in reforming the uniform code of military justice in her role on the house armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker and thank you to my colleague from california who i'm honored to serve with. ms. speier: and who i want to compliment on bringing recognition once again to this issue and a spotlight on the importance of providing this service to veterans when they are no longer in active duty. the reason why this particular section 503 is so critical is

because so few of these survivors ever come forward when they are on active duty to speak about their sexual assault. in fact, the military in many respects encourages that they don't come forward because often times the result is when you do come forward, you are labeled as having a personality disorder and then involuntarily, but honorably, discharged from the military. the stories that i've heard over the last three or four years are really very disturbing because it makes the case over and over again that the military does not really want to deal with this issue. so, 26,000 sexual assaults orsexual harassments that take place to member os they have military every year. 5,000, only 5,000 of them report

them. only 500 of them go to cart martial. only 250 see any kind of time in jail or prison. so there are many of these victims who, upon retiring, upon beingties charged from the military, are into drugs and alcohol, and all of a sudden find out that what is really driving their conditions is the fact that they were raped when they were in the military. i had the opportunity just last week to spend some time at the program in menlo park, california, with five survivors in an in-patient program. they were all extraordinarily they were grateful for the opportunity to participate in that program. they found it to be a life

samber. they were on the brink before being admitted into this particular program and feel they are getting their lives back. but one of the great eye-opening parts of that experience was that of the five women, four of them would be homeless upon leaving this in-treatment program, which went on for about 45 days. so on top of everything we are learning, it is important to recognize that survivors, particularly women survivors but true of men survivors as well, need to be in programs that are single sex, because they have so many shoes associated with it and we have to find housing for them after they leave. i support the motion and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from california. ms. brownley: i would like to three minutes to the the gentlewoman from texas, who has also been an extraordinary leader and advocate for justice for our survivors in the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me add my appreciation to ms. brownley for her help on this issue and members of the armed services committee who have really led this issue which i believe all of america understands. let me thank the speaker and mr. lamborn, who is a member of the veterans affairs committee and as we debate this motion to instruct, a personal plea to mr. lamborn, that this is truly a reasoned response to the heinous numbers of women and some men in the united states military who have experienced traumatic

sexual assault and trauma. this is a simple motion to instruct. it asks us to cede to the provision in the senate which allows for the care, health care, under the veterans health care system of those who have experienced sexual trauma. i'm a senior member of the house judiciary committee and we address these questions through the judiciary committee through issues of domestic violence and sexual assault and find ways to be able to respond to women who have been victimized. we took a long time to pass the violence against women's act but the whole idea was to protect women who were frightened to come forward and acknowledge the violence against women. can we do know less for the women in the united states military who put on the uniform and took an oath to swear to the allegiance to the united states

and extend their body on the front lines to be able to protect this nation? can we do not any less than to offer to them simple health care when they come forward on sexual trauma. just a few years ago, i provided ptsd center at one of our non -veteran hospital. it was welcomed and veterans who wanted to go to a place that was not as congested. i will tell you that ptsd is truly a health phenomenon and the distinctive sexual trauma that women have hidden and not spoken about should not be rejected when they come forward finally because we have opened the system to be able to secure health care. they should not be directed to a life of drug abuse and alcohol abuse because they are fearing.

they should be able to get health care. i ask my colleagues, 26,000 and growing and others who are also involved, this is an important motion to instruct. my heart breaks as she serves on the ranking member. my heart breaks that when you are abused, when your face or body is abused -- can i have 30 more seconds. ms. brownley: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: having just come back from my community with where two womens and families have been killed through domestic violence they live no more but what about the soldiers who are experienced in a life-long experience of injuries and psychological trauma? i ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct. what more can we do or how much less can we do for women and men

who put on the uniform who are suffering from sexual trauma. it must be part of the veterans affairs health reform. mr. lamborn: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. brownley: does the gentleman from colorado have any additional speakers? mr. lamborn: there are no plans to have additional speakers. ms. brownley: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady is recognized. ms. brownley: will the the gentleman from colorado yield back? mr. lamborn: i urge all members to oppose the motion to instruct, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california, with 7 1/2 minutes remaining. in closing -- ms. brownley: as ranking member of the health subcommittee, i led a hearing last july to

address v.a. care and treatment for military sexual trauma survivors. the subcommittee looked at the coordination of care and services offered by the department of defense and the v.a. i was truly saddened to listen to the testimony of those who spoke. their pain and suffering was evident in every word they spoke. i know it was hard for all of them to share their stories, and know all of us understand the imens bravery it took for them to do so. i know that all of us, including those who have come to speak today are dedicated to addressing military sexual assault. the senate bill takes an important step forward toward that end. it is but one very important reason that i call on my

colleagues to support this motion to instruct. let's insist that the department of defense and the v.a. address the epidemic of military sexual assault, which must include appropriate care and treatment of trauma survivors and let's adopt the language in the senate bill that addresses military sexual trauma. we have a bill before us that was crafted by members of congress whose dedication to our veterans is beyond question. but we are running out of time. we have a bill that we know that will pass both houses, that we know the president will sign, that we know will provide significant relief to our veterans immediately. we similarly cannot negotiate any longer. we should move forward and adopt the senate bill.

i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct conferees and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: woirks. the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct. the question is on the motion to instruct. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. ms. brownley: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, today in my district, we buried r. evelyn e. thornton, first african-american to graduate with the university of houston with a phd in math and leader in civic education. because of my responsibility speaking at this civic leader's funeral, i missed the following votes and i would ask unanimous consent to be able to have these following votes appropriately. i would have voted no on the motion ordering the previous question on h.r. 35 -- excuse me h.r. 3393. on roll call number 43, i would

have voted no. a rule providing for the consideration of h.r. 4935, child tax credit improvement act and on roll call vote 444, i would have voted yes on an amendment to h.r. 4984, empowering students to enhance counseling offered by mr. kilmer. on roll call vote number 445, i would have voted yes, motion to recommit, empowering students to enhance counseling and roll call vote number 446, i would have voted yes and final vote,. on roll call vote 447, i would have voted yes. on h.r. 5111 to improve the victims of, i would have voted yes. on the motion to recommit on 3933 student and family tax

simplification act and on roll call number 449, i would have voted no on h.r. 3393. and roll call number 450, i would have voted yes on 3230. i ask, mr. speaker, that these be appropriately placed in the record at this time. i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's statement will appear in the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, earlier today, the house observed a moment of silence to remember the loss of two heroes who gave

their lives. the death of detective john gibson and detective chestnut are heartbreaking. this house has not taken action to prevent actions from happening again. the man who took their lives had been previously committed to a hospital after threatening to kill the president. he cycled in and out of emergency rooms after he refused medication. he had a brain disease but our broken mental health disease and sad truth it won't belong before we read in the headlines of another preventable tragedy. the memories of these two deserve our respect, their families, our gratitude and all families deserve our action. we must pass h.r. 3717 to help families because where there is

no help, there is no hope. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, i am pleased to transmit to the congress pursuant to section 123-d of the atomic energy act, a text of the amendment of the agreement between the united states of america and united kingdom of great britain for cooperation on the uses of atomic energy july 3, 1958 as amended. i'm pleased to transmit my written approval authorization concerning the amendment. the joint classified letter submitted to me by the secretaries of defense and energy providing a summary position on the unclassified portions of the amendment is also enclosed. the joint classified letter and classified portions of the amendment are being transmitted

separately via appropriate channels. the amendment extends for 10 years until december 31, 2024, provisions of the 1958 agreement that permits the transfer between the united states and the united kingdom of classified information concerning atomic weapons, nuclear technology and controlled nuclear information, material and equipment for the development of defense plans, training of personnel, evaluation of potential enemy capability, delivery of enemy systems and design of military reactors. portions of the amendment have been made to ensure consistency with current united states and united kingdom policies and practice regarding nuclear threat reduction and personnel security. in my judgment, the amendment meets all statutory requirements. the united kingdom intends to continue to maintain viable nuclear forces into the foreseeable future. i have approved of the amendment

authorized its execution and urge that the congress give it favorable consideration. signed barack obama, the white house. . the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? o ordered. ms. jackson lee: i mentioned already on the floor of the house today but it is important to celebrate a life. today i was in houston on official business honoring the life of dr. evelyn e. thornton. in my remarks, i called her a great american. mother of two wonderful

daughters, one a wonderfully trained lawyer, yvonne denise, and a daughter that was, is, rather, an outstanding physician. honored by all. this woman, who lost an eye in her early 20's, went on to the the first african-american to receive a ph.d. from the university of houston a school african-americans could not go to for many, many years. she was a member of the links and alpha kappa alpha but what she was known for is 40 years of teacher -- of teaching a graduate of southern methodist university, married to her children, grandchildren, malik, and trey, and great grandchildren and daughters-in-law and son-in-law bill russell, leaders in the community. t what was most noted is the

simplistic style she had of humility. her willingness to serve the people. so i would say today in houston, we laid to rest a great american, dr. evelyn e. thornton, whose contributions should continue to be remembered. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mrs. capito of virginia for -- of west virginia for this afternoon and the balance of the week and mr. lewis of georgia for this afternoon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr.

pocan is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. pocan: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i am very proud to be here today on behalf of the progressive caucus work other members of the progressive caucus today. we have long fought for the middle class and those aspiring to be in the middle class and today specifically we want to address congressman paul ryan's plan to help alleviate poverty in this nation. needless to say, we were excited to find out a republican wanted to talk about poverty, given the votes we have had this session in this body. whether it be the draconian cuts in the house republican budget, the slashing of food stamps and assistance for the most needy in this country, to see a republican finally stand up and talk about poverty, we were excited and we want to have that

conversation this season. so what is in congressman paul ryan's plan to help alleviate poverty. let's see. i'm sure it must be something about raising the minimum wage to $10.10 in the next three years to help people who are making $15,000 a year out of poverty and i'm sure it addresses equal pay for equal work so american -- so men and women are paid the same for doing the same work, but it doesn't appear that's part of paul ryan's plan. i'm sure it addresses educational issues, helps people pay back loans at lower rates, makes sure we have expanded pell grants available so no one should be denied a higher education because they can't afford it. i'm sure that's part of -- no, that's not part of the ryan plan either. i'm sure there's an investment in early childhood education. because every person in this room must surely know that if we help invest at those earliest years, you can have a lifetime of experiences and opportunities

for someone to -- that's not in the plan either. surely it must address investment in infrastructure. we have crumbling roads and bridges. we have bridges and roads that are old enough, they're eligible for medicare in this country. surely putting people back to work at a time like this, investing in our infrastructure would make sense, but it's also not in the ryan plan. let me try one more thing, it's got to be here. we must provide incentives to create good-paying jobs here in america rather than overseas, clearly the 21st century make it in america act must -- not be in the plan either. all those things i just mentioned, raising the minimum wage, making sure we have equal pay for equal work, expanding opportunities, expanded pell grants and helping people refinance their student loans, helping people get access to early childhood education and

investing in our infrastructure and jobs here at home are all parts of the house democratic middle class jump start program. what we would do in our first 100 days, if we were to take over the majority after this fall, but surely there must be something we can talk about today in paul ryan's plan. there's got to be something equally bold and hopefully not just old. a bunch of old ideas, warmed over, brought back to us in versions of block grants, not really provide anything real assistance that the most needy in this country need. i'm joined by a number of my colleagues today who are going to address exactly what is in paul ryan's plan and perhaps how we can offer a different perspective and help the most needy in our country. i would like to start out with one of my colleagues, very esteemed and respected colleague from illinois, representative danny davis. i'd like to yield some time to representative davis.

mr. davis: thank you very much. i'm pleased to be here to join you, mr. pocan, and other members of the progressive ucus, as we talk about the realty of what you do to reduce poverty. i read some of what we're talking about and i really couldn't believe that that had anything to do with the reduction or any effort to seriously reduce poverty. we made some progress in the last 50 years. but you know, it's unacceptable that 49.7 million people, including 13 million children, were poor in 2012. in my congressional district alone, 41% of children are 6 -- or 67,000 children live in poverty. it also is shameful that racial

disparities remain in the experience of poverty, with child poverty for african-americans being 29.2% in 2012 compared to 9% for their white peers. so i welcome working with anybody that would like to reduce poverty. as a matter of fact since i've been here, i've championed two of this of the chief proposals mentioned by the ryan plan. expanding the earned income tax credit to childless and noncustodial parents, as well as reducing incarceration among low-risk and nonviolent offenders. the earned income tax credit is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs that we have. a brookings institution report highlights that the high rate of

incarceration in our country exacts considerable cost from american taxpayers, especially from state government and families. however, i am extremely concerned about the proposed way f paying for these programs. rather than asking large corporations to pay their fair share of taxes by closing international tax loopholes that allow large multinational companies to evade billions of ollars in taxes, the ryan plan would eliminate or eviscerate many important programs like social services block grant and the economic development administration. so i don't know what mr. ryan has really talked about. seems to me he's talking the same talk we've heard so often.

cut -- >> if the gentleman would yield for a question. mr. davis: yes. >> you are a member of the ways and means committee, perhaps we could seek some clarification on the earned income tax credit expansion which you say you have championed and it's a very effective anti-poverty program, one of the elements in the ryan anti-poverty program that you say is a good feature, but you object to the pay-for for the expansion of the earned income tax credit. ms. moore: in order to expand it to folks up to age 64, as he proposed which is a great idea, he says a lot of poor people don't want to work, but this would enable low income people to have that tax -- that subsidy, through the tax code as we benefit many corporations that same way. i was wondering, just recently,

your committee, the ways and means committee, just extended what, about 618 -- about $618 and n of corporate taxes i'm wondering what the pay-for for these corporate extenders were. mr. davis: you know they didn't deal with pay-fors. as a matter of fact, one of the reasons that some of us, many of us, objected to the piecemeal way in which the republicans are looking at what we call tax reform, we have been trying to move toward comprehensive tax reform, where you look at all of the taxation that we're doing and yes, there would be what is called some losers and some winners. but you wouldn't cherry pick and

just give corporate giveaways and not do things like make sure that you got the new market tax credits in, which are designed to help redevelop, restore and reconstitute communities that are hurting, that are seriously underfunded. don't have things, many communities in my district, which were actually burned out by the riots after the death of dr. martin luther king, they're still burned out. ms. moore: mr. davis, that was very confusing to me and i will take my seat but i wanted clarification on that. the earned income tax credit, which is a benefit provided to ordinary americans through the tax code, we are required to eviscerate programs like meals on wheels for elders, through

the social services block grant, to get rid of maybe some of the low income heating programs that heat homes and places -- in places like chicago that are cold, in order to pay for an expansion of the earned income ax credit but the $618 billion in tax cuts which were deseened to be just temporary, and you guyed -- guys made permanent the other day, the only way -- i guess -- not giving unemployment compensation to people. mr. davis: let's say the majority on the committee made it permanent because we voted, that is, those of us who are democrats, we all voted against it and that's why i think it's so important that we are here this evening. i just simply want to again commend mr. pocan for taking the leadership to bring us together and give us the opportunity to

discuss these issues and i just say, right on, my brother. i'm glad to be here with you. mr. pocan: thank you, representative davis, so much for all your advocacy of those who are struggling to be in the middle class and making sure we can try to reduce poverty. representative davis is right, there are a couple of nuggets in the ryan proposal that make sense. ic there could be borne support for criminal sentencing reform and we should be and it's long past due and it's good to see that prosed -- proposed in the plan. as representative moore from milwaukee so eloquently put forth, expanding tax credits for childless workers is something through the earned income tax credit we would support except for perhaps the ryan proposal doesn't fund it in a way that makes sense. there are a few nuggets in there but there's an awful lot that doesn't do much about reducing poverty and in fact probably increases poverty in the near term. i would like to yield to another

colleague of mine, someone who has been this body's most outspoken person talking about poverty, she's leading a task force for the democratic caucus, addressing poverty. i would like to yield to my great colleague from the state of california, representative barbara lee. ms. lee: thank you for organizing this special order and having these special orders to raise the level of awareness with regards to these important issues facing millions of americans in our country. we know that you're here every week, sometimes by yourself, but i have to thank you for your tremendous leadership and helping the progressive caucus continue to beat the drum on behalf of the american people. we all know today that the republican budget committee chair, paul ryan, rolled out his expanding opportunities for all

plans for addressing poverty in america, that's what it is called. i am happy to see there are some areas we can work on together in this plan, that includes fixing our broken criminal justice system and supporting the earned income tax credit, as his plan calls for robbing peter to pay paul. the conversation on poverty is finally catching up and catching on with my republican colleagues at the national level. we have been working, our task force, all of us on the floor tonight, we have been working for a long time to get this urgent issue the attention it really requires here in the house of representatives. with that said, we know that most of mr. ryan's recommendations are rhetoric more than reality. my question of looking at his list of proposals, where are the jobs plan? we know the pathway out of

poverty is a good-paying job with benefits. add to that his proposal has the same really -- i call it the old-time block grant proposals that we have seen once again i guess four years in the ryan budget. in fact, if you recall though, the ryan republican budget takes more than 2/3 of the cuts from programs that serve low-income and vulnerable americans. when he talks about consolidating programs into block grants, he is forgetting that his budget cuts $300 billion over the next 10 years. i can't figure out why the rhetoric and the plan, you know, lays this out, but yet his budget takes the same plan and cuts $300 billion. it does nothing to create jobs or create a living wage or extend unemployment insurance to

the long-term unemployed. people need to understand that this plan is not about substance but about republicans trying to ut a compassion nature face on their dra copian po policies. some of us raised committee questions about this proposal and i would like to lay out some of these questions when we are evaluating his plan. the house ways and means committee under the leadership of sandy levin laid out some of these questions. does compassion and conservativism mean you are cutting spending? will this plan include proposals that have been shown to both reward work and reduce poverty such as increasing the minimum wage and extending benefits to the long-term unemployed who are looking for work?

will his report flexible assistance to states to help struggling americans or will he push states to cut assistance. will it be a balanced approach to address the deficits? i have to say to those who are listening tonight, in this block grant proposal and many of his proposals, there are work requirements that require if you are going to be eligible for any of the services or the programs you have to have a job. well, they cut work force training. they have not created any jobs. and so they have a work requirement as eligibility for programs that help provide this bridge over troubled waters, it just doesn't make any sense. it's wrong. unless you got a full-employment economy, and if the recession has really ensured that everyone has a good-paying job, then the

work requirement to be eligible for benefits to help get you out of poverty is counterproductive and doesn't make any sense. this is something we have to continue to work with in terms of mr. ryan. we need this conversation. it needs to be bipartisan. because i'm telling you, this eek, some of us are taking the live the wage challenge. we are living on $77 a week, which is what a minimum-wage employee in this country has to live on after taxes and housing expenses. we are raising awareness of struggles of our constituents. we will be off of this $77 a day budget a week but many of our constituents won't. i wish this plan would have a pathway where millions of our constituents would be able to live off of a good-paying job

with benefits. this congress should focus on supporting and expanding programs that are working to lift people out of poverty, programs that have worked for the last 50 years since the war on poverty began such as head start. i tell you, we've got a long way to go. we shouldn't be cutting these programs. they have helped people move into the middle class. we know that. we should not play politics with poverty. i hope the republicans really get real about reducing poverty rather than trying to fool the public with this new brand and new brand of conservative compassion. this rhetoric has nothing to do with the reality of the ryan budget. that's where the rubber meets the road. thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk about this. mr. pocan: thank you. we all serve on the budget committee and we have had a lot of time to see the paul ryan

republican budget. and when you talk about the snap program, i remember in this body, we had a debate whether we were going to cut $20 billion or $39 billion from the supplemental knew trishon assistance program. and when the republican budget was voted on, the cuts to the snap program were $135 billion. so either there has been rebirth or w we look at poverty there is a different packaging of some of the same bad ideas and i appreciate you bringing those out. ms. moore: i wanted to know if you would yield to a question. you mentioned in your remarks that on the budget committee, on the budget that this house passed, there was $300 billion in cuts? $300 billion in cuts.

ms. lee: by consolidating the 11 programs that he wants to block grant to the states. ms. moore: what he says is budget-neutral which means it won't cost taxpayers anymore. he is budget-neutral and won't cost taxpayers any more but it will also not cut programs. so it is a really clever sort of budgeting trick on one hand, don't you think? you are not going to cut it from where you've already cut it? ms. lee: it's more than clever. it's very -- i think it's wrong to mislead the public as it relates to the numbers. it's cooking the books and robbing peter to pay paul and may be budget neutral but the cuts will take place in order to get to a budget-neutral plan and that's the problem i have with this.

by consolidating all of these programs and block-granting these programs who are going to feel the cuts of the block granting? it's going to be the most vulnerable. we see this on the budget committee. mr. pocan: if you would yield to one more question, since we are talking about the bad math, didn't we also during the budget see some incredibly bad math when it came to the budget repealing the benefits of the affordable care act and trying to keep the revenue in savings. wasn't that something like $2 trillion worth of bad math and now we are supposed to accept this $300 million allegedly no cuts to the program? ms. lee: they wanted to take those savings which they have opposed the affordable care act and tried to repeal it some 50-some times but captured the savings that the affordable care act is clear having made and

captured to have based their budget on those captured savings. that is fuzzy math and a way to deceive the public and promote their policies in making sure those who have access to affordable health care don't have it and those who will need it will be prevented it. mr. pocan: i want to ask you one -- ms. moore: i want to ask you one more question about this fuzzy math. the snap program is an entitlement program, so what it means is if you are eligible for food stamps, you receive them. food stamps were critical in getting people over the hump in the recession. people sometimes reported that their only income was the food stamps. so if you block grant snap, what that means is that -- correct me

if i'm wrong -- no matter how bad the economy becomes because we have a countercyclical economy if we get the recession or depression, no matter how many people are eligible for food stamps, once you get your block grant, certain amount of money, once that money runs out, then you'll find yourself on a waiting list or not being served, is that how you understand a block grant? ms. lee: i'm glad you raised that. the states, first of all, there will be some requirements of the state, but not many unless the states run out of money, it's too bad. food stamp recipients may or may not receive the assistance. it's not a fair system. we would see more people being

cut from snap rolls and we would also see more people needing food stamps because of the safety net being eroded even further. it's a catch 23. block granting all of this to the states would harm the most vulnerable. mr. pocan: appreciate it, ms. lee and your final comments of how hard it is to eat a block grant is part of the problem why we don't quite trust that we see it will work as presented. i would like yield to some time from the state of california. ne of my fresh man colleagues, mark takano. mr. takano: earlier today, your colleague from wisconsin released his long-awaited anti-poverty plan. this is a bold step for mr. ryan because if you look at the history of the republican party there is a clear and undeniable

pattern of implementing policies that help the top 2% that do nothing for those struggling to make ends meet. of course, they have proposed various quote, unquote, reforms over the years but those initiatives were never anything ther than safety-net cuts or ineffective recycled ideas disguised as reform. i'm thinking of a childhood jing will. jack in the beanstalk, fe, fi fo, fum and that is the case here. he calls this plan an opportunity grant as it would consolidate safety net programs such as food stamps and housing vouchers until a single grant to states. if that sounds familiar, that's

because an opportunity grant is nothing more than block grants under a new name and block grants have been shown to have limited impact in helping to lift people out of poverty. if mr. ryan really wants to lift people out of poverty, he would support a raise in the minimum wage. raising the minimum wage will increase the take-home pay for 28 million workers through 2016 and create 85,000 new jobs as a result of increased economic opportunity. . at the very least, i know my colleague, representative barbara lee from california is, as i am, undertaking the challenge to live on a minimum wage by living off $77. the average amount of money left over for full-time minimum wage

earnings after taxes and housing expenses. i would challenge mr. ryan to step inside the shoes of someone living on that minimum wage. although know i could never fully understand what it is like this challenge will give me a small glimpse into the lives of many people in my district. so i'd like to invite mr. ryan to participate in the challenge so he can, for a brief moment, understand what it is like for people in poverty to live on such a wage. perhaps then mr. ryan will understand that the same old recycled ideas will not help those who really are in need. thank you and i yield back. mr. pocan: thank you, representative takano, for the work you're doing. next i'd like to yield to a colleague of mine from the great state of wisconsin, a great friend of mine going back to days in the state legislature, not only a great representative but a great friend to me,

representative moore. ms. moore: i want to start by thanking you for your stewardship with the progressive caucus in putting this specialed or together. i won't waste a lot of time complimenting our fellow wisconsinite for at least listening to some of the ideas that have come from the democratic side in his poverty plan. i think that looking at mandatory minimums is long overdue sort of proposal that needs to get some traction. and certainly expanding the earned income tax credit for millions of americans will make a true different in many people's lives. i just want to congratulate mr. ryan for that. but let me be really clear. you don't have to really go through the entire 70 pages of his proposal.

he starts right out in the beginning telling you he doesn't believe that the safety net program that the efforts to help people get out of poverty for all these years have been very helpful he starts off by calling them a failure. well, no -- we all know that many of the programs created under f.d.r. and president lyndon baines johnson literally ended poverty among the elderly, for example. d we have seen poverty get compared to what it would have been cut by at least -- at least by half because of medicaid. because of medicare. because of food stamps. because of other sorts of programs. and yet, i guess mr. ryan believes if he just keeps saying it enough times it will come true. we have heard mr. ryan lecture

all of us, all over the country, about how the so-called entitlement programs are going to down our economy. $618esn't believe that the billion worth of corporate tax breaks that he passed last week is a detriment to our economy but he has called for on a consistent basis for privatizing social security. for block granting medicaid. not as this particular plan. in case people don't understand what block granting is, think chopping block. you give the states some certain amount of money and when they run out, they just run out. you're no longer categorically eligible. he's proposed voucherizing medicare. giving seniors some certain amount of money, do very well if all you need is a flu shot but

if you have a heart i tack or stroke, that's not going to go very far toward your health care. he has consistently, and now in this particular proposal, block granting, one they have great entitlement programs, the snap program, which worked beautifully in the last recession, we now see the food stamp rolls going down as the economy improves and when the economy is bad, the food stamp rolls go up. that did not happen with the temporary assistance for needy families act. it was not responsive to our countercyclical economy. what that reel really mean cents that these block granted programs, frozen with, starting out with $300 billion cut, eventually we will see that they will become totally inadequate toward ameliorating poverty.

we'll see the poverty rolls creep up. and it will be particularly egregious on women and children. women and children who -- women are disproportionately adversely impacted and benefit from these safety net programs. food stamps. women disproportionately need food stamps. disproportionately use these programs. and the pay-fors. it is just egregious to say we will provide the earned income tax credit and we will start by cutting programs like wheels on meals for the elderly and the od and nutrition program for children. go right for the food. right at the bottom of the food

-- of the hierarchy of needs. the right -- go right straight there and take food literally out of poor people's mouths in order to pay for the earned income tax credit expansion. i wish we had sort of done that last week when we passed the $618 billion of corporate welfare without a pay-for at all. so i just say that this is yet another chapter in a book we've seen before. this is just another incarnation of an idea that there's some moral hazard to helping poor people, that you've got to restrict and limit how much you do for them. and that most of the money that is generated through our economy ought to be plowed back into helping corporations and not people. so i would yield back to you,

mr. chairman. mr. pocan: thank you, representative moore. you have been an advocate your entire life for those who are most needy, those who aspire to be in the middle class and once again thank you for all that you do. and so articulately explaining all the problems with this propozzal. i would like to yield to another colleague of mine from the great state of connecticut, the chair of our very important policy and steering committee and a good friend and colleague of mine in the progressive caucus, i'd like to yield time to rosa delauro. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman, i can't thank you enough for the great work you're doing and being such a great leader on issues that focus on what this institution has by way of offering opportunities for people. that's its mission. we know that. and i thank you for coming to the congress for the right reasons. and for helping to try to make a difference in people's lives. you know, a rose is a rose is a

rose. once again, chairman ryan has come forward with what he and he republican majority purport to be a serious plan for addressing poverty in america. once again, the center priest of his plan is the same old bad idea. chairman ryan wants to dismantle all of the major federal and -- federal anti-poverty programs that have long been proven to work for families in need. he wants to convert them into a block grant for the state. he now calls them opportunity grants. that's a message. it sounds good. they are block grants. pure and simple. they put decisions in the hands of the state, they cut the funding, and they take all of the safeguards out and they fray the social safety net. it's what it's about. they have been consistent about this year after year after year.

i'll just tell you about the food stamp program, congressman pocan, you were not here 17 years ago. i was. when the then-speaker of the house, newt gingrich, said, we need to block grant the snap program. medicaid. and a variety of other programs. it is the same failed policy over and over and over again. let me talk about food stamps for a second. food stamps help lift five million americans above the poverty line in 2012. 2.2 million of them children. every single dollar invested in food stamps generates $1.79 in local economic activity. what would chairman ryan do? he would end food stamps. our nation's most important anti-hunger initiative. in favor of a block grant. just like he would end the low

income energy assistance program, liheap, child care fund, weatheration assistance, public housing, temporary assistance for needy fam hes, community development grants, and dislocated workers. you know, if you read his almost t is -- it's diabolical. in the sense that the language that's used, in its language, and it's a message and it does nothing to provide opportunity or to help the poor in this country. to pay for his -- well, let's talk about -- you know, look. there's some good parts of his anti-poverty plan.

expanding the eitc for childless workers. but even that issue is infected with bad ideas. to pay for this eit expansion, already introduced by the democratic party, mr. ryan would end programs like the social services block grant which helps roughly 23 million americans. half of them children. with child care assistance, child abuse prevention and community based care for seniors and disabled persons. he also wants to end the fresh fruit and vegetable program. which -- it's madness. which reaches over 115,000 students in 14 states with healthy food and then he will decry people who are on food stamps and say they are selecting the wrong foods for their families. when he will just cut the fresh fruits and vegetable program. what have we come to here? what is this harshness that's

come over our public policy. that's mean-spiritedness that's come over our public policy. for over a year now, chairman ryan has tried to pretend that he wants to put forth serious proposals to alleviate poverty in america. but the proof is in the pudding, look at his most recently proposed budget. 2/3 of the cuts in that budget fall on low and middle income families. it turns -- tried to turn medicare into an underfunded voucher program, shreds our social safety net, block grants food stamps and medicaid, slashes the w.i.c. program, that's women, infnt -- infants and children, by $95 million. it cuts spending that we do every year on health issues, on worker training, on education, he tries to cut that programming by $791 billion over the next 10 years. it slashes the child care assistance program, job training program, pell grants and medical

research. i'm a cancer survivor. i'm alive buzz of the grace of god and buy wrote medical research. why shouldn't other people have the advantage of biomedical research? why would he want to cut that? and he does it all while cutting taxes for the wealthiest. i'm glad to see that chairman ryan spleast recognizes that he and his party -- ryan at least recognizes that he and his party need to be doing more to deal with poverty in our nation. i hope we can work on more like the e.i.c. expansion. and if they want to get serious about helping families in need they can start tomorrow, mr. pocan. they need to make sure that their republican child tax to t bill, so generous, those who can afford it, that they need to make sure that that helps low income kids as well.

that child tax credit program tomorrow will cut the child tax credit for 450,000 veterans. hat are our veterans doing? they are serving, they are sacrificing themselves and their families and he wants to cut their child tax credit. that's what's in there. nd then he talks about the deserving poor and the underdeserving poor and let me about irman ryan, what low income kids? what about them? what about the infants and toddlers? ll us, mr. chairman, who are the deserving infants and

toddlers? and who are the undeserving infants and toddlers? we need an answer to our question. our colleagues could join us in raising the minimum wage, something that's long overdue. until then, actions speak louder than words. the bulk of this plan -- of this new plan, i'm afraid, is the same old snake oil. the same tired, discredited, ideological attack on the social safety net that chairman ryan and this majority have been putting forward time and again, since coming to power in 2010. it will not wash. it's harsh, it's cruel and it's mean-spirited. that is not why we came to this

institution, mr. pocan, it's not why you came. it's not why i came. it was the hope and the dream and the opportunity to provide opportunity for the people of this nation, to make this institution do what our founding fatherses thought it should do -- fathers should -- fathers thought it should do and to give people the chance. this expanding opportunity in america will take away people's opportunity. and the american public knows it. thank you for what you are doing and it's an honor to work with you and ms. moore and congressman ryan and our other colleagues who stood on this floor tonight to describe this sham of a document. thank you. mr. pocan: again, thank you so much, representative delauro, for your many years of service to this body and to the people of the country in fighting for

those who need help the most. i'd now like to yield time to another colleague of mine, i'm not going to say representative ryan, because that might be confusing given the conversation we have, but maybe let's say the budget's other representative ryan, the democratic representative ryan, from the great state of ohio. i'd like to yield some time to another budget committee member, representative tim ryan. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. my office does get a lot of phone calls against this budget but they're not realizing that i'm supporting them against the paul ryan budget and i think these reforms -- and i was able to come a little bit earlier and listen to some of my colleagues talk about what's in this document that is supposed to be a new idea, a new way, a new approach. and while i commend chairman ryan for trying to come up with some new ideas, i'm all about innovation, i'm all about a new approach, but i think ms. delauro hit the nail on the head when she was talking about the fruits and vegetables and the healthy food.

if we're going to move forward as a country, if we want to make sure we take care of the issue of half the country in the next 10 years is going to either have diabetes or prediabetes and it's going to drive up medicaid costs, it's going to drive up medicare costs, it's going to drive up private insurance, one of the issues is how do we get more money into programs that are going to make sure young kids have access to fresh fruit? period. we don't need to get really complicated. we don't need to come up with any new grand scheme, we've got it, it's already in there. and chairman ryan's taking it out. deinvesting in the very things that are going to drive down health care costs, make kids better able to learn and focus and concentrate on the classroom, so they're not having a fruit rollup and thinking it's fruit. they're having fruit and vegetables and access to food over the weekends and all of these things and i find it extremely interesting that a

majority of the cuts that mr. ryan proposed to reduce poverty , and in his budget, 2/3 of the savings in the f.y. 2015 republican budget came from programs that is served these populations. including moving millions out of the snap program. so, a new approach is great, innovation is fantastic, but we know what we need to do and it starts with diet, it starts with wellness, it starts with some of these other things that are going to allow that person to maybe -- who may be living in poverty to be as strong and capable, as healthy as they possibly can so that they can work themselves out of poverty. nobody here is defending the status quo. great people are accessing pick -- great, people are accessing public funds or public programs. we want to get people on the ladder out of poverty. that's what america should be all about. but we're failing miserably and

this program and the cuts that chairman ryan's talking about are going to make it worse. i think we rank 10th or 11th in people coming from poverty, lower socioeconomic status, and finally making -- socio-economic status, and finally making their way to the other class, we rank down from the other country, the nordic countries and the rest. i want to talk for a couple minutes and thank the gentleman for doing this. i think this is an amazing opportunity for us to provide some contrast to what chairman ryan has proposed. but let me say, i think one of the most direct benefits for the war on poverty is an increase in the minimum wage. and today ironically enough is the five-year anniversary since the minimum wage has been increased. some states are higher than the $7.25 federal minimum wage.

$7.95, and ohio, indexed for inflation. which is better. but not anywhere near where we need to be. and i wanted to come and talk for a couple minutes about what we need to do to -- and what the benefits would be. and i know we normally hear from somebody who's going to say, this is going to cost jobs, this is going to slow down economic growth and all the rest. and i will share with them a study that just came out from abor that said that the 13 states that increased the minimum wage this year had some increase, whether indexed for inflation or through legislation, saw ancrease in the minimum wage -- an increase in the minimum wage, had more rapid job growth than all of the other states. and for those people who don't understand how that could be, because we hear so much rhetoric, this is going to cost

jobs, this is going to cost jobs. if the average family has more money in their pocket to go out and buy things, that is good for the economy. and imagine if the wal-marts and the sam's clubs and all the rest had a higher minimum wage, if those folks were making an extra couple bucks an hour. and it doesn't have to happen tomorrow. we can do it and stage it over the course of the next few years. to make sure it doesn't have a dramatic impact on business. but of all -- if all of those folks made an extra $16 or $20 a day, an extra $100 a week, an extra $200 every two weeks for , pay, an extra $400 a month that's a lot of money. that's enough to go out and get a chevy cruise and pay the insurance on the rest on that. and what's that do for the economy, if the million and a half people in the country, the

62,000 people in my congressional district who make the minimum wage go out and have a little bit of extra money? that's how you're going to move the economy. maybe we can get rid of some of these programs because that family will have access to the food because they'll have a little bit more money in their pocket. so they'll be able to afford the fruits and vegetables and the kind of food they need to stay healthy, prevent disease, be able to concentrate and focus in the classroom. i just want to make one last point. people will say, actually two last points, first, zero increase in the minimum wage. if you're in the private sector, you've seen a 10% increase in earnings. just 10%. over the past four or five years, since 2009. if you want to go out and get apples, 16% increase. bacon has gone up 67%. cheddar cheese, 20%.

milk, 20%. eggs, 30%. gas, 44.5% increase in gas since 2009. now, if you're making minimum wage and all these costs are going up for eggs and milk and gas and bacon, the kind of things that are -- coffee, coffee went up 27%. basic staples to the american diet, how are you going to keep up? how are you going to say, oh, i want to send my kid to a basketball camp in the summer? or maybe an after-school program? or i need a baby sitter or i need to catch a cab? you don't have any extra money. you just don't. i think it is essential for us, if we're going to close the income inequality gap between the wealthiest in our country and the poorest in our country, if we're going to close that, if we want people to work hard and play by the rules and then benefit, this is something that's very simple. and we get a lot of rhetoric, we heard it in the last

presidential election, 47% of the country's takers. they want to be on the doll, they don't want to work. then we have some that's going to increase benefits to people who are working, doing the jobs that many americans don't want to do, cleaning the hotel rooms, working at the gas station, wear and tear on their bodies over the years, long hours, swing shifts, the whole lot. because this increase will not just benefit middle class -- minimum wage workers, it's going to go up and benefit everyone. last point, i promise. we need minimum wage workers who are out there to be organized. we didn't always have a 40-hour workweek. we didn't always get time and a half over 40 hours. we didn't always have a five-day workweek. we didn't have a national labor relations act. we didn't have social security. we didn't have medicare. these were things that came about because average people

got organized and they said, enough's enough. we're not going to have our senior citizens work until they die, we're not going to have our senior citizens not have health care, we're not going to have people working in unsafe factories. and you're going to work 40 hours a week. and from our side, we expect people to go out and work. and work your butt off to get ahead. our job is to stay organized, to make sure that the policies are in place that are both good for the economy and good for families in the united states. and i thank the gentleman for the opportunity to come here and share just briefly. i look forward to working with you. hopefully we can get a vote on the house floor sometime soon. i don't think we will, i'm not really optimistic about it. but i hope that we can organize over the next few months and years to make this a reality for all of those families in the united states. i yield back. mr. pocan: thank you, representative ryan. the other representative ryan. for all you've done and your

relentless fight on behalf of the workers in your district and thank you so much again for being here today. finally, i'd like to yield to a colleague of mine, another freshman colleague of mine, from the great state of new york, representative jeffries, i'd like to yield some time to you. mr. jeffries: i thank my good friend and distinguished gentleman from the badger state for yielding some time, as well as for the tremendous leadership that you continue to exhibit week after week in leading the congressional progressive caucus' special order hour. championing issues important to working families and the poor and the sick and the afflicted. those who need our government to be more compassionate and giving them the assistance that they need in order to pursue the american dream. i appreciate that advocacy and i appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly on the plan presented by chairman paul

ryan. expanding opportunity in america. i'd like to believe that that is the objective. and i certainly am of the view that the chairman is acting in good faith as it relates to his willingness to try and tackle the issue of poverty in america. but if you put it all in the context of the ryan budget that has come to the floor of the house of representatives, year after year after year, since the republicans claimed the majority and passed with overwhelming support from their caucus, the question is, is their real interest in expanding opportunity in america or is the fundamental objective really to expand inequality in america? what paul ryan are we talking to, in attempting to have this conversation? is it the chairman ryan whose budget cut $125 billion in supplemental nutrition assistance, in a country where

50 million people are food-insecure, 18 million of those individuals children? we can't have a real conversation about opportunity if that is still the position of chairman ryan, his budget committee, and the majority. are we having a conversation with the chairman whose budget cut $260 million in higher education funding? threatening to rob young americans from their pursuit of their dream of reaching a -- obtaining a college education and being all that they can be in america? we can't have a real conversation about opportunity with individuals who want to cut $260 billion in higher education spending.

i want to believe we can proceed in good faith and try and tackle this issue but are we entering into a discussion with the same group of individuals, the chairman whose budget cut $732 billion in medicaid? a program designed to benefit in significant numbers poor, elderly, and disabled individuals? that's not expanding opportunity in america. that's expanding inequality in america. certainly there are some proposals contained in the document that was unveiled today that we can embrace and have a meaningful discussion about and try to arrive at common ground, sentencing reform, as well as the notion of expanding the earned income tax credit. but there's no minimum wage.

-- minimum wage enhancement. no infrastructure investment. there's no unemployment compensation insurance renewal. there's no equal pay for equal work. there's no real effort to deal with the issues that we're prepared to work on to solve the problem of poverty for millions of americans and for that reason, i'm skeptical that this is a step in the right direction and i yield back to my good friend from wisconsin. mr. pocan: thank you, representative jeff reese. i, too, am skeptical, having served on the budget committee with you. we've seen two different paul ryans. we're also hopeful that this is a reformed paul ryan but we're afraid it's just a repackaged paul rein. finally, i'd like to yield to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: i can't thank you enough for the passion you

shown here and in the united states congress really speaks to what americans send their representatives to the congress for. to be problem solvers. i'm going to use the word pray. i pray that there's a reformed chairman ryan, congressman ryan, because i've come from my district, you go to your district, and we see the pain. i see the pain of those who have not been able to secure unemployment insurance extension. i have -- i live with the value of the earned income tax credit. i'll spend a little time on that. my sonmark years ago, as a young man, volunteered with the hope project, went to new orleans right after hurricane katrina, and was able to work with the victims, the survivors, they'd like to be called, and they were, of hurricane katrina in applying for their earned income tax credit. it was a lifeline for people who had worked. and so i want to end on this

note by thanking you for saying that there are people waiting for the congress to act, pass earned income tax credit, pass the middle class package of the democrats and work on behalf of the american people. i yield back to you. mr. pocan: thank you, ms. jackson lee, thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. blackburn: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i appreciate the time and appreciate being here on behalf of my colleagues and to have a discussion with -- that is going to focus on what we are doing with our time. you know, mr. speaker, it seems like it never fails, when we are out and about in our districts talking with our constituents, people will approach us and they want to talk about how concerned

they are about the cost of living and what they see happening to the price at the pump, to the price at the grocery store. they want to talk about how concerned they are with how much more education seems to cost them. they're concerned about our national security. they're concerned about the border security. they're concerned about their retirement security. the list goes on and on and on. and they'll look at us, mr. speaker, without fail, they'll say, tell me exactly what you are doing about this. i want to know what you are doing to address this problem or that problem or any of the issues that all of us hardworking families are out there facing every single day. every day. and what they're looking for is solution.

and what we've realized is that many times, they don't know exactly how hard we are working here in the house and that the obstruction that is happening is not necessarily here in the house, what is happening is across the dome, over on the senate side. now i've got in front of me, right at 300 of the 332 bills that have passed this house. 300 of the 332 bills that have passed this house. now, sometimes people will say, where are those bills sitting? why haven't they gone to the president's desk? well, i always like to tell them, they're on the desk hoff harry reid. and -- on the desk of harry

reid. and you know, it's unfortunate, but it is where those 332 bills are languishing. now, as we begin to look at being out of d.c. and working in our districts for august, one would think that the majority leader over in the senate, mr. reid, would get busy with trying to clean his desk. most people do that. i mean, they expect to be out of town working for a few weeks they try to get their desk cleaned off they try to get things pushed to the -- out to where they need to go. they get things organized. they get things done. but that is not what we are seeing in the senate. i had one of my constituents come up to me one day and say, look, i'm all for the larry the cable guy approach. i said, tell me what that is? they said, get ' er done.

that's what they're looking for. now sometimes people will say, tell me what is all in this list of things that you have done? let me just go through what we have found in our bills. that have been passed. 178 of the 332 bills, 178 of the bills passed with no opposition, none at all. there was agreement. total agreement. on the bills. one would think that the senate majority leader would say, 178 bills in which there's complete agreement? those bills coming out of the house? surely we can move those forward in the senate, surely out of 100 we can get 60 to agree on something. but it's amazing, the senator

still has not called for a vote on those. beyond that, 54 more bills passed under suspension. that means you had to have 2/3 of this body agree. bills s 232 of the 332 that have passed this body with either no opposition or 2/3 of the body voting in support of that. i also find it very interesting and probably some of our democrat colleagues would like to join us in our special order tonight because 55 of these ills, 55 of these bills were authored by democrats. and i'm certain that they would like to see the majority leader take up their bills and push them through. you know, when you're so far

behind in your work, you generally work nights, you work weekends, you roll up your sleeves, you buckle down and you get the job done. but that is not what we are seeing happen coming from the senate. what we are continuing to see is a resistance, an absolute resistance, to moving forward and taking up these bills. now, as we go into our last week, next week, before our august work period, there are several issues that we would love to see the senate address. as i said, the issues that are stacked in front of us cover everything that the american people are talking to us about, that our constituents are talking to us about, when we go into our town halls. on the issue of energy, we have

16 bills that deal with the issues of energy. 16 different bills. that are right here. that would address energy issues. many people have heard us talk about the keystone pipeline. do you realize that the bill that would address the keystone pipeline approval, you're going to find it right here in this hefty stack of paper. for those who are just realy concerned about what they're paying at the pump, and i don't know about you, mr. speaker, but i have been watching the price of a gallon of gas when i fill up my car and in the last few months i've gone from $3.59 to as high as $4.15 to fill that car up. far too much. for people that are paying too much at the pump, there's legislation in here that would

get down the cost. it's lowering gasoline prices to fuel in america that works. getting that price down at the pump. for individuals that fell leek we're paying too much on our electricity rates, and we've all watched these rate goes up, you look at that bill every month and you see, compared to last year, you're using fewer kilowatt hours but paying more. you think, how could this be? well, of course, we all remember the president saying that the prices would necessarily skyrocket under him. and he's made good on that promise. maybe a lot of promises he hasn't made good on, but the fact that gas was going to cost us more and electricity was going to cost us more, he's making good on that. here's a bill, the electricity security and affordability act. all of these cost of living

items that we look at in our monthly budget. energy. being -- energy being one of those that affect us all. everywhere we drive. when we turn on the lights. when we light the fireplace or turn on the burner of the stove to cook lunch. bills that address those shrns. they're found right in front of us. so there's plenty of work on harry reid's desk. harry reid has been unwilling to call the vote. and i know that my colleagues join me in se, we would love to see him call the vote on one of these 332 bills. at this time, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker i want to thank mrs. blackburn for the wonderful leadership she's providing on this bill this

evening. it really is quite shocking. we've had a conversation this week about all the work that's been done in this chamber. we've worked really hard. we've been here late at night, we've been here every day, because we know that people across the united states, mr. speaker are suffering, they're suffering in this economy, as mrs. blackburn has said, they're suffering for the rise in gas prices, that are rising because of joblessness, they're worried because their children aren't getting jobs. most particularly, the african-american youth. it is out of control the number of african-american youth who don't have employment. and in the latino community as well. we are heart broken about that. because this is hurting families across the united states. so therefore, we've been here doing the work. we've been here passing jobs bills. -- job bills after job bills. this week we learned, as mrs. blackburn rightly said, we've passed 33 bills out of this chamber. we didn't fully expect when we

passed these bills that every word and every jot and every diddle of every bill would be immediately -- and every tiddle of every bill would be immediately passed by the senate, we didn't kid ourselves bus we thought, let's at least get started and do the work. 332 bills and out of those, harry reid couldn't find one he could pick up and we could have a conversation about to pass and do something to move this economy forward? the economy is one thing, mr. speaker. it's also all of the fire fights around the world that are happening. we're concerned about america's national security issues. we're concerned about our allies like israel. and what's happening in these countries. we have bill after bill. scores of bill to address getting our nation back in order. we want to work with the president. we want to work with the democrat-controlled united states senate and with harry reid. what doesn't make one bit of sense to me, mr. speaker, when

we have all these scandals, whether it's the v.a. or whether it's the i.r.s. that is using the power of the federal government to punish innocent american citizens who are simply expressing their political beliefs, all these scandals and we can't even get the attention of the u.s. senate? we have heard about a do-nothing congress. i think these better be more specific. it's a do-nothing u.s. senate. there is a distinction here. there is no equivalency. i wanted to come down to the floor when i found mrs. blackburn speaking this evening. she was exactly right. i know that many of our colleagues on the floor today agreed with the position that mrs. blackburn is putting forward this evening. many, many of our colleagues. they wanted to be here. enge we'll be joined by many others because they want to work. and they have worked. and now we're seing the harry reid -- saying to harry reid with one voice, please come back, we're happy to work with you, there's plenty of time.

you want to come back in august, we'll be here. whatever it takes. we are here to work on behalf of the american people, why not come and join us? i yield back to mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn: mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, 40 of the bills that are sitting in this stack are related directly to jobs. you can take even just the keystone pipeline bill. there are 42,000 direct and indirect jobs that are related to getting the keystone pipeline started. so, the question becomes, what are you afraid of? what do you fear? from taking up some of these bills? do you fear the american people going to work? do you fear that things just might get on the right track, that you would find that in these 332 bills we expand some opportunities and the

environment for opportunities and the environment for jobs growth to take place? why is it that the senate is content with being a do-nothing senate? why is it that they are accepting of being a do-nothing senate? i think we would all like to know the answer to that question. do they like it that they have a stack of work this high sitting on their desk, that they're just not able to get around to? you know, i used to do some door-to-door sales and we had a little wooden coin and it was round to it. and any time we felt like procrastinating, any time we felt like we just didn't have the energy to do the heavy lift or make one more sales call or

go to another prospect, we would take that around to it out of our pocket, put it in our hand and look at it. the mind ourselves important thing is to get around to doing the job in front of you. you know what, mr. speaker, i still have my around to it. i have it on my desk. and it's getting old and warn out -- worn out. but any time you think, i could just be lazy, i could just not finish this and go do something i want to do, you look at the work in front of you, you look at the fact that you've got a cluttered desk, you look at the fact and consider that people are counting on you to do your job, and you make it a priority to get around to it. and to get the job done.

that is precisely what the american people have expected of this body and we've done it. we have done that. and it is frustrating to us and to the american people. i tell you, we joined them -- join them in their frustration, because look at this, all of these bills and nothing has been done. the gentlelady from minnesota mentioned the issue of veterans . do you think it would be considered appropriate to not solve the v.a. issues and the issues for our nation's veterans? of course not. mrs. bachmann: would the gentlelady yield? mrs. blackburn: i would love to yield. mrs. bachmann: there's a heartbreaking story that happened to me this week. i was on the plane, the usual delta flight i take out of minneapolis at 1:00 on monday afternoon we come back to resume our work here in the united states capitol, and a veteran came up to me, a young

man, he couldn't have been more than 30 years of age, he told me that he's been deployed in the iraq war. and while he was over there, his knee had been shattered in service to his country. in a combat operation. and he told me that he has been waiting for over one year to get an appointment with the v.a., to go in to have the surgery done to fix his knee. he calls the v.a. center in minneapolis to try and get in and it's been over a year for a young man who is maybe 30 years of age, and he can't get in and get his knee taken care of? i think that that begs our involvement. he wasn't even from my district, mr. speaker. i took his name, i took his address, i took all of his information. and then i took his hand, most importantly. i held his hand in mine, i looked into his eyes and i called him by his name and i said, i promise you i will personally call the v.a. center and make sure that you get a

call back and that you get the appointment you need and i will make sure your member of congress gets this information and is able to help you. because there is not one member of congress that i can imagine who wouldn't want to see a veteran get the help he's earned and that he deserves and that he needs. anyone i believe in this house chamber would do it. republican or democrat. this is not partisan. what absolutely floors me, mr. speaker, and i think floors mrs. blackburn, is we want to help these veterans. how could anyone on the senate side, anyone possibly refuse reform of the v.a. and, mr. speaker, i understand, i'm sure mrs. blackburn is aware, that today, today there was supposed to be a conference committee hearing on the v.a. reform bill and the democrats in the senate chose not to even show up to

conference the bill. now, how in the world is this young man, who is a veteran, who served his country honorably, supposed to expect that his government cares about him when the senate won't even show up to talk about v.a. reform? that's why i'm so proud of the fact that mrs. blackburn has the physical stack of the work that this body has done, work to help veterans like this young 30-year-old iraq veteran. or the moms that are waiting tables tonight and the dads that are at t-ballgames tonight , could you g us please get the pipeline built, could you do something about the tax code so my business could get up and fly? that's why we're here tonight. not expecting that the senate would agree west virginia that's in these papers -- agree with everything that's in these papers, he would don't expect that for a minute. all -- we don't expect that for a minute. all we're saying is show up to your job, show up, work, we want to talk, we're here, the

president's very happy it talk to the terrorist nation of iran, he's been very willing to negotiate, even to offer them a deal on developing a nuclear weapon, but for some reason they won't talk to republicans in the house of representatives. mrs. blackburn: if the gentlelady would yield. on the veterans issue, there are three bills specifically that cover what mrs. bachmann has just mentioned. h.r. 4031, which is the department of very veterans affairs management -- veterans affairs management accountability act. this is something desperately needed. accountability in the v.a.? absolutely. why will the senate not take this up? why will they not come to work on this bill? another, h.r. 2072, demanding accountability for veterans act. again, languishing on the desk of harry reid. of course the v.a. should be

accountable to the veterans and to the american taxpayer. why are they not moving this forward so that it gets addressed? h.r. 4810, veteran access to care. precisely what mrs. bachmann is speaking of. making certain that the veterans are guaranteed they're going to be seen in a timely manner. i have one constituent who got on the v.a. list for a primary care physician 15 years ago. guess what? he's still waiting. i have another constituent who has been on the list for three years and has never gotten a call. this is completely unacceptable. and in this stack of 332 bills, you're going to find bills that will put that accountability in place. mrs. bachmann mentioned also the issue of taxes. we hear about it everywhere we

go. you know, people are overtaxed, they're overworked, they realize that they are taxed far too much and they're tired of it. and they want to see the tax rates lowered and the tax burden lowered, as well as seeing the regulatory burden lowered. and on taxes, we've got seven bills, one we passed today. the student and family tax simplification act. and we've got permanent internet tax freedom. it is right here. seven bills that deal with taxes. we also have h.r. 4457, america's small business tax relief act. hardworking men and women, small business owners, small business employees. they all want to make certain

that we deal with this complicated and overbearing tax code. they want to make certain that we are reducing that burden on them. we could take some steps, not solve all the problems, but take some steps that direction, if the senate would show up and take up some of the tax bills that are here and help us lower that burden. we hear a lot about government spending. government never gets enough of the taxpayers' money. and government spends too much. and you give them a little, they're going to take a little more. we have 31 different bills that are in this stack. that deal with reining in government spending. that deal with some of the budget reforms that are desperately needed, so that we get rid of some antiquated processes and move to a new

template for how we need to approach our spending, and approach being a good steward of the taxpayers' money. 31 different bills. take your choice. just take a choice. get started somewhere. pick one. get going. you know, it's amazing, once you get going on a task, it's easier. you get momentum. and that's something we would like to see the senate get and take up some of these 332 bills. that are sitting over on harry reid's desk. maybe you're aggravated about government waste and you're frustrated with regulatory overreach. and you would like to see a smaller federal government and you would like it if some of these federal agencies would stop wasting your money. well, we've got 16 bills in this stack that deal with stopping that overreach and

curbing that waste and putting the bureaucracy on a track to being a better steward of the taxpayer money. we have to remember, it's not federal government money, it's not the money of this chamber, it is the taxpayers' money. they want these issues addressed. how about reining in red tape? you know, i talked to lots of small business manufacturers on a regular basis and they will say to me, the red tape is killing us. the regulation and the red dane is just killing us -- red tape is just killing us. we spend too much time on compliance. we have four different bills in here that deal with compliance. and cutting red tape. another way that government can do a better job of responding to the needs of the american people and the taxpayers. i think everybody, mr. speaker, is concerned about national security. every time you pick up a paper

or you flip on a channel or you turn a page on your ipad and go to a website and look at what is happening, whether it's in e ukraine, the blidgerans of russia, whether -- belligerence of russia, whether it is what's happening in the middle east and what we see happening in israel, concerns about iran, everybody is concerned about foreign affairs and concerned about our nation's security. we have six different bills dealing with national security. we would appreciate it if the senate would take up some of these house-passed bills. 178 of these bills, 178 of 332 bills have come out of this chamber with no opposition at all.

another 54 have passed. 54 have passed with the 2/3 vote of this chamber. and as i said earlier, that's 232 of the 232 bills. 55 of the bills out of that 332 bills are bills that have been authored by the democrats, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. mr. speaker, we hear a lot about repealing and replacing obamacare and making the health care system work, getting it into a healthy place so that you're going to see people actually have access to health care. everybody's health insurance costs are going up and they're concerned about that. access with these very narrow networks is becoming more difficult. we are hearing of people to

travel to great distances or having longer waits. we have 11 bills dealing with health care. ome of these are repealing and replacing health care, 11 bills that would help with those situations, that would help with the access to health care, access to the doctor. you know what we have seen? people have a health care card, but what they do not have is access to the physician. y the way, education, i talked a constituent at the grocery store on saturday morning and she said, you know, she was beginning to plan to go back to school for her two children and i said it seems too early to be going back to school and she said they are going back to the

school the second week of august and there are fees to pay, there are different class fees that have to be paid, sports teams that have to be signed up for, sports physicals that the children have to get and the beginning-of-school expenses and she was focusing on education and asked what we were going to do about letting parents and letting school districts and getting with common core and putting parents and teachers in charge of those classrooms. well, we could make progress of that direction. seven of the bills that we have right here deal with education and with the issues that face parents and students and teachers. and we're all concerned about the future and what is going to be there for our chin and making

certain they are prepared for the future and having access to a quality education and having that right there in our neighborhood and our communities. we can take some steps in that direction. if the senate would begin to take up some of the legislation that is over there on the senate desk and as was said earlier, we are facing a do-nothing senate because they have chosen not to get to work on some of these issues, mr. speaker, as we looked at the crisis on the southern border, we have heard quite a bit of talk about the issues of drug trafficking, sex trafficking that is taking place in this country and many people are not aware and many of our colleagues haven't thought about the amount of work we have done

over the past two years on this issue, getting ready to address the issue, doing some research and some digging and some education and addressing human trafficking, taking steps to prevent this, to have the ability to do some intervention, penalties and making certain that we are strengthening the family unit and fighting these trafficking elements. we have 11 bills specifically to human trafficking that are right here. 11 bills that would help hold accountable some of the traffickers and smugglers and put penalties in place, strengthen, shore up families, take care of victims. do some work on prevention. and it would be encouraging if the senate would join us and

address those here. other bills that are here. we've got bills that deal with innovation. we've got flexibility for working families to make it easier for working moms. all of those issues are issues that could be addressed, and yes, we have worked in a bipartisan manner. indeed, we recently, just a few minutes ago, congresswoman jackson lee was here and on the floor and talking about some of her work and i thought it was interesting that there was a report earlier in the week -- she had 18 roll call votes on her amendments in the past year and that's more roll call votes everyone all the republicans in the senate combined. and she was asked about the amendments in a recent flew and i'm quoting her, i want to thank the republicans for their

generosity. that is the manner in which we have approached our job. 178-1333 bills that you are going to find in this stack, unanimous votes. another 54 bills that are in this stack that had 2/3 majority support. i thought it was interesting in e same article, snar has not received a roll call vote on an amendment since june, 2013. and he recently aired his frustration and i'm quoting him and he said i'm i have not never been in a less productive time in my life than i am in my time in the u.s. senate. there are many people that share that thought over in the senate because they are looking at the fact that things are not getting done in the senate.

98% of these 332 bills have passed with support from both democrats and republicans. you know, if we were in school, that would be making an a grade on bipartisan support for legislation that is coming out of this house. our committee chairmen have worked to be able to do that. and we have in good faith passed these bills and in good faith, we have moved these bills to the senate. and right now we are watching these bills sit on harry reid's desk. for whatever reason he is choosing not to take these bills up. at this time, i would like to yield some time to mr. daines. thank the i want to gentlelady from tennessee for her leadership on this important

issue of this do-nothing senate. the president likes to refer to us as the do-nothing congress. well, tonight we are presenting 332 reasons why it's actually the do-nothing senate as seen by the stack of the bills here on the gentlelady's desk. this is the least productive congress in history. 332 bills have passed the house and sitting on senator reid's desk. 178 of these bills passed the house with no opposition at all. 70% of these bills passed with 2/3 support or more. 55 of these house bills were introduced by democrats and still harry reid refuses to bring these bills up for a vote. while house republicans are building up america's middle class, snats let dust gather

economy. es the take the keystone xl pipeline frem, this is a shovel heff ready projects that would create 42,000 jobs and there is overwhelming support for this project that harry reid refuses to bring it up for a vote. it is h.r. 3. this is a bill we passed with bipartisan support. that pipeline, the keystone pipeline enters montana the first state that the pipeline enters. i was out in eastern montana recently and i was meeting with a co-op which provides electricity to a few thousand montana families and the keystone pipe lynn is approved

they will keep these montana families flat for the next 10 years. if it is not approved, the electric rates will go up about 40% because this co-op applies electricity to one of the pump stations on the keystone pipeline and the extra volume will lower the rates. sometimes i would wish the president would get out of the white house and come to talk to those families and explain to them why he continues to block the keystone pipeline and i would like harry reid to explain why the senate refuses to take up a vote. the house, we are going to create jobs, build a healthy economy, because that leads to greater funt. we aren't going to stop doing our job.

it's time for the senate to get back to work. it's interesting and been quoted here that jackson lee representative jackson lee has had 18 roll call votes on her amendments in the house in the past year. that is more than all the republicans in the senate combined. when asked about those amendments, she said and i quote, i want to thank the republicans for their generosity. it's time for the senate to act. the obama economic recovery is five years old and what have we seen? the share of adults is back to working at 1984 levels that is the year i graduated with a degree in engineering. far more adults have left the work force and this is the worst ecovery ever for long-term

unemployed americans. bills like the america's small business relief act would allow them to hire more workers or veterans economic activity act which improves programs which which promote economic activity and have the tools they need to find jobs. it is a shame that harry reid and the senate democrats won't take up more than these 40-plus bills that will get our economy moving because it's clear, the president's policies aren't working. house republicans have a plan to get our economy moving in the right direction once again. and senate majority harry reid doesn't have to agree. that's the nature of democracy and we aren't expected to agree, simple oes owe us a

up-or-down vote. i yield back. mrs. blackburn: the gentleman talked about montana and what is going on there. h.r. 3, and i wish you would hold that bill back up. how many pages is actually in that bill that would approve the route for the keystone pipeline? mr. daines: obamacare was over 2,000 pages. mrs. blackburn: 2,700 pages. mr. daines: very simple. two pages and about a third of the bottom of the third page. 2 1/3 pages. >> and people could read that and mr. speaker, i think it's important to note, our bills are pages. 0 pages or 2,700

you are talking about bills that are readable. they are easy to work through. get going on them and get some things done for the american people. you can see the different bills. this one is two pages. you know, this can't be more than about 15 or 20 pages. so this is not too much of a heavy lift. and you can look at a bill like the keystone pipeline bill, h.r. 3, simple and easy to read, but yet, this would help create the environment for jobs growth. it would put in motion the components that are necessary to get 42,000 direct and indirect jobs started and on the books. for an electric power co-op in montana and it's important to realize that co-ops are

membership-owned, these are people that live in the community that own these utilities. boone that would be for those families that are members of that co-op, for those small businesses, to be able to say, we've got certainty and stability and we've got security of electric power that is going to be predictable and our rates are going to be stable and low. for a 10-year period of time. that helps them to know what to expect, to work those business plans, and develop plans for expansion. that aids job growth and that's an indirect benefit. a positive consequence of taking a step in passing a bill that is not even three pages

long. that would approve a route for a project. i will yield to the gentleman. >> on the issue of the keystone pipeline, and the benefits, these rate payers in montana, many of them are hardworking families that live month to month. mr. daines: many of them are seniors that are living on fixed incomes. so this president, by stopping the keystone pipeline, not approving a bill that is just slightly over two pages in length, he in essence is declaring war on the middle class of america. that are struggling to make ends meet month to month. our daughter just graduated from montana state university with a degree in elementary education. she's going to be a teacher. if we can approve the keystone pipeline, we recognize these tax revenues then in the state of montana, millions of dollars that will help fund our teachers, our schools, our infrastructure in montana. and these are other benefits of the keystone pipeline.

we need to talk about -- pipeline that we need to talk about. it's not just the jobs, it's the tax revenues. we talked about keeping the electric rates flat for many, many montanans who live on fixed incomes. mrs. blackburn: that is exactly right and making certain that we get our labor force participation rate back up, in this country and we have the lowest labor force participation rate we have had since misery index days of jimmy carter's presidency. and we would love to see more individuals back into the work force and there are 40 bills that would deal with creating the environment for jobs growth to take place. there is opportunity in innovation in some of these bills. there's predictability and certainty in bills as simple as the little bill on the keystone pipeline. all of it is sitting on harry reid's desk. mr. speaker, as i said earlier

tonight, one of the questions many of us in the house are asking is, what is the senate afraid of? what is the majority leader in the senate fearful of? why does he not take up some of these bills? either , 232 passed unanimously or with a 2/3 vote. that is a pretty amazing record. and in these bills are solutions that the american people are looking for. olutions to jobs, to veterans' issues, solutions and certainty. and for our nation's economy, for our national security opportunity, for our children.

those are the things that our focus is on. it's what our constituents have sent us here to do. and the job they've sent us here to do. so i would encourage my colleagues, as we move forward, that we will continue in the house to do our job and to send bills to the senate. and, mr. speaker, i have to tell you, i think that we would be encouraging of our friends in the senate to not be a do-nothing senate, to not be content with that, but to be aggressive in taking up these bills. and as they get ready for august and going back to their districts to work, to get around to it. to get to work. to clean and organize their desk, and to do what's right for the american people by addressing the issues that concern them and finding solutionses to the issues that they bring to us -- solutions to the issues that they bring

to us each and every day and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, for 30 minutes. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. as always, it is a supreme privilege to be able to stand here in the greatest deliberative body in the world, the well of the united states house of representatives. it is a thrill to be able to be here also, to be able to stand and de-- in defense of our ally, the jewish state of israel, which is under attack even now as we're here in this

chamber this evening. as all americans have seen across the country, it has been horrific the fighting that is going on in the middle east. but we must remember that all of this began with an unprovoked attack by the terrorist organization named hamas. hamas is the governing organization over gaza. if a person looks at a map of the middle east, there is the mediterranean sea and just on the eastern most part of the mediterranean sea lies the very tiny nation of israel. approximately the size of new jersey. on the southwest corner of israel is a little area known as gaza. in 2005, israel willingly gave up the area called gaza. why? because the palestinians that were in the area known as gaza were continually attacking and causing havoc against the jews

that lived in the gaza area. jews who had businesses, jews who had homes relinquished those homes and relinquished those businesses voluntarily, as well as synagogues, in an effort known as land for peace. so israel gave up its land to palestinians and the palestinians promised there would be peace. head of ime abbas, the the now palestinian authority, had promised that the gaza region would remain demilitarized. in other words, that there would be no weaponry and no rockets that would be contained in the gaza region. this has been just a joke and an absolute lie and a fraud from the palestinians and from the leader, abbas, from the beginning, from 2005. how do we know? almost nearly overnight, the

palestinians in gaza began firing rockets at israel. that was nine years ago. in 2005. today is 2014. nothing's changed. as a matter of fact, now we're seeing the rise once again from gaza of rockets being fired into israel. again in an unprovoked attack. hamas, we should also recognize, isn't a stand-alone terrorist organization. hamas is a part of a wider constellation of terrorist organizations, franchises, you might say, under an umbrella. and that umbrella is to my left, that umbrella is known as the international muslim brotherhood. it was began in 1928, to reconstitute the islamic caliphate across the world. again, the umbrella organization is known as the

international muslim brotherhood. there are various entities, hamas being one of those terrorist children, you may say, under the umbrella of this international terrorist organization. it contains individuals that were part of forming and putting together the attack on the united states during 9/11, when our nation was attacked by the twin towers coming down, hijacking of ic an airplane that went into the pentagon. also one of the earlier terrorist attacks against the twin towers in 199 was mastermind -- 1993 was masterminded by an individual known as khalid sheik muhammad. khalid sheik muhammad is now contained in guantanamo bay as a detainee for his work in that

effort. he also is -- was found guilty for the work that he did there. i'm here tonight, mr. speaker, because i believe that the united states does have an option of aiding and assisting our ally israel in this horrific tragedy that the world is seeing unfolding right now. and it's this. as week of seen with this terrorist organization under the auspices of international muslim brotherhood known as hamas, hamas had a very friendly on tray, when the muslim brotherhood was running egypt, the largest arab nation in the middle east region. the muslim brotherhood, under then president morsi, had a deal with hamas, again, the muslim brotherhood terrorist organization, in gaza. this was the deal. hamas was allowed to run smuggling operations through tunnels between egypt and the

gaza territory. so lucrative was the smuggling business that hamas was making, it is reported, $2 billion a month. when the people of egypt decided to throw off the violent terrorist regime known as the muslim brotherhood and literally tens of millions of egyptians took to the streets and said to the muslim brotherhood, you must go, and to morsi, you must go, because the egyptian people wanted to stop the slaughter and murder of innocent people, including the coptic christians, coptic churches were bumped in egypt, coptic businesses owned by coptic christians were also burned and ran sacked. and innocent -- ransacked. and innocent people, christians, there are virtually no jews left in egypt, they've been run out, but christians

and even muslims considered apostate muslims were all attacked by the violent terrorists in the muslim brotherhood. as i said, tens of millions of egyptians took to the streets, peace-loving egyptians, muslims , took to the streets and said, we want the violent terrorist organization known as the muslim brotherhood to leave egypt. the muslim brotherhood had to leave. they no longer had any consent from the egyptian people to leave. there was no process of impeachment in egypt. this is the only avenue left to the egyptian people. the muslim brotherhood left. and in stepped the military led by general alcici. the egyptian people then conducted democratic elections and the general was elected as the first president of the modern state of egypt. he is the president now. he has been engaged in a very serious struggle with the muslim brotherhood. he has worked with them, their

violent protests continued and remarkably now the president has been able to bring down dramatically the level of violence for the muslim brotherhood, the streets are far safer today in egypt than they were before. and it came at a price. it came at a price of many deaths in egypt, but now we're seeing more peace. and it's because of the work of the president on the border with gaza that we have seen a dramatic decrease in weapons, munitions and, most particularly, $2 billion going into gaza. how does this frame into what a new alternative solution would be to tamp down this terrorist organization known as hamas? the united states government designated hamas a terror organization. so, again, let's remember, this is a u.s.-designated terror organization called hamas,

which unilaterally and unprovoked launched thousands of rockets against our ally israel. israel did not provoke hamas. israel did not send munitions into the gaza territory. israel did not fire the first shot against gaza. it was hamas that fired the first shot. and let us not forget, it was hamas who fired rockets specifically at the greatest number of civilian targets. we even read this last week that palestinians dressed up, that hamas dressed up in israeli uniforms, i.d.f. uniforms, and went through a tunnel into israel to specifically go to an israeli kibutz so they could slaughter a mass number of innocent israeli citizens, as well as i.d.f. soldiers. that's

what we are dealing. and the reporting from turkey and other parts of the middle east region are calling for killing the jews in the jewish state. and eliminating the jewish state of israel. this is mog more, mr. speaker than a genocide. how we can stop this slaughter. weakened been greatly when they closed those tunnels and thisgypt and hamas violent organization. but it's not enough. because you see, mr. speaker, the umbrellas is essentially the

lifeline for the organization known as hamas. e umbrellas is the umbilical cord that sees politically and with munitions into this violent terrorist organization. the question is how can we get the muslim brotherhood to stop feeding economically to stop this organization known as halmause. this is how we can do it. when they labeled ham ause, a foreign terrorist organization, then any organization or person who tried to offer material effecting aamas was terrorist organization.

that happened. that happened in a charity in the name, the charity called the holyland foundation. this charity was directed by the international muslim otherhood, the umbrellas organization, it directed the united states chapter of the muslim brotherhood to raise men, raise money and raise media support for hamas, the terrorist organization, that is now firing rockets unprovoked against israel. that charity in the united states was found guilty by united states federal court. that happened in 2008. our federal government has already through our department of justice found that the muslim

brotherhood has engaged in terrorist activity. we have federal courts that have found that the international muslim brotherhood, has, in fact, engaged in terrorist activity. also our f.b.i. director in 2011, robert mueller said before the house intelligence committee hat the organization has engaged in terrorist activity. our government by designating ham ause or through a federal court where we have muslim brotherhood charities, a muslim brotherhood terrorist organization and our government has found members of the international muslim brotherhood to be terrorists engaging in the

support for terrorist activities. that would include muhammad, who this night is sitting in guantanamo guantanamo bay behind bars, where he should be, because his goal, mr. speaker, was to bring down the twin towers in new york city. this is in 199 . which know that the muslim brotherhood was successful and brought down the twin towers in a who are iveic display of proirm on september 11, troun. u see, mr. speaker, it isn't enough to cripple them by designating a foreign terrorist organization. but you see mr. speaker, what this body can do is to pass a resolution to urge president obama, who has the power to direct the united states

department of state to now designate the international muslim brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization. you see, mr. speaker, if we want hamas to collapse, to collapse economically, to collapse politically, to collapse because of their nigses, we must designate the international muslim brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization because then you see it would cripple them with various economic sanctions and also those who are members of the international muslim brotherhood would no longer have the ability to be granted by the visas to come into the united states. this is the best action that the united states could take today to benefit our ally israel as

they are being attacked by the u.s.-foreign terrorist organization, cut off the head, cut it off and then we will see hamas collapse. that is what we could do. president obama doesn't need the united states congress to pass this resolution. he doesn't need that. president obama, on his own this evening, could designate the international muslim brotherhood a foreign terrorist organization. and i call upon our president to do exactly that to help our ally israel. that would send a resounding signal across the world if the united states took that action, because, you see, mr. speaker, this that has already been done

y egypt let by president el-sisi. they have designated them a terrorist organization. jordan has designated the muslim brotherhood a terrorist organization. saudi arabia sees the international muslim brotherhood as a terrorist organization. the united emirates sees them as a terrorist organization. if -- as the jewish state of israel sees the international muslim brotherhood as a terrorism organization. f the nations see who are most impacted and could designate this organization as such, then why after the muslim brotherhood

and their participation in the greatest horrific act on u.s. soil, september 11, 2001, if we have designated charities, entities of the muslim brotherhood and leaders of the muslim brotherhood as terrorists participating in terrorist activities, why wouldn't the united states join egypt, jeal israel, jordan and saudi arabia in doing the right thing in designating them as ar terrorist organization? ou see, once we do that so the mh bremal -- umbrellas organization, they are dualy impacted by that organization. that's how we bring peace. that's how we bring peace to israel and to this region, just

a few years ago the conventional wisdom here in washington, d.c., was that they would be a moderating force and bring democracy to the region. we had great hopes that they would be. that was the face they tried to present here washington. tunisia left their government because they saw the government wasn't a moderating force. it was a violent terrorist force and other middle east nations have taken nations to designate the organization as a terrorist group and these groups ban their activities pleeltly. there is an official investigation in connection to violent terrorism. for the pars of past 20 years, the united states government has

identified and branches of the brotherhood as terrorist organizations and their leaders are branded. the united states officials have testified under oath here in this building that the international muslim brotherhood has supported terrorism not only here at home but across the world. from its earliest days, they used violence as its strategy. they formed what was called a secret apparatus to attack government officials and foreigners in egypt, even killing to prime ministers. czar. clark was the richard clark before the senate banking committee that the common link that is shared by al aeda, by the islamic jihad and

hamas were the jidiology of the muslim brothers. was recognized by our own 9/11 commission report, every terror group has built their organization on the bedrock on the muslim brotherhood established. that is astounding. al qaeda as with as halmause. some tried to paint them as a muslim brotherhood. but whatever differences they have are merely tactical and the group together are cooperating their terrorist activities. in february of 1993, the united states house of representatives task force on terrorism reported that various branches of international muslim brotherhood regularly took part in terror

conferences with al qaeda, ham iranianzbollah and thep receive nutionary task force. it is led by the top injuryist. he issued a fatwah in november of 2004 that authorized the killing of american soldiers and contractors in iraq while we were conducting the liberation forgs. they came through the ranks. ring ah, he was the leader of the 9/11 attack. according to the "washington post," was radicalized while he was a part of the engineering syndicate in egypt. you see it's fair to say rather

than being opposed on al qaeda, the muslim brotherhood has been an open gateway to al qaeda. one of the myths about the muslim brotherhood is the group has renounced violence. nothing can be further from the truth. how can one explain it ham ause. it identifies itself in its 1988 could haven ant as the palestinian branch of the muslim brotherhood, in other words, a franchise of the muslim brotherhood in palestine's own words. that's a fact that is recognized in united states state department annual reports on terrorism. a ident clinton designated terrorist group. it was the right thing to do. and now president obama must do the same and designate the

international muslim brotherhood an international foreign organization. it rains down thousands of missiles and rockets without considering the muslim brothers greater role in the larger context of the global jihad. our justice department in 2007, argued in federal security that the international muslim brotherhood has directed its affiliates in this country to organize, to provide media, and men a u.s.-designated foreign terrorist organization. . . the muslim brotherhood's palestine committee raised millions of dollars for hamas here in the united states. the judge in the case wrote an opinion that there was, quote,

ample evidence that establishes the association between muslim brotherhood groups here in the united states with hamas. the convictions of the holy land foundation executives have also been held up by our united states supreme court, the highest court in the land. this was one of the reasons, mr. speaker, why the f.b.i. director testified before congress in february of 2011, that, quote, elements of the muslim brotherhood, both here and overseas, have supported terrorism. unquote. the u.s. government has designated branches, charities and leaders of the muslim brotherhood, as i have pictured on this graphic, under the umbrella, branches, charities and leaders of the muslim brotherhood. u.s. government officials have said, mr. speaker, that the muslim brotherhood around the world has supported terrorist groups. and the justice department has prosecuted elements of the

muslim brotherhood here in the u.s. from materially supporting terrorism. it's long overdue to act on what the u.s. government has already acknowledged -- acknowledgeded. it is time, mr. speaker, to designate the muslim brotherhood as a terror organization. i wanted to speak just a little bit, mr. speaker, about who some of these people are under the umbrella, if i could have that slide right here. the umbrella organization, again, is the international muslim brotherhood organization . under that umbrella is an individual known as khalid sheik muhammad. khalid sheik muhammad, if we -- if i could have help putting that picture -- thank you so much. khalid sheik muhammad was the operations chief under al qaeda. the 9/11 commission report said that khalid sheik muhammad, also known as k.s.m., who is currently detained behind bars

at guantanamo bay, he was radicalized in the kuwaiti muslim brotherhood. abdullah azzam is part of the palestinian muslim brotherhood. he is is a leader who was the co-founder, both of hamas and of al qaeda. also under international muslim brotherhood. youcef al-qaradawi is the chief jurist at the international muslim brotherhood. some call him the spiritual leader and guide of the muslim brotherhood. he's been banned from entering the united states since 1999. he's the first sunni cleric to endorse suicide bombings. then mohammed atta he was. ring leader of the horrific 9/11 attack against the united states of america, the ring leader of bringing down the twin towers and also the attack on our pentagon. he was radicalized in the muslim brotherhood-controlled engineering syndicate in egypt.

then hamas, the foreign terrorist organization, raining down rockets, even tonight, against our ally israel. hamas is self-identified as the palestinian branch of the muslim brotherhood. then the union of good. this is a muslim brotherhood arity that was led by youcef al-qaradawi. it was designated by our treasury department in november of 2008 for hamas financing. osama bin laden, no introduction necessarily -- necessary. he is the al qaeda co-founder who was radicalized by muslim brotherhood leaders at the university in jeddah. you see, mr. speaker, the muslim brotherhood has its fingers all over jihad, because its mission statement is jihad. it is radical, violent terrorism. to achieve its goal of a global caliphate, to have control of all muslims and all infidels across the globe.

majid al-zindani. ramzi ye self, the convicted leader of the 1993 world trade center bombing. he's the nephew of can lead sheik muhammad. as a matter of fact, mr. speaker, if anyone watching this evening would go to the official muslim brotherhood website today, they would see that the international muslim brotherhood is praising hamas for the killing going on in jerusalem and in israel even today. this is why the best thing that the united states of merks could do, and i call on president obama to do it, hopefully with support from both democrats and republicans, this is not a partisan issue, we need to stand with our ally israel, we need to stand

against radical terrorism. and in order to do that we need to designate the international muslim brotherhood the umbrella organization for what it is, a foreign terrorist organization. i thank you, mr. speaker, and i call again on president obama to bring about this designation to bring peace to our world. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? mrs. bachmann: i -- mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. motion is adopted. the house stands adjourned until 10:00

>> richard rubin is the tax policy reporter with bloomberg news to help us understand the tax credit bills being debated on the house floor this week. this was sponsored by diane black of tennessee. this reads education tax breaks get a 96.5 billion dollar boost from the panel. currentd this affect tax credits? >> this takes the existing tax breaks, and consolidates them into one existing tax credit. this would be capped at $2500. and incomes up to nearly $100,000, with mary cap -- married couples filing jointly. it is one of those things where

helpess always wants to people pay for college and prepare for college, and so they repeatedly passed things to help and now you have these tax breaks -- and the goal here is really cleaning some of that up. >> republican lynn jenkins is behind the other tax credit bill, dealing with the tax credit bill and the marriage penalty. what is the dollar figure on that policy? that one was interesting because on the child credit -- right now that thousand dollars is what you get for each kid on your tactics -- on your taxes. and right now there is a marriage penalty built into it, where you start losing the is less thanis

doubled the amount for a single person. is double the amount so and theld be 150,000, index is both those thresholds, and the credit for inflation. as prices rise t ct will rise with it. >> the democrats are not quite happy about the tax credit bill because it does not apply to the lower income -- why is that? >> this is an expansion of the child credit for low income families, this is scheduled to expire at the end of 2017 and democrats want to make sure that this gets passed. expanding the child credit for upper income families -- without -- with nothing for the lower income families is just not fair. >> you also tweeted about the

white house view on the tax demonstration opposes both, but no immediate threat on the education bill. they oppose this because this of a larger issue, republicans passing tax cuts and the white house and republicans are at odds on this as they have been for years now. if both bills passed they will combine this over to the senate, adding the child credit bill to the education bill means that you are taking something that the president has threatened to veto, with the education bill and he may not veto that if it comes through on its own. lawchances of this becoming in the form it is in now is

pretty slim. what about the proposal from representative camp on tax reform? >> there are elements of what he had on his bill earlier this year, and the republicans have decided that there are some good the idea of getting everything in that bill including the tax increases here to offset the tax cuts -- this is not going to happen. they decided let's take the most politically popular thing and pass this, and then dare the democrats to oppose them. >> and they believe that they can pick up some democratic support. >> there were charitable bills that they did that had democratic support, but this is not enough to get this to the top of the democratic agenda but they have been able to show that

there is bipartisan support for some of these measures. >> tax policy reporter for bloomberg news -- and reporting on twitter. thank you for the update. >> in a few minutes more about congressional proposals to improve veterans health care. you will hear from jeff miller of florida and senator bernie sanders -- bernie sanders from vermont and in a little bit more than an hour, the prime minister's of el salvador and described the damage caused by those passing through the border illegally. firedssian military artillery rounds into the astern ukraine on thursday, clear escalation of hostilities according to a pentagon spokesman. has nod that chuck hagel plans to speak with his russian counterpart about the attack. deputystate department

spokesperson marie hart talked about the evidence proving the russian attack and here is some of what she said. it is not me that you need to convince, it is the rest of the world. leader cameatist out and said -- they appear to take credit for something like this. we went to this yesterday and i am happy -- >> this is what all of you presented -- but i would like to thiswhat you are basing new evidence that the russians intend to send any heavier equipment. i will be able to tell you that -- >> is there a video that you could point us to? i am just wondering what it is.

is not the question -- >> i cannot give you the source. give you the source, would you prefer i do not give you the information? >> i think it would be best for all concerned, when you make an allegation like that, you can back it up without -- with something more than just say so. it is not me making these allegations. you get up and the delegation -- when you present your evidence to back up these allegations, it appears to, at least to some fall short of definitive. >> i would -- i would disagree with that. you are saying that there is new and heavier weaponry. what kind?

>> multiple rocket launchers. >> and -- >> they are firing artillery to attack ukraine. >> the you believe that rockets and missiles and artillery fired from russian territory brought down these ukrainian planes? >> we are still looking >> we're still looking into it. >> are you sure the planes went down? >> my understanding, yes. i haven't heard otherwise. >> ukrainians have claimed they were shot down from -- by whatever, from russian territory. >> there's good looking reports about the location -- >> you have not made a determination? >> because we don't make determinations until we have facts and then we present them to you as much as we can. >> but you are sure the russians are firing artillery? >> we have information, yes. >> under the washington examiner headline, talks on f