punishing the workers themselves, many of whom were working in substandard conditions and didn't go after the employers enough. this is something that policymakers have to hash out, what is the balance between punishing employers who take advantage of illegal workers and hire illegal workers at substandard wages. host: we are just about out of time. "washington journal" is available every day. the u.s. house gaveling in that. live coverage on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear god we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficult decisions in difficult times with many

forces and interests demanding their attention. we are grateful, o god, that you have given to them the goals of justice and the designs of freedom. remind each member that it is their work to develop the strategies and plans of achieving those goals and designs being mindful of the prompting of your spirit. you have given to each of them and to us all the ability to do good works so we pray that we will be faith nul our tasks, responsible in our actions, and fervent in our desire to serve. bless us all, o god, this day and every day to come and may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his

approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led today by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i rise to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the work of richard fisher, who will be retiring as the president of the federal reserve bank of dallas this coming spring. president fisher's work at the institution for the past 10 years has served our area well.

richard has been a tireless advocate for the low regulation of the texas economy. because of his stance, north texas has experienced tremendous economic growth and vitality during the time of his presidency. i feel privileged to have known and worked closely with president fisher during the time he and i worked together on economic development summits in southeast fort worth, those were a huge success and helpful to the small businesses that were in an economically challenged area. he was always available and helpful to me personally. his stances on preventing banks that are too big to fail to come to the taxpayer for bailouts was inspiring. on behalf of the 26th district of texas, i commend president richard fisher on a job well-done. i congratulation him on his retirement and wish him every success in the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek wreck nix? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, on yesterday's charleston couror charles krauthammer points out the president's deceit when misrepresenting obamacare before shoving it through a democrat congress. according to the column, and, quote, october 2013 video has surfaced that shows myth professor jonathan gruber, a principal architect of obamacare, admitting that in order to get it passed the law was made deliberately obscure and deceptive. it constitutes the ultimate vindication of the charge that obamacare was sold on a pack of lies. end of quote. as more is revealed about the truth behind the president's manipulation when passing obamacare, quote, it's refreshing that the most transparent administration in history should finally display candor about its signature act of social change. inadvertently, of course. but now we know what lay behind

obama's smooth arrogance that rules in the name of the citizenry it mocks, disdanes, and deliberately deceives, end of quote. it is said democratic leaders believe their voters are stupid. in conclusion, god bless our troops. and the press should take action to never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the chair must remind all members that remarks in debate must not engage in personalities towards the president. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to dreamed. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize my alma mater as it celebrates 175 years of providing quality education, cutting-edge research, and practical services to all missourians. mrs. hartzler: mizzou was the first state utah established west of the mississippi and it's a school rich with

tradition. i'm humbled to be a graduate of such a long-standing, esteemed institution. the university of missouri was home to the first journalism school in the world and is still recognized as one of the best schools around the world for agriculture, business, and journalism, just to name a few. the core values of the university of missouri respect, responsibility, discovery, and excellence leave a mark on every individual influenced by this institution and it helped shape me as an american zint and lawmaker. -- citizen and lawmaker. throughout my career i have striven to uphold the values of the university and sleep well that all alumni present and future will do the same. i'm so proud to be a tiger and i wish you a very happy birthday to mizzou. go tigers. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will post opponent further proceedings today on motions to suspend the

rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5059 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. -- will the gentleman please specify which bill number. > h.r. 5059. 5069, i'm sorry. that's 5069. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5069, a bill to amend the migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp act to increase the bice of migratory bird and hunting stamps to provide the acquisition of conservation ease e-for migratory birds and

for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fleming: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: as author of h.r. 5069, i am pleased that we are considering this bipartisan bill that has been co-sponsored by the dean of the house of representatives, the leadership of the congressional sportsman caucus, and the entire louisiana house congressional delegation. the federal duck stamp act will modestly increase the price of the federal duck stamp for the first time in 23 years. and by so doing restore the buying power of this

conservation tool which has been used to require, conserve, lease, and restore thousands of acres of wetlands. wetlands are critical to the survival of not only migratory waterfowl but to the millions of americans who live along our coastlines. the u.s. geological survey has calculated that for every 2.5 miles a hurricane travels across wetlands, the storm surge is reduced by one foot. it is therefore likely that wetlands were directly responsible for the saving -- for saving lives and property in the gulf coast that are devastated by hurricanes katrina and rita. this legislation has been endorsed by ducks unlimited and more than 30 national conservation organizations, including the national rifle association, boone and crockett club, the national wild turkey federation, fezzants forever, and the congressional sportsmans foundation.

in their support letter these groups noted that, quote, in order for us to pass down our hunting heritage from generation to generation, sustain a vital and viable resource for wildlife and people, we must increase the price of the duck stamp this year, end quote. i urge adoption of h.r. 5069, and i want to thank all of the members who join with me in this effort. i now reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 5069 would authorize an increase in the price of the federal duck stamp from $15 to $25. duck stamp revenue funds the purchase and conservation of wetland habitats critical to maintaining waterfowl populations and other wildlife prized by hunters. this increase will restore the purchasing power of the duck stamp dollars to nearly 1991

levels. the last time congress increased the price of the duck stamp. the current price of the stamp is 15 which equates to less than $9 in 1991. the increase is expected to generate five million in revenue for securing conservation easements on land in the united states. while i take issue with some of the requirements and restrictions this bill would place on -- on the fish and wildlife service, the opportunity to generate these additional funds for wetland conservation with the support of hunters and other nature lovers is one that we must take advantage of. i support the passage of the bill. congratulate the author of the legislation. and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back.

the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: i want to say in closing that not only do we have huge bipartisan support for this bill, but just -- i just want to point out as an example in 2012 we spent essentially an equal amount of money on both the fee simple land purchase and the easement. around $16 million to $17 million each. look at the bang for the buck that we got. e purchased 14,747 acres fee simple, but on easements we got 48,144. so it's obvious that not only is this a huge savings to the taxpayer, this is a much better deal. but also think about the maintenance costs that are now going to be unnecessary because landowners with the easements will continue to maintain the land rather than taxpayers. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 5069, as amended.

so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. fleming: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5162. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5162, a bill to amend the act entitled "an act to allow a certain parcel of land in rockingham county, virginia, to be used for a childcare certainty" to remove the use restriction, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. phlegmings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, will each control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fleming: i yield myself, mr. speaker, such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: in 1989, the department of interior deeded a small parcel of land to rockingham county, virginia, for public purposes. this land includes a garage that had previously been used by the national park service. the county determined a nonprofit childcare center in broadway, virginia, would benefit from the use of the garage and public law 101-479 allowed the deed to be changed for the particular use of the childcare center. however under the terms and restrictions of the transfer, the nonprofit is unable to obtain financing to make improvements and renovations to the property. h.r. 5162 would remove the restrictions on the land so the necessary upgrades may be made to the childcare center. congressman goodlatte has authored a commonsense bill that will assist the constituents and the community.

i urge support for the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 5162 removes the use restriction on a three-acre parcel of federal land granted in 1990 to rockingham county, virginia. the county no longer needs the parcel for childcare and seeks to develop it for other for other purposeses. . it was given to rockingham county through the lands to parks program. the federal plands to parks program provides federal lands to counties and other state and he call entities to develop community parks and public spaces. if land granted through this program is no longer needed for the original purpose, the national park service as the administrative authority to sell the land at fair market value this involves what could be a very lengthy valuation process,

but it's important to remember these assets are owned by the american taxpayers, held in trust by the federal government, and they deserve a fair return. in this case, to the best of my knowledge, rockingham county did not approach the national park service to discuss purchasing the land at fair market value. instead, the county went straight to congress for this legislative fix. revisionary clauses and language we re-strixes exist to ensure fair use of federal land and a fair return to the american taxpayer. of course it's important to look at these on a case-by-case basis, recognizing when chong should chime in and when it's -- when congress should chime in and when it's more appropriate for action. congress should only get involved when there's no other course of action. while there may have been an alternative nothe support this -- to achieve the noump legislation, we support the legislation.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, i thank the gentleman from louisiana for yielding the time and the chairman of the resources committee, mr. hastings, for moving this legislation forward and i want to thank the gentleman from arizona as well for his support and indicate to him that the intention is to continue to use this land for a childcare center, but in order to improve the childcare center, they need to be able to get financing that is not available with the encumbrance that exists right now system of for over 25 years a lit overall try three acres of land and its associated build, previously wholly held by the federal government, have been maintained by rockingham county and the plains area day care cent for the my congressional district.

in 1989, the federal government deeded the land to rockingham county but prior to that, rockingham county had been maintaining the lands around the facility. the land and building had been used as a garage and maintenance facility for the national forest service, however, it was no longer being utilized and the county was doing upkeep on the land. the land transfer allowed this land to be used for public purposes. the county decided that the nonprofit plains area day care cent for the broadway, vifrpbl, which provides child care on a sliding scale and helps many families who otherwise could not afford childcare would benefit from use of the old garage. public law 101-479 athroid deed to be changed from public use for the particular use of the childcare center. donations by the community totaling $75,000 turned the garage building into a nursery, day care, and after school care facility. additionally, the creation of

the day care center provide for the creation of the playground that the center supports and is open for public use. the center and the playground is the sole reason that this previously abandoned government land is being used by the community. unfortunately, because of the narrow way public law 101-479 was drafted, any extension or maintenance of the physical structures has required approval by the dotcht interior. in 1998, the county had to obtain permission from the department to add an addition funded through pledges and a county loan, resulting in another $125,000 worth of improvements by the community. the building is once again in need of repairs, forcing the county to seek approval from the department of interior for repairs. further, because of the terms of the deed the day care center has been unable to get a loan to complete the renovations. i have been pleased to visit the plains area day care center on many occasions.

the center is committed to providing high quality child care on a sliding scale. the cent searls committed to making sure children have the skills necessary to enter and thrive in school through early childhood education programs. this center is making in the community are immeasurable. since opening in 1991, the center has always been at capacity and is the only facility of its kind in the community by passing this legislation and allowing rockingham county and in return the play -- plains area day care center more authority over the land, it will ensure that more children and more of the community will be served by this land. mr. speaker, my legislation today is a simple formality. for 25 year the land has been deeded to rockingham county but with restrictions. it is clear the federal government no longer has a vested interest in the land this property is being used by the county and the community to help

those in need. my legislation removes the restrictions on the land to ensure this community investment can continue to thrive and i urge my colleagues to pass h.r. 5162 so that the necessary upgrades may be made to the childcare center and the community can be better served. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: if i may i inquire -- how many more speakers? mr. fleming: we have no further speakers. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, i yield back the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming spg with that, i yield -- mr. fleming: with that, i yield back my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5162. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- in policemening: mr. speaker, i ask

for the yeas -- mr. fleming: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 5468. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5468 a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1103 usps build 1g103 in camp pendleton, california, as the camp pendleton medal of honor post office. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lie issa: i ask unanimous consent -- mr. issa: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: of the several postal namings we are voting on today, lmost all of them are honoring members of the military and disproportionately members who have given their lives in service to their country. and it's fitting that we should do that. however, h.r. 5468 seeks something very different. currently called the mainside marine corps base camp pendleton post office, it is not named for anyone.

camp pendleton has produced more medal of honor recipients, many of them, most of them posthumously, through world war ii, korea, vietnam, and the various gulf wars. and even as we speak today, marines are engaged now in iraq again having completed their mission in afghanistan, and undoubtedly the valor they show will someday result in additional medal of honor recipients, so it is impossible to name the post office at camp pendleton after one marine, no matter how great, or after a few marines, even if they died together in battle. therefore, the unusual naming here at camp pendleton, a base that opened in 1942, and today is the largest base of marines

anywhere in the world. over 42,000 marines and corpsmen call camp pendleton their home when they're not away from home. i'm humbled and honored to be able to represent camp pendleton for my entire nearly 14 years of service in the congress. as a former army officer i have learned a great deal about marines. i have learned even more about their valor. only in a place like camp pendleton would you find that the band, the base band is named after a bandleader who earned a medal of honor during the korean laid t, as he in fact covering fire for his fellow marines from a burning tank. therefore today we are considering, and i'm confident we will name this post office after all those who earned

america's highest honor. i envision that the post office will bear the names and in a book the recitation of how they each earned america's highest honor. it's been inspiring to represent them. and those medal of honor recipients i must mention will include navy corpsmen. they will include officers and enlisted men. they will include all of those battles from world war ii to tomorrow and the days beyond. so as i ask for this post office to be named, one that i've had the honor of authoring, i might note for all those who wonder why we name post offices, i believe they come to camp pendleton, they'll find out why this post office bears the name of a medal and not any one soldier, sailor, marine or

airman. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pell. -- mr. welch: first of all, i want to thank the gentleman from california. there's nothing i can add, really, to the eloquence of his remarks. and it's fitting that he made them as the person in this body who is representing the men and women of camp pendleton. i've been there. but i don't serve it. my brother served in the navy, i visited him many years ago when he was at camp pendleton, i remember then, as a very young person being awed by just the incredible display of patriotism that was embodied in that. the other thing, as i listen to you, mr. chairman, what i thought was so good about this is that a whole ethic of the

military is that you're in it for everybody else. that story about thed me oofl honor winner who was in the band, before he was in the band was on a burning tank and provided covering fire at great peril to himself, that's the ethic of the military that i think all of us here so admire system of having a postal naming which doesn't specifically identify one person but identifies all of the recipients of the highest award that we can give to a military leader, i think is a tremendous idea. in fact, i look forward to my next visit to camp pendleton where i think i would be like many americans who will go visit to read this roster and just stand in awe of the bravery that has been demonstrated by these people throughout our history. so i really am glad that our remarks are recorded because this statement that the chairman

gave, i think, is going to be very good reading for all of us. i do join, of course, in supporting this naming, i think it's particularly suitable, 230 years of camp pendleton's existence, think about it, just an amazing facility but more importantly, it has had hundreds of thousands of wonderful americans who have learned about how to be a patriot, who have gone from there to face very difficult challenges that needed their bravely to -- bravery to defend our country system of i join mr. issa in urging our colleagues to support this naming as an especially glorious one, honoring all of our men and women in the military. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. welch spb reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from vermont yield back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: in closing i have but two things to same first of all, i want to thank the california delegation, a unique, bipartisan, unanimous support for this bill. lastly, whether it's that bandleader who was a bandleader first, but would have said i'm an infantryman first who served in world war ii and died in korea, or if it's the marines and corpsmen who have given their livesering blood, tears, and sweat, whether they were awarded medals of honor, lesser medals or not fully recognized for their dedication, all of them, i now know, will have their daily activities passing the post office or dropping a letter, they'll have an opportunity to realize that congress is grateful for their contributions in the naming of this post office. i urge support for the bill and yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5468. those in favor will vote aye. those opposed will vote no. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 35331. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5331, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service ocated at 73839 gorgonio drive in 20nine palms, california, as the colonel m.j. "mac" dubeusmc post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rules gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on

the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 5331, introduced by my fellow californian, mr. paul cook, to designate the facility, the ostal service located at 73839 gorgonio drive in 20nine palms. naming it as the colonel m.j. "mac" dube, u.s. marine corps post office building. i would like to recognize the author of the bill, congressman cook, to speak more about this vietnam war veteran. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield time? mr. issa: i yield such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cook: thank you. mr. speaker, h.r. 5331 would designate the facility that was already mentioned on gorgonio drive in twinetnine palms as he kohl member "mac "m.j. dube

, united states marine corps post office building. mac passed away this year, but will always be remembered in 20nine palms as a united states marine and dedicated public servant. back and i ironically both served as colonels at the same time. an honor i will always remember and cherish. mac was a great marine. he served for over 30 years. he earned four purple hearts. multiple awards, four bronze stars with combat v's and a silver star. nd after he retired, in 20nine palms -- twentynine palms, he went to work, ran for office, became the mayor, became a councilmember, then when he was done with that he served in

multiple county offices oftentimes as a volunteer. somebody that his children grew up there deeply involved and somebody that ironically enough was part of the marine community, the military side, obviously the civilian community, and the county side on the other side of the fence. this is a tribute to a man who dedicated his life to serving his nation and serving the marine corps and twentynine palms community. he left a legacy for all those who would come after him. he was always in town. he gave so many things to so many people. he was the most generous individual i have ever known. i think he will always be remembered in the twentynine palms area for his hard work, his dedication, and his patriotism. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman from california reserve? the gentleman from reserves.

the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welsh: thank you. we are delighted to join in support of this postal naming and it's just such a pleasure to listen to you, mr. cook, talk about a friend you knew who was a fellow colonel and then to see what he did after his life of service in the military, his life of service with his own folks back home. i look at some of the things he did, and i'm just amazed. 46 combat missions. four purple hearts. that means basically he dodged death at least four times. how he managed to do this and then put it all behind him, probably never talked about it. instead preferred much more to just find a way to help folks back home the bullets weren't flying. he knew service in the military and service back home were equally important. this is an extraordinary person

and we are very honored you're bringing this forward and we are going to be able to recognize his contribute -- contributions in the memory of a postal naming. mr. cook: would the gentleman yield for a comment? mr. welch: yes. mr. cook: thank you. i used to know him and i joked with him i have two purple hearts and it showed i was dumb enough to not duck twice and you have four of them. what does that say about your i.q.? he was a true american and would do anything. thank you so much for your support. mr. welch: reclaiming my time. i thank you and mr. issa thanks you. this is a tough business we do here, but i think one of the things about these namings is that it allows us to remind ourselves of what we can aspire to be. these folks in war and peace who just give themselves to public service selfless and then earn the gratitude of people back home regardless of

party, regardless of politics, they just are trying to do a good thing to make their community a better place, their country a stronger contry. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i, too, yield back urging strong support for this bipartisan bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5331. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: i move a the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5386. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the 250eu9le of the bill -- title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5386, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 11662 gravois road in st. louis, missouri, as the lieutenant daniel p. riordan

post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: mr. speaker, this bill authored by congresswoman ann wagner of missouri recognizes the last full measure of support for -- from lieutenant daniel p. riordan and i can add nothing more than the author will add. i yield her such time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. mrs. wagner: thank you very much. mr. speaker, today i rise in honor of a great hero. on june 23, 2007, missouri's second congressional district lost a brave young man when united states army first

lieutenant daniel riordan made the ultimate sacrifice for his country while serving in operation iraqi freedom. mr. speaker, i'd like to take a moment to reflect on the life of this young patriot. daniel patrick riordan was born on february 17, 1983. he had a twin brother, nick, and an older sister, and after graduating from high school in kirkwood, missouri, dan attended southeast missouri state where he was in the air force rotc program. after graduation, dan decided to follow his father into the military and joined the u.s. army. quickly becoming known as lieutenant dan. lieutenant dan became a tank commander and in 2006 he was deployed to iraq as part of operation iraqi freedom. as a member of demon company, in the first cavalier --

cavalry division, dan served with courage and determination. despite frequently being outnumbered in enemy territory, dan was always out on point leading his platoon into battle. dan took his leadership responsibilities literally. as he put it, and i quote, how can i order my men forward if i'm not willing to go first? to those who knew dan, his devotion to his country through service and sacrifice came as no surprise. he was both a fierce and dedicated warrior in the service of our country, and a caring and loving gentleman who felt a duty to help those in need. from a very young age, dan showed sensitivity beyond his years. at the age of 5 or 6 while attending a funeral, dan's mom found him sitting with an elderly woman when she asked him why he was sitting with her, he said, she looked sad and lonely.

it was this kind of compassion that drew him to the u.s. military, his desire to serve, help, and protect those in need. while at home on leave from operation iraqi freedom, dan consistently reassured his family that our country's military efforts were truly bringing empowerment and freedom to the people of iraq. he believed in a cause greater than himself that a freedom, democracy, and dignity of all people. while in the army, dan wrote his mother a letter in case he didn't return. one thing he said was, don't mourn for me, mom. celebrate my life. so today we celebrate first lieutenant daniel p. riordan's life by designating the post office in st. louis, missouri, as lieutenant daniel p. riordan post office. the united states of america owes dan a priceless debt that we will never be able to fully

repay, but we can do our part to ensure his memory lives on. therefore it is my honor to sponsor h.r. 5386, the bill that names the post office in missouri's second congressional district after such a courageous young man. immortalizing a hero who gave up his life in service to the nation that he loved. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. does the gentleman from california reserve? the gentleman from vermont is recognized. mr. welch: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: i want to thank the gentlelady for her eloquent description of a brave and strong person and a life well lived. i am touched by seeing that photograph of a young, strong, healthy, vibrant man who must have meant so much to his family, who did mean so much to his family, as did he to his country. and you're story about him as a

5-year-old boy was quite touching. there was something in him that probably did come from his family that made him even without knowing why want to serve. and you can just imagine that that carried forward not only to people in his community and family, but to the people of iraq. i also was reading about how his original objective in the military was to serve as a pilot. we don't know what the story was as to how he ended up in tank, but what you know about that story is that his fundamental goal was to serve. how he served was secondary. he was in a tank, which as we all know was one of the most dangerous places any of our men and women in service could be during the war in iraq. so i want to thank the gentlelady for a very inspiring and eloquent statement about a life well lived, about a man who gave his life on behalf of all of us of the united states of america.

and i yield back. i do yield. mrs. wagner: i had the great pleasure and honor of sponsoring several of these post office namings for our fallen heroes, and i have to say it is one of the most moving and touching and important things that we can do i think for our entire community and certainly for the family. it's a great privilege and honor for me to support the riordan family today and i thank the gentleman for his kind words and the chairman for putting all this forward. mr. welch: we thank you for doing this and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: in closing, i have no doubt that this will pass, as rightfully it should. but if i can take a moment, looking at that picture of young ieutenant, wearing his calvary insignia, armor is the only

ranch i know of that has two nsignia, one with heavy armor. in most wars, the enemy is ahead of you and you look for the enemy. in world war ii and korea, people talked about going to the front. in iraq there is no front. is over day, lieutenant riordan knew he was at the front. every day he knew in the light armored vehicle he was riding in that in fact, an i.e.d. could be cranked off either remotely or on his vehicle nearing it at any time. our men and women serving in iraq and afghanistan are not faced by an enemy who has a front. they're faced by an enemy that almost to a person hides behind improvised explosives. more of our soldiers, sailor, air force, -- marines and airmen have suffered by these devices,

not because of an enemy on a front but a bomb in a road. ruent riordan was different. when you look -- lieutenant riordan was no different. he didn't go to the front to face an enemy he, faced that enemy and at any moment his life could end, as it did end, by a sneak attack that had no face on it. the courage of our men and women in iraq and afghanistan is greater in many way than who had a reprieve from the front from time to time and who knew when they were going toward their enemy, whether it was toward, you will, heavy fire or sniper. in iraq and afghanistan, in the past, present, and now in the future, our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen face an enemy that they will likely never see and are in peril virtually every moment of the day and night. that special relationship is one that i hope the american people

understand, no generation is faced the way this generation facesism urge support of the bill and yield back the -- faces. i urge support of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the request is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5386. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 1499. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1499 arnings act to designate the facility of the united states postal service chadron, street in

nebraska, as the sernlt corey mracek memorial post office. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california and the gentleman from vermont will each have 30 minutes. mr. issa: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in-- and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: wogs. mr. issa: army sernlt mracek was killed in 2004 while serving in operation iraqi freedom he died of wounds sustained during yet another roadside bomb attack in iraq. he was only 26 years old. and he'd been in iraq for just eight days. mr. speaker, loved ones remember sergeant mracek as a man who loved army life and was proud to serve his country, his prave -- serve his country. his bravery and selflessness inspired us all they feel names of this post office in his memory is clearly appropriate.

it is my honor to ask the body to honor sernlt sergeant mracek's service and sacrifice by voting in favor of this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i'm pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this postal naming bill. and i see that we have the sponsor of the bill here and i thought i might yield such time as he may wish to consume to speak directly about this brave merican. >> thunge senators johanns and fisher. under this legislation, the post office building in chadron, nebraska, would be named after sergeant mracek, a native of chadron, who was killed in 2004.

mr. smith: he originally served with the nebraska national guard and transfered to active duty where he served with disticks he re-en-- re-enlisted after the september 11, 2001, attacks where he served with a para-- as a paratrooper. among other honors he was posthumously awarded the purple heart and bronze star for his courage and dedication. renaming he pest office in chadron new york cory's hometown, lab symbol of gratitude to a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont reserves. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman for his remarks and for bringing this forward to our attention, and i want to comment too on how this individual this man two times in korea, and then decides he's going to go back to iraq. or go to iraq, despite the well known dangers to his own personal safety. again, another example of a

brave american who is willing, and did, sacrifice his life on behalf of the security of this country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1499? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the the s suspended -- the rules are suspended, the bill is pass and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman rise of? mr. issa: i move to sprowls and pass s. 1093. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 1093 to kezzig nate the facility of the united states postal service low cat at

130 caldwell drive in hazel hurst, mississippi, as the first lieutenant alvin chester cookrell, jr., post office building. mr. issa: i ask that all members have five lennell slative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: i rise in support of senate bill 1093, introduced by senator thad cochran of mississippi, to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 130 caldwell drive in hazlehurst, mississippi, as the first lieutenant alvin chester cookrell jr. post office. this is another first lieutenant he served his country in world war ii. he enlisted in the marine corps back in 1937. he was assigned to company b, first battalion, seventh marines, fleet marine force he

anded at gaudal canal. -- at gaudalcanal. it was his 21st birthday, september 18, 194 2. first lieutenant cook real led group rell led his against machine gunfire. he was killed in action. he died in that engagement. mr. speaker, we often recognize marines because they have given a great deal in this war along with the other forces. we often recognize iraq and afghanistan and on occasion we recognize vietnam veterans as we did today. it is unusual for us to reach back, as senator cobbling ran has done, and found -- senator

cochran has done and found a fitting individual from the war so long ago, the war that gave us america's greatest generation, and realize we have not yet finished thanking those who gave us the freedom to pursue our lives, every person on the floor, perhaps, having been born affluent cockrell died. it is altogether fitting to remember the freedoms we enjoy, the opportunity we enjoy, the economy we enjoy, the lieutenant gave his all for that freedom. i reserve passage -- i support passage and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: my colleague mentioned that it's unusual we reach back, i think he'd agree with me that it's wise that we do. orld war ii changed the world. and we were so committed to the

cause of freedom in world war ii and so many of our predecessors, citizens who served and died before we were born, won a war that would have changed the whole future of the world had we not succeeded. and it was individual acts of heroism that made the difference. and this life was a life well lived. his life was one dedicated to service. an first lieutenant alvin cockrell deserves to be remember and it's our responsibility to honor all of those who came before us. members, as mr. issa said, of the greatest generation, who won a most brutal but consequential war that has changed the history of the entire world. i am happy to join with my colleagues in fully supporting

the naming of this post office after an american who served his country and gave his life, first lieutenant alvin chester cockrell. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, there's no question at all this is again another befitting naming. i'd like to thank the senator for reaching back and finding such a worthy candidate and i'd like to remind all of us coming off of veterans day that in fact this generation of veterans is departing but will be remembered in our hearts for the rest of our lives. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1093. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended this ebill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass senate 885. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 885, an act to designate the facile i have to the united states postal service located at 35 park street if in danville, vermont, as the thaddeus stevens post office. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, will each control 20 minutes. mr. issa: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise d extend their remarks and include extraneous comments. i'm going to defer my comments since the sole member from vermont is available to make comments. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. he's up to his usual, courteous efforts and i do appreciate it.

mr. speaker, we're pretty proud in vermont of thaddeus stevens. we are here today in support of the naming of the post office on 35 park street in danville, vermont, a tiny community, proud community, in what's called the northeast kingdom of vermont, to name the post office there the thaddeus stevens post office. ed thats you stevens was born in danville, verm in 1792. beecham academy, then went to university of vermont and graduated from dartmouth college. that was in 1814. he then made a big decision he, moved to pennsylvania -- big decision. he moved to pennsylvania to study law but never left his vermont values behind. he was elected to the pennsylvania house of representatives, served four years as a member of the anti-masonic party. he was elected to the 34th

congress of the united states, serving as a whig until 1853 and mr. issa, you'll be happy to know, as a republican from 1859 until his death in 1868. as a member they have -- member of the house of representatives he was a strong voice of opposition to slavery, advocating against the fugitive slave provisions in the compromise of 1850 and actively helping runaway slaves to escape to canada using the underground railway. we're all proud of that. but in vermont, we're particularly proud that thaddeus stevens did this. our state, mr. speaker, was the first state in its constitution, before we were -- we were the 14th state in the union, to ban slavery. thaddeus stevens took that vermont point of view and advocated it in the united states house of representatives. the 66, stevens had helped republicans gain control of congress and set the stage for

post civil war reconstruction in the south. in his role on the joint committee on reconstruction,ed thats you stevens helped draft the reconstruction act of 1867 as well as the 14th amendment, prohibiting states from denying citizens of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. a constitutional amendment that has done so much to extend the dream in this country of equal opportunity to all our citizens. since vermont, as i mentioned, was the first state to ban slavely, doing so in its constitution, i'd like to think that thaddeus stevens is vermont beginnings did inform his actions later in life. today his legacy for promoting and defending equality lives on in vermont and across the country. i'm proud that we are honoring his life's work through the passage of this postal naming bill. as we prepare to send s. 885 to the president's desk, i'd like

to thank senator sanders for his leadership and working with the danville community to draft this bill. senator sanders, when he first came to vermont so many years ago, lived up in the northeast kingdom. i'd like to thank senator leahy for his very important support. i'd like to thank, of course, chairman issa and the ranking member cummings for helping shepherding this piece of legislation through before the end of this congress. mr. speaker, i urge passage of this bill to acknowledge thaddeus stevens' public service and steadfast dedication to the equality of all citizens regardless of race. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. when all speakers said all that needs to be said and there's one speaker left, he can't say anything original so i'll simply thank the cockman, the senators for recognizing -- the congressman, the senators for

recognizing one of the first republicans and one of the first republican principles, one that is no longer owned by any party but in fact owned by all americans. with that i move for passage and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass designate 885. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 1512. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1512, an designate to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1335 jefferson road in rochester, new york, as the specialist theodore matthew glende post ffice. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. and i once again ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of senate bill 1512, which was introduced by senator chuck schumer of new york. the bill would designate the facility located at 1335 jefferson road in rochester, new york, as the specialist theodore matthew glende post office. specialist theodore matthew glende died while serving during operation enduring freedom in afghanistan. 2012, killed on july 27, when his unit was in the field training and came under enemy attack. during the attack, specialist glende was killed by a mortar round that hit a trailer where he was helping his other

wounded comrades take shelter. members of the unit said he saved lives of five of his fellow soldiers during the attack. specialist glende was only 23 years old. he was a native of rochester, new york, and theodore graduated from the mcquaid jesuit high school in 2007. he was enrolled at niagara university. he soon felt the calling to join the united states army and enlisted. he is survived by his wife, alexandria, who he married just months before leaving for his first tour of duty. mr. speaker, it is my honor and privilege to pay tribute to this great american. i ask all my colleagues to support senate 1512 and the naming of this post office after this brave fallen soldier and hero of our time, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from vermont.

mr. welch: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of this bill, s. 1512, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service at 1335 jefferson road in rochester, new york, as the specialist theodore matthew glende post office. as was mentioned, mr. glende was born in rochester, new york. he graduated from mcquaid jesuit high school in 2007 and studied military science at niagara university. theodore always knew he wanted to be a soldier and defend his country. a participant in the niagara university rotc program, he joined the army and was serving in italy but after a few months, specialist glende was deployed to afghanistan. on july 27, 2012, his unit was attacked and specialist glende

began caring for five of his fellow soldiers after the unit's medic was injured. tragically, specialist glende was hit by mortar fire, but because of his efforts, the testimony confirms five men that he was assisting all survived. specialist glende is survived by his wife, alexandria, only married a short time, his parents and his younger brother. mr. speaker, we should pass this bill to honor the courage exhibited by this young man in the face of overwhelming danger. because of specialist glendey's brave actions, five american lives were saved on the battlefield. he deserves our respect for his honorable service. i urge passage of s. 1512 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i also urge support of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass senate 1512. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5142. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5142, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 113 west jackson street in rich square, north carolina, as the chief joseph e. white, jr. post office . ilding the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from california is now recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 5142, which

was introduced by representative butterfield of north carolina. the bill would designate a facility for the united states postal service located at 113 west jackson street in rich square, north carolina, as the hief joseph e. white jr. postal building. rich square police chief white served in law enforcement for over 30 years. tragically, chief white was shot and killed with his own .45 caliber service reinvolver on july 6, -- revolver 16, while investigating a gas runaway as a local gas station. he was shot after he stopped the vehicle and -- which was wanted in connection with the incident. he is survived by his wife and several of his grown children and grandchildren. mr. speaker, chief white made

the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. we owe a large debt of gratitude for his many years of service in the community and the entire north carolina delegation supportings this naming and i -- supports this naming and i support and recommend passage of h.r. 5142, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. at this time i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, mr. butterfield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: thank you very much, congressman welch, for yielding time. let me also thank chairman issa and ranking member cummings for bringing my bill to the floor today. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 5142, a bill that i introduced that will designate the post office in rich square, north carolina, as the chief joseph e. white jr. post office building. every member of the north

carolina house delegation has co-sponsored my bill and i ask my colleagues to join me in passing it today. joseph edward white jr. was born on january 12, 1939, in hurtford county, north carolina, to joseph white sr. and the former emma jane collins. in 1957 at the age of 18, mr. white enlisted in the united states navy and bravely served our country for the next 20 years. after he retired from the navy, . white and his wife, joyce, moved to north hampton county and settled in the town of woodland, north carolina, which would ultimately become home for them and for their three children, cynthia, cheryl and terrence. mr. white found his calling in law enforcement and began his career with the woodland police department in 1980 when he served as an officer and ultimately as chief of police.

he later moved to the north hampton county sheriff's office and served as a deputy sheriff and also worked as a corrections officer at odom correctional institution just outside of jackson, north carolina. in 1999, mr. speaker, mr. white became the chief of police for the small town but a rich town rich in legacy, the town of rich square. sadly chief white's stellar career in law enforcement that saw him ascend to the position of chief of police of two north carolina police departments, was tragically cut short. after just a year of serving as police chief for the town of rich square, chief joseph white was savagely killed in the line of duty. on the afternoon of sunday, july 16, the year 2000, chief white was on duty and was alerted that a vehicle had filled up at a gas station but left the station without paying. the chief spotted the vehicle

and initiated a traffic stop. it was during the stop that chief white's .45 cal bar service weapon was wrestled away from him by the man he stopped. the man used chief white's own weapon against him tragically ending his life just five months -- five months before his retirement. it took nearly three years but this man that committed this atrocious crime was identified and he was arrested in lafayette, louisiana, on may 1, 2003. he was sentenced to life in prison on september 12, 2005. chief white, a brave veteran and dedicated public servant, a beloved husband, father, colleague and friend, lost his life in the most tragic of ways but his memory will live on forever. naming the post office in rich square in chief white's honor is but a small symbol of a grateful nation for his life

that was dedicated, dedicated to serving others. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring chief joseph e. white r. by voting aye on h.r. 5142. again, thank you, mr. welch, thank you, mr. issa. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i move the previous question and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5142. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5544, the low-dose radiation research act of 2014, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5544, a bill to increase the understanding of the health effects of low doses of ionizing radiation. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and the gentlelady, ms. edwards, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun k ask unanimous consent that all --

mr. broun: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. broun: i do. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise here today to urge my colleagues to support h.r. 5544, the low-dose radiation research act of 2014. humans are exposed on a daily basis to much natural background radiation, and some get addition aloe-dose exposure from medical procedures or industrial radiation sources. yet, sufficient data is not available for experts to efinitively conclude whether there are risks from this low dose radiation.

this prevents them set manager precise low-dose radiation limits as well as impyring decision making capabilities to address potential radiological events and advise patients for medically based radiation exposures, all of which pose an unnecessary burden on society. as a medical doctor, and a true fiscal conservative, i recognize that is a major gap in understand -- this major gap -- a major gap and understanding, and that this major gap in understanding is detrimental to the health of americans and will contribute to unnecessary economic burdens if we do not deal with it immediately this legislation seeks to address the limited understanding of potential health risks associated with low dose radiation by leveraging the nation's current expertise in low-dose radiation while proposing a long-term strategy

to address the current gaps of knowledge in this area. this legislation will be carried out using funds otherwise already appropriated by law and ensure that the department of energy is following congressional direction to focus its work on issues of long-term importance. passage of this legislation will help resolve what we do not know in the field of low dose radiation for the betterment of medicine, for emergency response planning, and for industrial fety, not to speak ability helping patients and americans know what this all entails. this will show that we do not take for granted the livelihood of our fellow americans. this bill is a commonsense win and i hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: i rise to discuss h.r. 5544, the low-dose radiation research act of 2014. this bill authorizes a program carried out by the office of science to examine the health impacts of exposure to low doses of radiation such as doses resulting from certain medical tests, nuclear waste cleanup activities, or even terrorism events like dirty bombs. this program builds on d.o.e.'s unique biological research expertise and capabilities which actually led to the establishment of the successful human gee noem project that paved the way toward breakthroughs in modern medicine today. mr. speaker, the bill also authorizes a national academy study to identify current scientific challenges in this

area and to help guide the program's long-term research agenda well into the next decade. in fact, mr. speaker, the america compete regular authorization act co-upon sored -- co-sponsored by every democratic member of the committee on science, space and technology includes very similar language to what we now see in h.r. 5544. so we have no objection to this bill and support its passage. we also look forward to working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and of course on the other side of the capitol on far more comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to authorize the america competes act as is strongly recommended by many of the most respected industry and academic leaders and organizations across the country. mr. speaker, i'd like to thank the gentleman from georgia for his leadership and for his service in the congress and of course we wish him well as that term comes to an end. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. he gentleman from georgia.

mr. broun: i reserve. sproy the gentlelady -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. edwards: i have no further speakers at this time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i appreciate the gentlelady's comments, she and i have been friends, sometimes on the opposite sides of issues but she's have ar -- she's a very dear friend and great lady and i appreciate her well wishes. i thank you very much and i appreciate that. mr. speaker i have no further speakers on this issue, no further requests for time and so i yield back the balance of my time and ask for all of us to pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the sque, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5544 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the

rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5441 to end the charter of the veterans of foreign wars to reflect the service of women in the united states army. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report think the title. the speaker pro tempore: h.r. 5141, a bill to amend the federal charter of the veterans of foreign wars to reflect the service of women in the armed

forces of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, and the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. holding: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to relt revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 5441 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: wobs. mr. holding: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the swrelt is recognized. -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. holding: the veterans of foreign wars is one of our largest veterans organizations, they have fought for veterans rights for over a century. among its goals to assist worthy comrades and perpetuate the memory and history of our dead and assist their widows and orphans. our veterans from conflicts in iraq and afghanistan are in a better place because of v.f.w.

membership in the v.f.w. is open to korean war veterans and those in thee served honorably armed forces of the united medal n campaign service, and has been awarded a campaign badge or in an area to entitled the member special pay as a result of subject to hostile fire. they do not require they have engaged in combat only that they served in a combat zone. congress provided the v.f.w. with with a federal chart for the 1936. robert wallace, the executive director of the v.f.w.'s washington office, sent a letter requesting that its charter be amended to be gender neutral in reck noifings many female

members of the v.f.w. an their invaluable contributions to the military. he stated and i quote, today our military consists of both men and women who put honor and duty before themselves, consistent with the number of military women who serve at all levels, women are taking leadership roles throughout our organization. the v.f.w. strongly believes that combat service, not gender, determines v.f.w. membership eligibility. that's why we opened our membership to women over 35 years ago. however our congressional charter doesn't reflect this reality. mr. speaker, as the congressional research service reported last year, almost 300,000 female service members have been deployed for contingency operations in iraq and afghanistan and approximately 12 years of combat operations in iraq and afghanistan over 800 women have been wounded and over -- over 00 have been wounded and over 130 have died.

women have been recognized for their heroism, earning two silver star medals. h.r. 5441, introduced by congressman jeff miller, makes the changes sought by the v.f.w. and is strongly supported by the organization. i commend representative miller for introducing the bill. the v.f.w.'s current charter provides that the v.f. swmplet a national association of men who have served in wars, campaigns and expeditions on foreign soil or in hostile water. this bill would replace "men" with "veterans." would replace widows with surviving spouses. i urge my colleagues to support this meritorious bill that reflects the valor of women in our armed forces. thank you, mr. speaker, and i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lofgren: as has been said this bill makes a small but important change to the federal charter of the veterans of foreign wars of the united states. as has been mentioned it would amend the charter to become gender neutral by replacing men with veterans and widows with surviving spouses and i think doing this aligns the charter with the actual makeup of the organization today and i totally support the change. the veterans of foreign wars of the united states has been serving veterans of our armed forces for over 100 years and traces its roots to the spanish american war. only men were permitted to serve in the military when the organization was chartered in 1936 and of course we know since that time, things have changed a great deal. the role of women in the

military has greatly expanded. in fact two of our colleagues, congresswoman gabbard of hawaii and congresswoman duckworth of illinois both served with great distinction and honor in our military services and now serve with us as colleagues in the house. women serve in a variety -- in varied roles throughout the armed forces and have made many important sacrifices for the country. women, in fact, now make up almost 10% of the total veterans population and the veterans' administration predicts they'll represent 18% of veterans by the year 2040. in recognition of these facts, the v.f.w. opened its membership to women other 35 years ago and they certainly deserve our commendation for doing system of generally as has been said many times, it should be up to the organization, not congress, to decide who may and may not be a member of that organization. that's one of the many reasons why members on both sides of the

aisle have long supported the committee's policy against creating new federal charters. but even so, there's no policy against amending existing charters and if such amendments are needed to align the charter to actual reality, then there's no reason to prevent such an amendment. in fact, i also support the reason for this change. the veterans of foreign wars seek this is change because this is what they said. strongly believe that combat service, not gender determines membership eligibility. i couldn't agree more and i can only applaud the v.f.w. for initiating this change and coming to the judiciary committee seeking out the author of the bill and working with us in a bipartisan -- on a bipartisan basis to get here today system of thank you, mr. speaker, the author of the bill and this was unanimously approved by the judiciary committee. so i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. holding: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from florida, mr. miller a choorp of veterans' rights and chairman of the veterans affair committees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time and i want to thank chairman goodlatte and the ranking member for speeding this through the judiciary committee. i rise in support of this piece of legislation. although it's a simple bill, mr. speaker, designated to update the congressional charter of the v.f.w. to reflect today's active duty and veterans' population by changing the word, as we have heard from men, to veterans, and the word widows to surviving spouses. women veterans do in fact -- are members of v.f.w., have been since 1978, but like many things, it sometimes takes a little time for paperwork to catch up. i think v.f.w.'s command for the

chief, john stroud, said it best in describing why they have requested this change, and again, it has been said that we are not changing our congressional charter because it is politically correct. an changing it because eligible veteran is what's important, and changing widows to sur -- to surviving spouses is more representative of the military of today. women comprise over 15% of today's military force and obviously that means they are making up an ever-increasing share of america's 22 million veterans as they return to civilian life so i ask my colleagues to join me and hairman goodlatte along with ms.low in supporting h.r. 5441 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: i have no additional speakers and if the gentleman is i'm prepared to yield back. i'd just say thanks to congressman miller for his leadership in this bill and i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. holding: i urge the passage of h.r. 5141 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house uspend the rules and pass h.r. 5441.- h.r. those in favor say aye, those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately

>> they won't allow the incoming republican control congress to undermine the union. earring remarks at the christian science monitor, we talked about the keystone pipeline plan. quick center mccarthy graduated from the university of massachusetts with a degree in social anthropology with the background in printed cultures.

she went on to earn a master's degree from tufts university environmental health, lanning, and engineering. she began her career in boston and went on to positions of increasing influence in the environmental field, first in massachusetts, where she managed the neat trick of getting appointed by two governors who shared little else in common, michael dukakis and mitt romney. she moved slightly south to head the connecticut epa. in 2009 she earned the nickname of the president's green quarterback. she was confirmed as epa administrator in july 2013 after lengthy confirmation battle. the administrator and her husband have three grown children. she is reported to relax in the evening by reading government documents with the barefoot

contests are playing in the background. my kind of woman. that is the biographical portion of the program. now to this morning's mechanics. america's natural gas alliance is sponsoring a number of monitored breakfast today, my thanks to colleagues who are sitting at the table, helping spare me from the pain of premature retirement. as always we are on the record here. please no live blogging are tweeting or filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. let's listen to what our guest says. to help you resist that relentless urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session to our reporters here as soon as the session ends. please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, a raised eyebrow, hand wave, what have you, and i will happily call on

one and all in the time we have available. we will start by as -- offering our guests he opportunity to make some opening comments and then we will move to questions around the table. >> thank you very much, and thanks for coming this morning and giving me the opportunity to talk for a few minutes. then i'm happy to take questions. that me just begin by saying that i assume that most of what is on your mind is going to be related to climate, in particular may be the china-u.s. joint announcement as well as the 3 billion-dollar commitment to the green climate fund. i thought i would begin with that and then certainly we can talk to -- about other things as we move forward. the most important message i have and that we can talk about is the fact that the joint announcement between china and the u.s. was really a historic announcement. it was a significant step forward, and i believe a lot of

it is attributable to president obama's leadership on climate change, domestically and internationally. step forward that the president took to put out a climate action plan that really showed that the u.s. could be aggressive on climate change, it waso make sure that being done reasonably and in concert with the growing economic climate. it was important come i think it sends a big international signal which is what was intended. i think it's pretty clear that the clean power plan that epa put out was also -- or propose, i should say -- was also seen as a significant information of the president's leadership, as well as our ability under existing law to move forward under the clean air act to regulate climate change in a significant way, in particularly the carbon pollution from the powers that.

so i think there was growing confidence not only that the president was showing leadership am a but he could deliver on those commitment. on resiliencyrk and our work to understand the economic impact of all of these efforts really showed us that there was significant need for work with our communities to ensure that they are safe, in light of the climate impacts that we were seeing, but also that the efforts that were underway like the clean power plan in our work to develop a methane strategy, that it would be entirely consistent to the , additional job growth, continued investment in technologies of the future that would be consistent with the low carbon future. and also that it would spark innovation and clinton -- sin

clear signals about where that -- and send clear signals about where there would be significant opportunities for u.s. companies to take advantage of the changes that would result from understanding that climate action was necessary and the kind of actions that the president outlined. the joint agreement with china, i think, is a clear indication that the president was very serious when he said it's about taking domestic action and about finding an international solution. these are the two largest economies. they are the two largest sources and theirpollution, ability to work together to do a joint agreement, which basically was a significant step forward, outlining what the president is climate action plan and beyond, as well as how china interprets its responsibility, was a big step forward. i think you all know that we

believe that the president's climate actions are going to be significant, but also achievable. i would indicate that the commitment of china is also a big step forward. if any of you have been involved in these climate discussions for any length of time, as i have, on many levels, i think you would appreciate the fact that put an absolute reduction on the table, and the commitment that they have made, which is a 2030 commitment, really does require immediate action to make sure that that commitment can be delivered. consider both of these commitments to be solid steps forward. our ability to announce this with china was not only a good signal for the international , because with us and china and the ee you, it represents half of the carbon

budget in the whole world. so it does send a big signal, and i think you will see other countries wanting to take similar actions, which hopefully will lead to a sound and aggressive international commitment in paris next year. so with that, i think i should one, other than to say that of the great things about the china-u.s. joint commitment -- or i should say announcement, is the fact that i think it also represents and it knowledge meant on the part of china that looking at carbon pollution and concert within work they're doing and we are doing to develop our economy could help us spark investment internationally on the kind of technologies that will drive towards the numbers we need to achieve, that science tells us that we need. i can answer some questions on the 3 billion-dollar find. i would just introduce it by saying this was expected, it was

a commitment that the u.s. was forming and shaping since copenhagen in 2009. countriesanother of that have already made commitments and we expect that this commitment will spark significant additional effort on the part of other countries to join in a robust way. , again,lso think that this is going to be an opportunity for us to invest in a significant way in the kind of innovations and investment strategies we need to address climate change and to get to the levels that are necessary. it also will, of course, provide us opportunities to work in some strategic areas that are in our national interest but also deal with some of the resiliency challenges that we need to address, given that the climate has already changed and is likely to continue. >> thank you for that summary.

david, chris mark, news and the dallas morning news, to start. let me start with -- you're obviously bullish on the china arrangement. as you know, there are critics who don't share your enthusiasm. one of the most prominent and influential as the senate majority leader, who said that it requires the chinese to do nothing for 16 years. time magazine ran a piece over clearekend saying it's the announcement is not meant to create any new obligations. the u.s. and china cells plenty of room to step back if their pledges become inconvenient. what are your critics missing? this as slippery and evanescent as they make it sound? >> i don't believe it is. i think it is as significant as i make it sound. i don't know if anybody has

looked at the numbers and has looked at the way in which china has been relying on coal as a growth strategy. it's clearly a signal that they need to make significant economic changes in the structure of how they look at their economy, and it will require significant investment in zero carbon technology, or low carbon technology. it is going to result in the need for them to make an immediate shift in how they are looking at continuing to grow and they use 2030 as a time to cap. without this commitment, which 2030 they later than would top off, but their commitment to look at earlier dates and try to accelerate that is significant, and if you look at just how much renewables they need to actually construct as a result of this by 2030, we are

talking about on the order of the entire generation capacity in the u.s. so this is a big change that requires a lot of action now to turn this large and economy around, and that can't be done on a dime, but it needs to get going right away. >> last one from me, the good folks at the louisville courier journal, jim carroll on had an interview last week with the majority leader, or the coming majority leader. sense was that there is a war on coal, he feels, and now he's going to run a war on obama . one avenue would be the spending process. he's going to fight the white house anyway we can. how vulnerable -- and actually your red assessor, christine todd whitman, told politico that would jim inhofe as chairman of the environmental committee, what they're going to do is tardy agency. my question is, how full herbal

do you feel the epa -- how vulnerable do you feel the epa is to a strategy by senator mcconnell and others? >> i feel very comparable that the american people understand the value of epa. i'm confident that for 40 plus years we been able to do our jobs and continue to grow the economy. i feel confident that we have four republican administrators at epa that have testified before that very committee in just this past year, and were very strong about their cry for immediate action on climate change. so this has not been -- epa has not been a heart is in agency. -- has not been a partisan agency. it has done its best to protect public health in the modest way can. i do not believe the american public wants to see us not do that. >> have you had conversations with senator mcconnell in recent

days on this or anything else? x not in recent days, but certainly we have met before. i certainly respect his position , but i think the american public will speak. >> when analysts are looking at the u.s. commitment with china, say that the%, you power plant loan is not going to get us there. there will need to be regulation of methane, not just voluntary standards but actual regulation. [indiscernible] >> you may recall that we actually do regulate volatile organic compounds from natural gas wells. the question is, how do we continue to get those reductions? asdo that to capture methane well. we have put out some white papers exploring this, the president and his climate action plan calls on a methane

reduction strategy to be developed to read we are working on that with the rest of the administration. so it's not just about what epa how it can be done cost effectively and with certainty. we are looking clearly at both regulation and voluntary action and commitments of the business community as opportunities for reductions, and we will be coming out with a plan. ends in terms of which tools will be relied upon more heavily still being analyzed, but we feel like we can make significant cost effects of -- cost-effective reductions, and we will aggressively go after them. >> i will ask a non-climate western. ago, almost exactly, epa tried to promulgate a ban on asbestos. since then, congress has tried several times to legislate a

band. now with congress the way it's , is it a situation where you think the epa can take administrative action independent of congress, to do something about the fact that 10,000 people a year are dying of asbestos related disease? >> we have an ability to get to this issue through number of actions, as was shown before. you know that we can help provide standards for removal of asbestos where'd exist and do it in a healthy and protective way. we know we are a dressing this with old disposal sites. the challenger raises more whether or not we have the systemic tools we need to get at this issue and others. perspective, this is not the strongest batch it we have available to us. we have shown that time and time again. we are being as creative as we can in terms of looking at what

our opportunities are to address pesticidesances and and other issues, but a closer look would be welcome. there was an active interest in doing that and i hope there continues to be. [indiscernible] >> republicans have made clear they plan to load of appropriations bills with writers [indiscernible] -- with riders. and maybe not necessarily are yourelated, but prepared to negotiate with republicans on these issues? do you think you and the president are going to stand your ground on these things are

do you see room for compromise on any of this? >> i feel very confident that has the best interest of the epa in mind and he has made very clear what his priorities are. we are on very solid ground in recognizing that there may be challenges ahead, but that the president will do the right thing. and he has made those interests clear. the other point i would just like to make on top of that, and while there is a lot of discussion and things in the press and statements made, the president has been very clear that he is supporting this agency. i feel very well supported in everything that i am doing. he knows we are working hard to make sure that what we do is right, to protect public health and the environment and that we do it and appropriate way and away in which we can continue to

grow the economy. the most important thing i want people to know is that the people that we regulate, and our stakeholders, are paying very close attention to what epa is doing. they are sitting at the table with their sleeves rolled up. there is no one banking on us getting stopped. are acknowledging and understanding that if epa does its job well, they should be at the table working with us to make sure that their interests are heard him and that is clearly happening. so even with lots of rhetoric, the work continues, and it continues with the stakeholders at the table. >> you've got a tough job. you talk about global warming and climate change. there've been some reports in the last year from the likes of and his successor in the treasury. calculating the economic impact

of global climate change and that ifarming, saying there was a 3% increase in temperatures, rather than the 2% increase, which is legitimate, the cost globally would be a 1% reduction in global economic output. i wonder if you think that's a reasonable estimate, and why should people who terribly nervous about a 1% economic output dropped globally? actually, i do have a difficult job, but i would rather be doing nothing else, to be very honest with you. this is where i want to be, and is ank it's because this

work across the administration. one of the reasons why i wanted to say that is that we have had a lot of opportunity to have the economic representatives of this administration speak to climate change and the need for action. what they tried to do is talk about the discussions, the facts and figures you are raising, but also talk about the cost of climate inaction. when you compare the two, you will see that actions have to be taken, and if you take a look at the actions we are taking, you will see that they are moving in the direction in which the energy world is moving in this country, in which is toward a lower carbon future. you will see that we are doing it in a way that will actually spur economic investment, spur economic growth, and grow jobs. are bestand myself left to how we evaluate that honor rule by rule basis, but the president will clearly listen to his economic advisers

on how dangerous it is to think that if we do nothing on climate, we will have picked the most economic strategy moving forward. it's clearly not the way to go. >> this is sort of a seasonal, topical question based on an industry in my state. we produce a lot of turkeys that are going to be on tables in the next 10 days. as you know, they've been involved in the renewable fuel standards fight. they for trade themselves as losers because their largest input is corn. do you recognize there are losers in the base system, and how to industries like that go forward in dealing with what you are doing, if that is the case? >> epa's job is not to pick winners and losers. is to look at what the economic impacts are of our rules, but also to implement the law that was handed to us and to implement our regulations in a

fair and consistent way. if you look at the renewable fuel standard, i know everybody is anxiously awaiting epa's final rule on 2014, but we move forward with that rule in the same way we do every other rule. saidoked at what the law i'm a we looked at what the regulations require, and we even -- even handedly try to provide it best impact analysis we can so everybody understands where that rule is heading. if you look at the renewable fuel output this year, it has been pretty robust. i can say that without having to project much, because they are in mid-november. while i would have reviewed -- preferred to have this rule done earlier, it hasn't slowed down that industry, that i can see. have a continue to commitment to moving renewable fuels out and getting that rule done, because renewable fuels

are part of a low carbon strategy and we want to continue to promote those. >> i just wanted to talk a little bit about the u.s. climate deal. you said this bottom-up approach [indiscernible] technically feasible and politically feasible are two different things. you already have the clean power plan out there as a draft. is there any sense that you might have to go for even more aggressive targets in that proposal to achieve what you're looking to do in the 2020-2025 time frame when you already have just two years left with this administration? >> that's a good question. i wish more often technical and political analysis aligned. thankfully, i think in the clean power plan, it does.

clarify one thing, and that is that we are implementing the individual rules under the climate action plan i'm including the clean power plan, in a way that is consistent with the underlying rules. the way we would always do it, to try to achieve what is aggressive, that is intended under the statute, and to meet our mission, but also to do it in a way that is as smart as we could, meaning in the case of the clean power plan, it's going to be legally sound. achieveng to look to cost-effective reductions. it's going to look at how we reduction, howon we estimate what those reductions will bring. so we are doing it in a consistent way in each and every rule, not in a way where were going to let what are in goal is on climate intervened in a way that is inappropriate. we are not shooting for outside targets. we are shooting for the targets

that we are supposed to, under implementation of the current rules. >> when the water rule was put out in the spring, it was presented as kind of a noncontroversial tinkering with the guidelines in the standard. it engendered a pretty big backlash among most of the defenders of the ad economy. my question -- a couple of questions. first of all, were you surprised at this backlash from most sectors of the aggie economy -- ag economy? the house has already presented a bill to effectively -- what will the administration's response be? will you recommend to the president that he veto those were the statement

of administration policy when the house passed it? would you still recommend them? saying that it by wasn't surprised by the backlash. i was surprised by the focus of it. let me explain. the clarification of the jurisdiction under the clean water act, which this represents, has been tried a few times before. one of the criticisms i was not prepared for was the criticism that we did no outreach before we put the rule out. we actually did a guidance document that went through extensive public comment, that included the very same science that underpins our proposed rule , that approaches it in exactly the same way, with very, very, very similar conclusions. the main comment there was, put this out in a rule.

it deserves broader comment. i was surprised we were criticized for not actually taking public comment in a way that was open and engaging, because that is what this proposed rule was responding to, and i think we want to continue to be responsive to that public comment. the other thing to keep in mind is that we also actually tried to explain this rule in the best way we could. we did not try to minimize its impact. we tried to explain it. i think because we did what we call the interpretive rule, which was to expand on the expansions already in the current role, and expand the kind of actions where the agricultural community would not have to worry about jurisdictional issues -- that became a confusing issue out of the gate, as if we were limiting the exemptions of the agriculture. it became a communications challenge. the we are very confident that

the comments we are receiving are consistent with the way in which we need to head, jurisdictional he -- jurisdictionally, and we will be able to get this over the finish line. we will continue to combat misconceptions of this rule and misconceptions about any idea that is beyond the historical jurisdiction of the clean water act. it is in no way doing that. next to "the l.a. times." -- weanted to ask you have been talking a lot about how the gop might react, come january. right after the election, industry lobbyists -- cutting through the rhetoric was this idea there might be room for compromise on the power plan, as athey keep referring to sort of tailoring of some provisions of it.

with the clean power plan, given the feedback you have been getting on the building blocks or the pace of reductions at the front-end, do you see some wiggle room there? they were talking about maybe not going so fast in the beginning. now we have the climate pledge we have made in china. it actually requires us to go quite fast at the beginning. i guess it is two parts. is there room for tailoring some of the aspects of the clean power plan? what should we be doing it in light of the commitment the president has made? >> clearly, i think one of the to ans where we got off pretty good start on the clean power plan was the flexibility it offered. and the engagement we have done that solicited these types of wements, i also think that have shown this industry, the utilities and the states, that epa does listen to comments.

we actually do change from proposal to final on the basis of what we here in comments. the notice of availability that highlighted many of the issues you have identified is another clear signal we are listening. and we are not going to craft a final rule that is trying to achieve a certain level or a certain timing that is dictated by the climate goal that was recently released by the president. it will be dictated by what we have seen in the data, but the comments have said, what is the most reasonable and achievable but aggressive goal we can move towards here, and what does the data and the comments show us? we are not going to measure ourselves by those goals. those goals were set by a variety of actions, not just

this one, and every rule has to stand on its own and be done the way it is supposed to be done. i think outside stakeholders know that we will be true to our obligation under the clean air act, limit our authority to that, and will listen really closely and make changes. >> j gibson -- i'm sorry. >> i look forward to getting this over the finish line. >> i apologize. >> esther gibson. -- jake gibson. impact not long after midterm elections could strike some as suspect timing, as it would coming from any other administration. you think the american people, when they headed to the polls earlier this month, might have had the right to know what the obama administration was intending to enact with the new epa rags? -- regs? insofar as the president said his policies were on the ballot earlier this month, to what

extent do you think the result should be interpreted as a rejection of the administration approach to the environment? -- irst of all, i have have no reason to believe that the timing of these announcements are anything other than the timing we were able to achieve. these discussions have been welcome the i availability to explain to the american public what the u.s. can do under our existing authority, moving forward. know of any new regulations that epa that have been announced since the elections. likeere are a couple, ozone and some others. >> those have been on the books. everybody has known about those, and i think most of you have written about those for a long time. i have not heard of any new announcements in that regard, unless i missed something. waste -- don any

the elections in any way speak to how the public feels about the administration's environmental policy? >> i will let you speak on that. >> "dallas morning news," back in the cheap seats. the vote tomorrow in the keystone pipeline -- i want to get a sense of the steps. that decision is not in your ballpark, what you could speak to maybe what you see the stakes environmentally, one way or the other. what dave asked you in the beginning -- i understand you are relying on the american people to support the goals that you have laid out. that specifically, with regard to the budget tool that congress capacity does the epa have to survive that kind of scrutiny? it is not going to be a bill that obama can veto. what kind of dialogue or strategy is there?

>> let me hit the keystone issue first. i thank you for acknowledging that it is not in my wheelhouse. that is a good thing. you know, i cannot yet speak with entire certainty about the environmental impact, because part of the reason why we have not provided comment on a final draft is because we don't yet know where the exact layout of the pipeline is, because of the challenge in nebraska, which is what we are holding off before providing comment on that, and seeing where the final document is. on the budget, let me just, again, go back. you know, i feel very confident that the american people want the epa to continue to protect them and their family, and importantly their kids. i think that is a reason why the focus on climate change. that is a reason we are focused on other pollution standards. i also know that the american

people are listening, even on climate, you know? when you survey folks, they are worried about climate change and they want us to do something. many of the recent polls show they actually like the work that epa is doing on this. and in particular, the clean power plan. i will hopefully let democracy work and recognize that the president is going to be working these issues, and that he has great faith in the work we are doing and will be supportive of us. >> dave shepperton, "the detroit news." low,ter a four-year americans are shifting back to suv's. the fuel efficiency of the fleet has dropped dramatically in the last few months in terms of new vehicles sold. are you concerned this will impact meeting the 2025 standards? a look atf you take what has happened over the past year, which is how we look at

these things, rather than month-to-month, i am not sure what the general fluctuation is. you will see that we have been really -- we are really seeing significant efficiency improvements all across the fleet. and i think the most important thing to remember is that our fuel efficiency standards allow , that someand trucks are less efficient than others because of the way in which we designed the standards. i expect that we will continue to have more and more fuel-efficient vehicles, and people will still want them. everything i have read indicates that fuel efficiency remains the number one characteristic of what people look for in a new vehicle. so while there may be some that see a need in the winter to take a look at suv's, there will be many others who are looking for those fuel-efficient vehicles. thankfully, our domestic car companies are doing well by selling them. >> you announced a $300 million

fine to hyndai and kia for not reporting proper vehicle sticker labels. do you think a system is in place that you can prevent this from happening in the future? and he you think other auto companies lost sales or were hurt by the misleading numbers? all, i think we were pleased that the existing system actually caught this. this was our own initiative, our own audit, that realized these numbers did not quite add up. wasreason why hyndai/kia the specific example of one that we wanted to make sure to highlight was because it was particularly egregious and systemic. it does send a signal. the reason for the high fine is did havee thought they an economic advantage in the market because they advertised over 40 mpg cars that simply did not achieve that.

we are doing our best to make sure we treat car pollution the same as other pollutants. we are not going to just do rules, but we are going to implement them and get the pollution reduction we were supposed to get. that is what we are doing with i think it sends a strong signal. >> we go to the back of the room , the brotherhood of the pink shirts, "the washington examiner." >> epa is on a tour to listen to stakeholders right now. a lot of european countries and pesticides fored the disasters that seem to be hitting the bees. are you open to possibly considering a ban of these pesticides, and you share concerns that the be is in trouble -- the bee is in trouble? >> we share concerns in the decrease in the honeybee population. the president put out an

executive order asking us to work together to make sure we understand the science, understand what is happening here, and take whatever appropriate steps are necessary. and we will do that. i think you will see there are a number of factors that need to be considered. a lot of this could be attributable to habitat loss, and much of it might be. we also have already put out different requirements for how -- thisle these pesticide class that people are most concerned about, so we can make sure to build the proper distance and applications, so that any impact they have on the honeybee population is minimize what we look more directly at these issues. these issues are not off the table. we recognize a wonderful partnership between folks who care about honeybees and folks who like to use these pesticides to manage their crops.

we have to make sure we get this right and focus on what the science and data shows us. journal." l street >> on ozone, you said weeks ago there are a lot of ways to -- with a deadline coming up in a few days, will you release a stricter standard for ozone? some environmentalists are worried you are not to -- not willing to put the political calculus on ozone. with the rule, are you planning to make some sort of decision sometime this fall, by december 21? ozone, therell, on is -- i am going to put out a rule in the timeline that the court has dictated.

it isoing that because not just required, but because it is essential for us to continue to look at what health-based standards are necessary so that we can do our job. i will not indicate what that decision is, other than to say it is going to be based on the science, and i will take close consideration of what our scientists have told us and advised us. and we will put a rule out that i think the presents that science. and it is not a political decision. .t is a decision i have to make i welcome moving these rules forward. the second issue is on the methane strategy. we will put something out. i do not know the exact timing of that. is anndicated before, it administrative line review and work product. we will make sure to get that done this fall.

are -- "they courier-journal." on friday, going to war with the president on coal. can you talk about what these policies will mean? the coal industry think they are ultimately doomed, perhaps not only under your policies, but in the long term. would you respond to that? and where is the avenue for detente in this so-called war on coal? what active steps can you take to try to reduce the rhetoric and maybe produce something that would be seen as productive? all, we have had this "war on coal" scenario coming up for a long time. i think it is important to remember that regardless of where it epa is in its rulemaking, the energy world is in a transition.

and i think a lot of that is attributable to inexpensive natural gas. and that technology continues to develop, and makes more natural gas resources available. and so there is a changing world here, and we have always looked at the direction that that world is heading. we can understand the economic impacts of our rules. and i would suggest that the rules there was the most concerned about -- the first was the american air toxic standard. the question was whether that was going to -- whether every change in the energy rule was attributable to that rule. we put that rule out. it is going well. it is not impacting the liability. it is following the direction the energy world is heading, because that is what we are supposed to do. that is how we look at costs and benefits. the same with the clean power plants.

i would suggest we are following the way in which the energy world is actually developing, and we are doing the things necessary to protect public health and the environment. it is not specifically targeted at coal. and because coal can continue to survive, we expect it to. we expect it to remain a part of the energy mix. we have specifically looked at the coal states and where they are, and we have made a goal for them, set a standard for them, that we think is reasonable and achievable for them, and not asked them to look like or feel like any other place. we have done the best we could to set a stage for good discussion with those states. we have frankly been having good discussion with them. it is not a case where they refuse to come to the table or do not think there is a place for them in looking at and talking about the proposal, and what we need to do to get it finalized, the custom they are active and interested in working with us. we try to send as much of a

signal as we can that coal is a part of the mix and will remain so. the great interest of china in stepping up to the plate now may signal that they have great interest in looking at things like carbon capture sequestration as well. you may see innovation that we believe is available to us today become even more readily available and cost-effective, with these types of international agreements. news."injure, "u.s. >> you mentioned the american people are listening on climate change. it never reaches the upper echelons of issues that people vote on, such as the economy. given the scope of the problem, why do you think people are not -- they may be listening, but are not acting on it. or politicians do to change that? >> what i am trying to do is try to get people off the idea that

acting responsibly on climate change is in some way contrary to the country's economic goals. them that there is no dichotomy between working hard for the environment and working hard for the economy. and that particularly where we haveis related, great opportunities to become --e efficient, talks which to switch to cleaner technologies, to grow a robust and growing renewable energy this as a way use for the u.s. to become even more competitive internationally. and so i am hoping that people will not see the climate issue as simply an environmental issue, the closet is a fundamental choice about whether or not this country is investing andinnovating in the future the present, as opposed to the past.

we have made an energy transition that i think is minimal for the kinds of reductions we are seeing, and really providing a backdrop for strong economic growth. >> "the hill"? >> sort of a two-parter. how can we as a country in force this agreement we just made with china, on china. china does not have the greatest record when it comes to following its international commitments. also, when it comes to agreements we might make in the next year, coming up to paris, the conference there -- how do we enforce those? do these hold the weight of international law, like a treaty? how do we enforce these? know, there have been no decisions made. there probably will not be until paris, for how you capture these international agreements, in

what type of forum. the impacts in what way it becomes enforceable and legally binding. the u.s. feels very good about the joint announcement with china, because it not only represents a great step forward, but it also continues to of thent a broadening u.s. and china relationship. andwe don't go into a hole wait until one another's says something a year from now. we have an ongoing dialogue with china. we have a climate workshop -- i am sorry, workgroup -- that actually gets together all the time. we have goals we set for one another and work through together. as you may guess, epa has a lot of opportunity to work with china. i think one of the reasons why china has really begun to step up on climate change is because of the broader demand they have for air pollution in general to

be addressed. and as many of you may know, epa has been working hand-in-hand with folks in china on many levels, to try to provide them technical assistance and to help them monitor their air pollution. and if there is any example of what we can do together, and how it benefits the u.s. -- if you take a look at the technologies that are selling in china on air pollution, if you take a look at the monitoring equipment they just installed as a result of the push for better air pollution monitoring, those are all u.s. companies doing really good business. and so if we continue to align air pollution challenges with this climate challenge, i think both china and the u.s. see great value in that. and we will continue to do that, work hand-in-hand with them. >> thanks for doing this. you said a few times that you are not going to taylor the clean air act rules -- tailor

the clean air act rules to the china agreement, but have come up with a fairly specific range of targets. does the white house already know what policies will be tapped to get to those targets? and what can you tell us about those policies? thehe white house and interagency effort has been looking at what is reasonable to ofieve under a variety efforts on the climate action plan. they are also looking at what other rules and voluntary efforts might be appropriate to consider in this timeframe. they are also sort of taking a look at what other things we did not think about, which is what business is doing. i think one of the great events that we did over the past six months or so was working with the business community on hfc reductions. we had no sense that the business community was going to be as aggressive as it was in stepping up to the plate on their own, and dictating what

they were doing as individual from highto move away global warming, ozone-depleting substances, and moving away. i think the u.n. conference in new york indicated significant interest on the part of this country's largest companies to step forward in saying, we are factoring the cost of carbon into our decisions -- why aren't government? in dynamicshange which gives us a better understanding of what we might be able to achieve by 2025 on the basis of the common action plan. no one tool is going to be the linchpin. it is going to have to be a combination of efforts between government, the business sector, states and local communities, and others who need to step up to the plate and contribute. >> thanks for being here today.

past, depending on which data you look at, there has been a slowdown, pause, or hiatus in global warming for the last 15-18 years. i was wondering if the epa factors that into its policies. recent studies say climate is less sensitive to co2 then maybe we thought in the 1990's. is that something you take into account the future rules? >> we work with the u.s. government to take a look at these factors, but i want to take a lot of time on that. that is a short-lived issue that does not represent climate on a longer-term basis, and it represents one factor, when there are so many others. most of which are looking like they are accelerating at levels we did not anticipate, as opposed to being more moderate. if you look at the entire science record, we are looking at all of those issues, but nothing tells us that we are being overly aggressive in understanding the actions we need to take, or the impacts of

doing nothing on climate. >> thank you for doing this. we appreciate it. >> you are welcome. thanks, everybody. >> i apologize for the food. >> it was delicious. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we take you live to the capitol visitor center. they are waiting for nancy pelosi, the democratic leader, and her briefing with reporters, which we understand will likely focus on the selection of henry lujan as democratic campaign committee chairman. in a shock to her caucus, nancy pelosi selected henry lujan of new mexico as chairman of the democratic aggression all --paign to midi for the 2016

democratic congressional 2016,gn committee for messaging, recruiting, and getting out the vote. they say the choice is pelosi's a shock tout was most democrats on capitol hill. the house gavels in like in in two hours -- gavels back in in two hours. legislation including renaming a post offices. this week, they take up separate bills dealing with epa regulations. in the senate, they will take up the keystone xl pipeline bill of senator mary landrieu. it will take 60 votes to get through the senate. you can follow that debate over on c-span 2, the house having passed bill cassidy's keystone 31 democratsday,

joining republicans to move that bill through the house. bill cassidy and mary landrieu you facing each other in the december 6 runoff race in louisiana. we are waiting to hear from nancy pelosi. we understand it will be a minute or two more.

looking live, waiting to hear from nancy pelosi, democratic leader in the house, her news conference with reporters. expecting to hear questions reported report it -- decision of the new head of the congressional campaign committee for the 2016 cycle. we will hear more tomorrow on "washington journal," looking at the lame-duck agenda ahead, particularly for the progressive caucus. morning, a north carolina representative republic in discussing the strategy to combat isis, and whether congress will authorize money

and troops. that is tomorrow morning on "washington journal." several onrings tomorrow, including the u.s. response to ebola. the director of the center for disease control will be talking about the response to the outbreak in west africa, the possible dangers posed to the u.s., what can be done to prevent further spreading. all of that tomorrow in front of a house oversight subcommittee at 1:00 p.m. eastern. a morning hearing focusing on ebola at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3.

>> she is going to move right there. [murmurs] >> we are waiting to hear from house democratic leader nancy pelosi in a briefing with reporters. she will likely talk about the reported appointment to head the democratic congressional campaign committee. over on the republican side of the house, jake sherman tweeting

the root republican steering -- the house republican steering committee put off votes on committee chairs until tuesday. some weather-related delays in the nations capital. the house will gavel in at 6:30 eastern for debate on bills they debated earlier today. in the house this week, a number of measures dealing with epa regulation. in the u.s. senate, the bill on the keystone xl pipeline. that will come up tomorrow. look for at least six hours of debate on that. a bill by bill cassidy of louisiana passed in the house on friday of last week, garnering 31 democrats in support of his legislation. we expect debate in the senate tomorrow, and a likely vote around 6:15 eastern tuesday. he senate, as always, is over on c-span 2.

[murmurs] looks like it will be a bit longer wait for democratic leader nancy pelosi. as we wait, we will look ahead

to this week in the house and senate. >> it looks like a busy week in congress. one of the headlines said the keystone pipeline is heading for a showdown in the senate. we know the house passed approval last week. the senate takes up a big vote tomorrow. what are they going to do? >> good afternoon, everyone. hi. the chairman of the house mourns itscaucus members that tomorrow we will elect the leadership team for the one hundred 14 congress. should i receive the honor of serving as the house democratic leader, i will be proud to recommend members gathered here

for important positions of leadership in our caucus in the new congress. as the next chair of the democratic congressional campaign committee, i am pleased to recommend congressman ben dynamic new mexico, a leader with fresh energy and house democrats need in 2016. he has a bold vision and determined leadership to deliver wins in difficult districts. i am confident he will prove a tireless champion for our members across the country, and am absolutely delighted to recommend him to the caucus. the democratic congressional campaign committee for the last four years, congressman steve israel has consistently proved the depth of his wisdom and strength of his strategic vision in making our case to the american people, and his new role -- and we thank him for his leadership over those

four years. as chair ofrole something called policy and communications -- congressman israel will be an invaluable asset to our caucus, working closely with the steering and policy committee to jumpstart the middle class and reignite the american dream. thank you, mr. israel, who has agreed to serve. connecticut, her unrelenting leadership -- i mean unrelenting, unrelenting leadership -- is it essential to our caucus. -- is the godmother because behind the women succeed in america cause, working on behalf of families. she is a monument of our caucus, and i look forward to continuing to work with her as cochair of the steering and policy committee. i have to say that rosa -- 40 some members are here from the

freshman class of last year. they have entrusted their hopes, dreams, aspirations, and career rosa, and she ,nderstands their aspirations as well as the more senior members. she is an institution. everyone, by popular demand, insisted she again serve in this role. they pleased all of us. i am glad it pleased rosa to do that. congressman edwards has been an caucus.ned voice in our as chair of the democratic women's working group, she has been a forceful champion for america's women, and tingling the work she began as the cofounder for an international network to end domestic violence. her deep grasp of priorities of middle-class families will make her a great asset to our caucus, in the role of policy cochair.

these members are tested and tenacious members of our caucus. they have the energy and the vision for the american people. themexcited to work with in these important roles and pleased and honored to yield to my nominee to be chair of the democratic congressional campaign committee, congressman lujan of new mexico. >> thank you. i want to apologize for keeping everyone waiting. it was me who caused the delay. i shared with speaker pelosi as i was walking in that i could phone. mom off the you can imagine it was emotional. it was joyous. my father, who passed away two years ago, was a former speaker of the new mexico house of representatives. him, i would not be organizing to make sure we look

out for the working people of america. i want to thank leader pelosi for the opportunity and command chairman israel. i have been working with the chairman as part of the latino council. i saw the tremendous job he did in recruiting and growing in a historically challenging cycle. i look forward to working with him in the coming days so i can hit the ground running, take lessons from recent elections, and get right to work to make sure we have the candidates, resources, and messages you begin a successful 2016. i know chairman israel has already been recruiting, working effectively, as he always has, from day one. and i look forward to that same work ethic going forward. less than a month from the election, house republicans are talking once again about shutting down the government, rather than working to tackle the issues facing families across our nation. they have stood in the way of increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, and

comprehensive immigration reform. as chairman, i will work to make sure house republicans are held accountable for this reckless behavior, and that the american people see the clear difference between house democrats, who have a plan for job creation, to make college more affordable, raise the minimum wage, and fix our broken immigration system. it will be great opportunity in 2016 to make aims. it is a more favorable electorate during a presidential year. as many districts held by republicans that president obama won, we will be on the offensive. ithink leader pull up -- thank you, leader pelosi, and look forward to getting to work. >> it is my appreciation and admiration for a job well done -- i now yield to the new chair ,f communications and policy congressman steve israel of new york. the whole country has benefited so much. >> if you think he is happy, you

have no idea how happy i am. it will be the happiest day in my life. [laughter] i am incredibly excited by leader pelosi's decision to reorganize the leadership of our caucus and create a position as chairman of policy and communications. leader pelosi and i have talked about this extensively. i will be very brief, and then i am going to brag on my friend ben. is experiencing the deepest and most acute anxiety for the middle class in history. of thepast election, 1/3 eligible voters voted for democrat or republican. home, because they lost trust in government to understand their anxiety and economic challenges. the elections are a very short

leash. they give a majority and take it away quickly, every three years, because of this intense economic anxiety. and it is understandable. since the recovery began, the economy has grown 12%. corporate profits have grown 46%. the stock market has grown 92%. median house cold -- household income has declined 3%. no wonder they are anxious. no wonder they feel this insecurity. voters -- voters have put both parties on a short leash. have alwaysmocrats been the party of the middle-class and working families, and will continue to be the party of the middle class and working families. and this new position within the democratic leadership will bring our messaging and our policies, particularly on middle-class anxiety is, to a new and never before seen level for our caucus. and i look forward to working with leader pelosi, working

closely with steering and policy, working with every to amplifyur caucus and focus intensely on that message, that we are the party of the middle class. the party of middle-class security and opportunity. leader pelosi wants to proactively create a middle-class movement that focuses on wage growth in the middle class, that focuses on new opportunities, and that is precisely what this new effort will do and precisely what the leader has asked me to focus on in terms of policy and communications. a final word about ben lujan. i chaired the dccc for four years. i must tell you that i cannot think of a group of members more operational, more committed, more devoted, more dedicated than donna edwards, who did our recruiting, and ben ray lujan, who adjusted the mission.

no drama. no excitement. just achieved the goal. and ben raymd b -- were incredibly positive and operational. i am grateful to both of them and look forward to supporting donna in her new position as cochair of steering and policy, and supporting been raped -- supporting ben ray in his new position as head of the dccc. i am going to continue my work with ben ray. >> thank you, chairman israel. i do not know when this takes effect. the members vote tomorrow. after we have our own elections -- i guess i have an opponent. there is a possibility i might get elected. we will take these to the caucus

. it is a function of the steering and policy committee. the steering peace is the committee assignments, and the policy piece is just what it said. in both.n expert by popular demand of the members, she is back in that position as a leader on policy in the caucus since she came to the congress. we have learned a lot from her, and continue to do so. very, very much. it has been an exciting day and i want to say thank you to you for your continued trust in me, and the continued trust of my colleagues. as you mention, that is heartwarming. it is always more difficult with your peers. you want to make sure they are standing with you. i am delighted to serve again as cochair of steering and policy for the next few years.

i am so looking forward to working with a partner, congresswoman donna edwards. we have worked together over the last couple of years, particularly on issues that are affecting working women and working man in our community. also please to work with the steering and policy committee as we address the pressing issues that face the american people. democrats have an important issue in the next two years. we need to stand up for the middle class. we need to stand up for the working poor, and for the vulnerable. and the important economic issues of the day -- the most important challenge for people today is, they are in jobs that do not pay them enough money to live. to aeader understands that fare thee well, and frankly there is no one better able to lead us as we face those economic challenges. and that is what we need to do for the middle class and for

working men and women in this nation. and that is to look at the kinds jobs, how wecreate look at increasing that minimum wage, how we look at rebuilding this country through infrastructure and creating jobs that cannot be outsourced, how we pay attention to education and the cost of allowing people to go to school again in this nation. today, we know that student loan debt is larger than credit card debt. big issues that we need to face. the leaderid, understands that better than anyone. she has a clear vision. she has a progressive vision. she will listen. she understands. and she brings together the interests of a very diverse caucus. it is not homogenous. i do not have to tell you about a democratic caucus. and leading us is a task that

she takes on, and she really demonstrates to the caucus her strengths. and by doing that provides strengths to where we want to try to go. so i am proud to serve in leadership with leader pelosi, with the rest of my colleagues here. and i am proud to be a part of what is a very, very strong team. i will just say this to folks out there. don't underestimate us. [laughter] rosa, forank you, your ongoing leadership and strong message. covering the leadership in the house democratic caucus chair. not a newcomer as a leader of the democratic women's working group, she led us around the country.

when women succeed, america succeeds. she leads us with her deep astuteness and knowledge of the issues. she will be a wonderful addition to the leadership as she cochairs the steering and policy committee, congressman donna edwards of maryland. >> i have to tell you i am so blown away just to be standing here today as part of this new and refreshing leadership team. and i cannot thank the leader in the for displaying the confidence in me and my colleagues to put our foot forward for the 21st century, for working people in this country. i want to say a couple of thank yous in addition to the leader. it has been a real privilege to work with steve israel, our outgoing chair of the democratic congressional campaign committee . in recruiting a caliber class of candidates and making sure we had the resources we need to do we have thend now

great privilege of being able to stand alongside, work with and for, my good friend ben ray lujan. i cannot say enough about him. he truly is a leader. he has demonstrated that from day one that he came into the congress. and i am looking forward to the work we are going to do together , to do as he has described, and that is put together goals and an agenda for the american people and working people that says, we know who you are. we are interested in you. and we want you to be invested in us. i know our soon-to-be chairman ben ray lujan is going to do that for us, and i look forward to supporting him in that effort. and what can i say about my colleague, rosa delauro? she is such a champion and has such energy. i only hope i can match that energy on the steering and policy committee. >> it will be quite a challenge. >> i have work to do, but i am

looking forward to doing it. a reallyhat this is exciting day for our democratic caucus. tomorrow will be more exciting, when we cement it. i think what you have standing before you is a leadership team that is interested in the future and is really committed every single bit of the way to making sure that working families understand that we are on their side, that we know there is a struggle, that we know they have not had a raise in a very, very long time. justow that every day they want to get up and take care of themselves and their families, build a better life for their children. responsibility of making sure that those dreams come true, and that opportunities are created and there are ladders of opportunity for success for the american people. and i am looking forward to doing this. so rosa, i'm with you.

>> thank you very much, congresswoman. thank you all. tomorrow after our elections, which will take place in the morning, our full leadership comes forward to make our presentation and answer your questions. saying,ant to close by the republicans have taken both houses of the congress of the united states. 2006, adid that in congress sworn in in 2007, we worked with president bush on so many issues. we passed one of the biggest energy bills in the history of our country. we worked with him on the stimulus package. very instrumental in helping us. ofney frank said it was one the most wonderful, progressive pieces of legislation to come out of the congress. he did that with president bush.

and of course we worked with him tarp whenhen his -- on his own party abandoned him. we opposed the war in iraq and reductions in social security, but that did not impact how we worked with him on other issues. he did work with president bush, and i hope the record will soon show that the newly did -- newly elected republican congress will work closely with president obama. we want to work with them to make progress for the american people. a few years ago, it was friendly opportunity -- anyone who wants to work together to reignite the american dream. this year was jumpstarting the middle class, good paying jobs in the united states by building infrastructure in our country, making college affordable. and when women succeed, american succeeds -- america succeeds --

equal pay for equal work. these are nonpartisan, supported by the american people. we need to communicate it in a stronger way. hopefully we can act upon all of that in a bipartisan way as we go forward. congratulate our leadership team, part of the house democratic leadership. tomorrow, we will all be coming out of the caucus with the results of those elections, and with an expanded opportunity for you to question our members. right now, if you have a question, yes. managing expectations -- republicans control their largest majority since the truman administration, possibly more if they can pick up one seat. how do you manage expectations? is it a realistic goal to try to do that? as chairman israel pointed out, we saw so many of the american people who did not come out to vote this year. as we are sobering and

remembering the 50th year of the voting rights act, and we continue to see republicans try to chip away at that, i think it is important we go talk to more and more people. i think we can set those expectations high. in 2016, we are going to see more of the electorate involved, excited, ready to work and get people elected. working closely with steve and the team, we will see the closes, but you saw very elections this year, where republicans spent a record amount of money. morenk we are going to see democrats get elected in 2016, and those numbers are going to surprise you. >> [indiscernible] and not all latino voters see it the same. how do you see that playing out in the near term? i know two years is a long way away. and how do you see that playing out in the latino community,

maybe in just the next few days? >> republicans have been incompetent with immigration reform for two years. they had a chance to put up a bill to vote. john boehner has stalled that. the republicans are in charge. they can put a bill forward. i certainly hope we can come together.nd work i do not think this should poison the well. we can have everyone work together, and i hope we will see more of that. >> the representative duck werth vote -- duckworth vote via proxy, the family leave act -- can you respond to some of that? ones whoone of the said to congressman duckworth, don't come back.

the universe will change for you when you have this baby. the rules are the same as the rules of the house, no proxy voting. it would require changing rules of the caucus, so they are different than the rules of the house. she understood that as well. it is really important to be here, to be in caucus. important to be on the floor. if i was going to fight, it would be to be on the floor. but the fact is that we don't know what is going on in the lives of many people. i think one of our members may be having an operation. you are going to establish a situation that will determine who has a note from the doctor that is valid? it is a place we should not go down. it is not to be confused with not having family and medical leave. we wish her well. she is a heroine to our country.

we are very excited about the baby. knowing about the baby, i appointed congresswoman duckworth to the benghazi committee, one of my 50 points there. she told me her good news -- one of my five appointments there. she told me her good news and i said, to the extent you can serve, we want you to be there. i do not know why all this fuss is made about a boat in the caucus. i think if the house once to change its rules about -- wants to change its rules about proxies in general, that is another thing. but we wish her well. i had a lovely conversation with her. said we need our best thinking. we need you to be there on the benghazi committee. mr. lujan ifo ask

he would speak to his mom. spanish] -- [speaking spanish] >> thank you. great, wonderful. see you tomorrow. >> thank you. >> democratic leader nancy pelosi announcing the new

democratic campaign chairman and some other democratic leadership changes for the 114th congress. the house remains in recess. they will gavel back in in an hour and a half. 630 p.m. eastern for votes in general speeches and tomorrow work in a bill that will change the criteria for selecting advisoryf apa science board while disclosing requirements for its members. the measure requiring the epa to publish scientific data used to justify current and future regulations. the house here in the gavel back in. and tomorrow over on the senate they begin six hours of debate on a bill that would approve the xlstruction of the keystone pipeline. here's more about that now. >> the senate tuesday will vote on keystone xl pipeline legislation. cq rollardner is with

call. what is behind the senate taking up the keystone measure? >> there are some political implications here on the line. senator landrieu is in a very heated runoff race with congressman bill cassidy. a republican serving in the house. is keyator landrieu this to demonstrating that she can legislate and hold her own on the floor the senate even when her leaders are not necessarily behind her. and she wants another legislative wind to show border she can get things done. >> with -- what would the keystone bill do? >> basically take the approval process away from the president and give it to congress and it be approved and consider the environmental impact statement that the state department already issued,

having filled the requirements under an environmental policy law. that has to be followed in order for a cross-border permit to be considered syria >> let's look at the 60 votes needed in the senate to pass the measure. quoted senatorou mary landrieu as saying, "i am confident we will have the 60 votes to pass it. where do things stand in counting the votes? >> as of now it appears that senator landrieu has 59 votes. senators carper and bennett pledged their support for the bill. and as of right now, we have not found that 60th vote yet. they say sheieu -- would not have pushed hard if she did not have 60 votes. >> it seems a fair amount of pressure out there. you read tweeted modified tweets from the environmental activist saying that a warning shot ,ired, democratic leadership

give us a snapshot of some of the other pressures that senators are feeling. >> democrats in particular are feeling pressure from environmentalists who want to try keystone to climate change and make the argument that by allowing the pipeline to go forward it would exacerbate the level of greenhouse gas emissions the earth is experience. -- experiencing. there is a lot of pressure and for senator chuck schumer's againsthe is voting no the pipeline. >> bill cassidy in the house got 31 democrats to vote for his measure. what happens to congressman cassidy's keystone measure if set to landrieu -- senator landrieu's bill passes question mark >> the house built by congressman cassidy will be considered past. that is the bill that will be sent to the president's desk. it will have cassidy's name on

it, not landrieu. she said it doesn't matter as long as the bill reaches the president's desk. inhow -- you write "rollcall." what is the story behind this? >> there has been a lot made about this keystone vote. for both candidates, they want to take home some kind of victory however they are going to get it to the voters but the louisiana voters think that this is a wedge issue? for senator landrieu in particular, a lot of her legislative victories that she tatted on the campaign trail has impact on direct louisiana citizens. earlier this year when she negotiated a delay to flood insurance premium increases, for example. >> it is a big issue. has the white house said whether or not the president will sign or veto the bill?

-- they do not want to say one way or another but president obama has said while he is on foreign travel that he wants the state department processed and the separate supreme court process in nebraska to pay out -- play out. if he had his druthers he would have ability his desk. saidad -- they have not one way or another. on rolers can learn more lcall.com. thanks for that preview. >> thanks for having me. totonight, tim wu on how manage the internet. >> one of the things that is overlooked, isng the big question about

broadband. how are they going to get it? i would say no one is dressing that right now. give the agency more power to try to do things like mandate universal service like we did for telephone service in the 20 century. and it collects money which right now goes mostly to subsidized telephone service which could be repositioned to try to create rural rock band centers so there is possibilities with title ii. we need a universal service program and people it to have broad bed. >> tonight at eight eastern on " the communicators" on c-span2. representative raul grijalva looks at the congressional agenda. after that republican walter jones discusses the strategy to

help combat isis and whether congress will authorize money and troops. as always your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. also tomorrow, dr. thomas ineden on the ebola outbreak west africa. the possible dangers to the u.s. and what can be done to prevent it spreading further. that hearing in front of the house oversight subcommittee starts life tuesday at 1 p.m. eastern. that will be on c-span3. earlier today, the national association of terminal defense lawyers released a report outlining how the judiciary is obstructing evidence disclosure increment all cases. part examined the frequency of information favorable to the defense and how often that is withheld from prosecutors. this is an hour and a half and we will show you as much as we can until the house comes back at 6:30 p.m. eastern.

nacdo and the foundation for kamal justice are proud to have partnered with the initiative at the santa clara law school to produce a major research report addressing one of the major challenges facing the nation's criminal justice system. fair, full,ensure and kindly disclosure of information favorable to an accused in a criminal action. but again final coming all of you and ask pressing the fortfelt gratitude of nacdo your interest and is an issue. the right to fair trial and fast multiprocessor is essential to the survival of a free society. process may the

contribute to the conviction of an innocent person. no one lives arbiters of the required standard of roof, guilt and a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers, are deprived of information that is favorable to the accused because all favorable information is relevant to the determination. o and thetment of nacd foundation for criminal justice to seek reform in the area fair disclosure is one of the many areas in which we are working to make our criminal justice system fairer and more humane across a wide range of issues. in recent months, we have worked to expand access to counsel, nation'seform with the indigent reform system, address ethnic and racial disparity in the criminal justice system, explore the impact of militarization of the nation's law enforcement infrastructure, rain in over criminalization and

from out the restoration of rights and status for those who have had a brush with the criminal law. a reflection of the core mission of america's bar, liberty'se last champions as we define ourselves. fairness is a bedrock principle of any society and of any judicial system. the reforms, sharing -- ensuring fairness, proposed, and material indifference are not ideals would are realizable actions that can and should be employed. and so, i am proud to welcome you to join with us in the release of this important report. a report that we hope will lead to the vital reforms essential to ensure a fair trial for every accused person. now, to introduce the extraordinary speakers we have gathered for this event and to moderate the discussion, i am nacdo'sto invite

executive director to podium. -- to the podium. good afternoon and thanks for a much to our president, theodore simon, for the introduction and also for the support has been provided for this project by the foundation for criminal justice. arterial indifference, how courts are impeding fair disclosure, illuminates a problem that is widespread in the criminal justice system. to fully appreciate the importance of this report, we have assembled a distinguished , ael including the authors prominent judge has recognized the problem, and a practicing attorney who understands the depth of the challenge and took steps to address it during his tenure at the justice department. before i call upon our panelists, i want to put the problem of fair disclosure in

the real world conducts -- kamalt of how america's justice system actually works. in the nation's civil justice system, went individuals, companies, or entities bring lawsuits to seek compensation or four court order to enforce a right or prevent harm, our legal system provides for early, open, and complete disclosure. providecan and must access to witnesses, disclosure of all documents, opportunities andpretrial depositions, interrogatories and more. in fact, the failure to provide full and fair disclosure in a civil proceeding, to ensure that there is no trial by ambush, can and to very severe monetary other sanctions. throughout most of the country, in state and federal criminal

cases, disclosure to the accused is minimal and highly limited. so we have a system that is at staken what is usually a sum of money. there is full disclosure but when a person's reputation, liberty, or even, in some cases, his or her life hangs in the balance as it does in all come in all cases, discovery is very limited. this is extremely problematic for two reasons. first because prosecutors ring, and all charges at the time and place of their choosing, they do so after having fully investigated the case, including interviewing all potential witnesses. they controlled the tempo and --ing of a -- arrested and indictment. they have exclusive control of the reports yet in most places prosecutors do not have to reveal the names of witnesses witnesses testify.

nor do they have to provide the accused with access to the investigative reports that were compiled during the investigation. even statements of testifying witnesses often do not have to be revealed until late in the process. sometimes on the eve of trial or when the witness testifies. accordingly, favorable information, that is information that tends to support lack of guilt of the accused or mitigate wrongdoing, or that which undermines the believability of witnesses and evidence that the prosecution will use to prove guilt is within the sole and exclusive control of prosecutors, unless and until they decide to provide it to the defense. another hallmark of the criminal justice system is that it is adversarial. prosecutors view cases through the prism of their own theories. prosecutors seek to win cases as they should. but that means we have a system in which the party that brings

the charge and is zealously committed to a theory of prosecution must recognize information that undermines that theory and further, even though the prosecution has every incentive to win the case he or she must also decide whether and when to disclose the very information that may undermine the prosecution they are bringing. more than 50 years ago, the supreme court and the -- in the brady case held prosecutors must provide the helpful information that has been uncovered in law enforcement's investigation of the accused. failure to provide such information violates due process where the information withheld to guilt or punishment, irrespective of good or bad faith. that is a core aspect of a fair trial and will it should be. without that disclosure, it may never be known and there can be no confidence in the outcome of the case. more than 300 dna exonerations

which have scientifically established the innocents of wrongfully convicted persons show that favorable evidence was withheld from the defense in an alarmingly high percentage of exonerations. biological evidence that can definitively establish innocence is available in only a tiny, meniscal percentage of all criminal cases. most cases turn on the reliability or fallibility of human perception, the accuracy or inaccuracy of witness accounts, the truthfulness or falsity of testimony, all within the vast gray zone of interpretation and inference. thus in the majority of cases the disclosure of helpful information to the accused is necessary if the jury is to make an informed, fair, and accurate assessment of the case. too often, information does not disclose or too often when the accused learns of the helpful information it is too late to

make a difference in how the case is presented or prepared or considered by a jury. while there are certainly many documented cases of prosecutors who have willfully withheld helpful information, that is not what this report addresses. the problem is far more pervasive and insidious and handful- than simply a of bad apple prosecutors. there is an inherent tension between the adversarial system and the prosecutorial duty to thelose and that is why courts have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring fair, prompt, and effective disclosure of information helpful to the accused and so the report we released today, material in different to is an analysis of how courts fulfill that critical function. introduce ouro first speaker, one of the authors of the report, professor

rudolphe. theis the founder of toocence network, working address wrongful condition. -- conviction. she was the lead researcher on a on wrongful conviction. she launched the veritas initiative committed to pursuing data driven reform. are proud to partner with veritas in slant declare and this project. i am going to invite you appear to tell us about the project and how the courts are doing in ensuring fair disclosure increment all cases.

-- in criminal cases. >> thank you. the fairness of the criminal trial depends on the ability of the accused to present a defense and of course to present a defense depends on the axis the criminal defendant has to favorable evidence that might exist in this case. the very fundamental nature of this principle was acknowledged by the u.s. supreme court 50 years ago when it decided a case. the prosecutor has an obligation to disclose all favorable information that is material and a failure to do so violates the defendant's right to due process. the american bar association reinforced dispensable when it promulgated model rule three point -- 3.8d. a prosecutors required to make private -- timely disclosure of evidence that negates guilt or

mitigates punishment. how is it that there are so many wrongful convictions that have been -- that are the result of at least in part prosecutors withholding favorable information? study, weting the focused on three questions. first, to what extent are courts consistent in the use and application of the materiality standard when deciding brady markts -- claims question -- claims? -- to what extent is evidence be held from the our focus was more on the courts than on prosecutors. we wanted to better understand the role that judges play in shaping disclosure or favorable information in criminal cases. a note on the methodology. of brady at five years

decisions litigated in federal court. that was 5500 cases. that includes the cases originating in state in federal court. stratifiedexamined a random sample of those cases, roughly 1500 decisions. from those, we identified 620 where the court's decision included an analysis of the brady plan. i want to point out the inherent limitations of the study. a brady claim is an allegation has withheldutor favorable information. the question of the extent to which prosecutors are withholding favorable information is hardly possible to answer. brady violations involve hidden or withheld information and withheld information may never surface or become known. we can only view those cases where the withheld information is ultimately uncovered. for purposes of the study, we

examined the available information and that body of information included or consisted of records of written opinions in cases where the defense learned information had been withheld, filed a claim, and the court issued a written opinion. those of the cases that form the basis of the study. keep in mind that written opinions on most exclusively are found in cases that went to trial. we know that across the country, no more than 5% of cases go to trial. that means we have no information on 95% of the cases. this is important because it means the evidence that we didn't cover in this study in all probability is just the tip of the iceberg. thattioned a minute ago the obligation of prosecutor has to disclose is drive from favorable sources. the due process clause and -- as articulated by brady versus

maryland and the american bar association's rules of professional conduct. i will address each of these separately beginning with the brady analysis. under brady, prosecutor is required to turn over all favorable information that is material. the problem starts there. how do we define material evidence? isdecide whether something material, you have to decide whether it is relevant. you have to know the case, the whole case, and not just the prosecution's theory of the case. as justice stevens explained, "the significance of a piece of evidence can seldom be predicted accurately until the entire record is complete, yet that is what we expect prosecutors to do in applying the materiality standards pretrial without any sense of the perspective of the defendant." complicate the problem is the dual role of the prosecutor. the prosecutor is the

administrator of justice. a prosecutor is an advocate with the skills, training, and ability to effectively prosecute cases and when convictions. what is difficult about the prosecutor making the materiality decision is a cannot be within -- neutral within that context. when deciding whether information is material or relevant, that is what prosecutors are expected to do, to set aside their role as advocates, go through the african -- evidence with an open mind, recognize the importance of the information to the defense and make in the active decision about whether or not to disclose it. prosecutors will like the rest of us, are subject to what psychologists call confirmation bias. this means that we tend to evaluate what we perceive in a way that is consistent with what we know or believe. the prosecutor with the responsibility of proving guilt, and possession of police reports

that support his guilt will perceive his universe through this lens and will tend to view information in a way that is thatstent with the belief person is guilty. information that is not relevant is not material and not disclosed. even the best intentioned prosecutor is not in position to objectively decide materiality pretrial to the limited lens of the prosecution's theory. prosecutors seek to do their jobs with integrity, this is not true of all prosecutors. for those who are inclined to practice, close to the ethical line, the pliability of the materiality standards and it's inconsistent application invite a kind of game and ship without regard to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. the dynamics and psychological

pressures affecting the materiality of the decision is not limited to the prosecutor. have a kind of tunnel vision or confirmation bias that affects how they decide cases. in 1985, the u.s. supreme court justice harry blackmun acknowledged that "the reviewing court faced with the verdict of guilty, evidence to support the verdict, and pressured finalize judgment is in little better position to review the will -- withheld evidence as the prosecutor. it is not surprising that when the decisions we examined turned on the question of materiality, courts rule in favor of the prosecutor 86% of the time. why identified 200 time -- we identified where evidence was withheld or disclosed late. of those, courts found brady violations and 22 cases. in the 188 decisions, the court decided that evidence was not

material or the late disclosure did not materially prejudiced the defendant. we found that courts supply the -- apply the materiality standard and consistently. we compared cases where the end disclosed information was similar in factual context that were similar or nearly identical and found that reports were -- courts were inconsistent. we also identified 65 decisions were prosecutors disclosed information but disclosed it late. in 70% of the late disclosure cases, the prosecutor did not disclose the evidence until the trial was well underway. leaving virtually no time to make use of the evidence or to conduct an investigation that may have been prompted by a revelation of the new information. despite the obvious prejudice to a defendant in this situation, courts found the late disclosure

violated the defendant's due process rights in just one out of 65 cases. we also found in some cases were prosecutors failed to disclose information, courts excuse the failure by imposing a due diligence role on the offended. shifting attention away from the prosecution's obligations to disclose severable evidence to blaming the defendant's failure to discover the information on their own. train -- turning our attention to the court, i can be very brief. while courts sometimes encourage prosecutors to resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclosure, they almost never expressly pointed to the duty and responsibility to disclose favorable evidence as they were required to do by our profession , by aba rules of for efficient conduct. i am going to turn this podium

over to tiffany joslyn. we will open it for questions and i will ask and invite mike ,ole author -- my co-author mike freeze, to answer questions. >> tiffany as my colleague where she serves as counsel for white-collar crime policy. she plays a key role in the effort to prevent and oppose over criminalization, over federalization, and the erosion of intent requirements. she has led numerous research projects and she played a key role in an extraordinary and a cdoion between and the heritage foundation. i will ask you to pick up on

where the professor left off and take us through some of the reports' findings and recommendations. >> i would be remiss if i did and thek my co-authors rest of the distinguished panel. as you just heard and has been observed by many, the current has become of brady a hindrance to the defendant's access to favorable information. this is in part because the odds are against the defendant. prosecutors who withhold favorable information overwhelmingly have that decision affirmed by court. given point undisclosed

information services, it is higher for the justice system to provide a remedy to the accused. colleagues my discussed, there are several arise ing issues that three's jurisprudence that can relieve prosecutors of their disclosure obligation and deprive defendants of access to favorable information. courts impose a due diligence requirement on the defendant if the defendant could have found evidence on his own, there is no brady violation. prosecutors can disclosed very little without the risk of upsetting a conviction. this has not gone unnoticed. disclosure of all favorable information is not the policy of the department of justice, for example. tor judicial adherence materiality standard without regard to the integrity of the process has become an endorsement of nondisclosure of

favorable information. that is what our study found and that is what our study supports. that is why this problem must be addressed on the front end. the brady standard used by court following a conviction is not the role by which prosecutors should measure their disclosure obligations in advance of the trial. requiringstandard disclosure of all favorable information, accompanied by penalties for noncompliance must established. this sort of friend and reform can be accomplished through passage of the state and federal isels how the statute consistent with the role that my colleague described. this requires disclosure of all favorable information. this could be accomplished through changes to judicial role and accomplished by individual

justices and defense attorneys say the request and granting of an order to disclose all favorable information. first the ethical role. this is one way that defense attorneys and judges can obtain results in the proceedings while encouraging broader changes and disclosure practices. defense attorneys and i know there are many in this room should request in order from the judge in every case requiring prosecutors to abide by rural -- rule 3.8d. a wrecked mechanism for achieving reform and a way to that havee problems been identified in our study. the presumption that most lawyers will comply with ethical role orders creates a reasonable probability that widespread use

could have a digit -- a deterrent effect on non-willful disclosure. this approach is not a magic bullet. it will not solve the problem. effectiveness will still hinge on the willingness of court to enforce the order with the proven unwillingness of ,ourt to reverse convictions one can only wonder about their willingness to hold prosecutors in contempt. judicialgs me to a rule change, another mechanism for reform discussed in the report. this is the type of reform that would address the arbitrary practices evidenced by the study . nationwide, judicial branches are well-positioned to take action to improve defendants' access to information to establish clear and consistent guidelines that track model rule

balance could be restored. some federal judges have been calling for this sort of reform to the federal role 16. they question unsuccessfully to remove the materiality information from role 16. the findings blends hard evidence to what they have been saying. the standards diss incentivizes the disclosure of favorable information. judicial rule changes at the state and federal levels would do much to promote a culture of compliance. of course, the most important and strongest and most effective mechanism for reform of prosecutorial disclosure would come through federal legislation, that sets forth a clear mandate for disclosure of favorable information as well as establishes comprehensive roles for the disclosure process.

such legislation would have a systemwide impact. the fairness and disclosure act actdisclosure of evidence exemplifies the reform that this study demonstrates is critically needed. in direct response to the flawed prosecution of the late senator ted stevens, senators lisa murkowski and the late senator ouye, theo.i. -- in fairness and disclosure act was provide clear and meaningful standards to govern the prosecution's disclosure obligations syria the senators saw what happened to their colleague and had the courage of their convictions to take action. would require prosecutors to disclose that all information that may reasonably

appear favorable to the defendant effectively prohibiting the government from using the materiality standard to limit its disclosure obligations. the favorable of information alone is what would trigger a disclosure obligation. it does provide for exceptions in situations where disclosure could be detrimental to witness safety and it includes the mechanism for seeking a protective order. if legislation such as this were enacted, defendants would have increased access to favorable information and that would reduce brady litigation systemwide. this would also address the problems evidenced by the study and discussed in the report including the con practice of late disclosure, the position of dude diligence, and the frequency with which some information is not disclosed.

the timing provision would required disclosure before the entry of any guilty play reducing some of the pressure on innocent defendants to plead guilty. the weight of legislative action is greater than any other mechanism. it is an enforceable method that fair disclosure is requisite to fair process. this bill serves a model for bringing about sensible and copperheads discovery reform through legislation, providing clear standards and ensuring compliance would remove much of the gamesmanship that has been common place in the discovery incess and put litigation our fair process. unfortunately, politics got in the way of the fairness of disclosure act. it was not passed. nor was it reintroduced in the current congress. rather, it is sitting on the cutting room floor waiting for another group of legislative heroes to come back and pick it up and move it over the finish line.

this legislation need not only take place on the federal level. federal action may be stalled right now, but state legislators across the country are poised to take this reform legislation and make it law in their own jurisdiction. the court's reliance on materiality as a central inquiry ended radio violation claim has evolved into the standard by which prosecutors measured their disclosure obligations. until the materiality standard is removed as a barrier to fair disclosure, and there are real consequences for withholding favorable information, the system will remain unaccountable to defendants. ,o bring clarity to this issue provide prosecutors and courts with clear guidance, and ensure that those facing criminal rights are accorded the they deserve, there needs to be

reformed. thank you very much. >> thank you. before i introduced our next speaker i do want to introduce frise.hrase -- he focuses on promoting policies to prevent wrongful conviction and todd will be taking questions later on than the program. our next panelist will bring the perspective of a tactician or and a former government official who attempted to tackle the issue of fair disclosure. serves as chair of the government and regulatory thanation group will more three decades as the experienced counselor and litigator, he focuses practice on disputes with complex legal and policy dimensions. he has served several stinson government including serving as

deputy general counsel and legal counsel at the u.s. department of defense. chief of staff and counsel to former attorney general janet reno, assistant attorney general division and the deputy attorney general of the united states. while in that position in january 2010 he issued a memorandum known as the ogden memo which provided a guidance and summary of actions taken in response to a working group that was convened after the dismissal of all charges against the late senator ted stevens. the dismissal which followed the disclosure of serious violations by prosecutors in that case. we are honored that mr. ogden has written the forward to material indifference. david ogden. >> thank you.

i feel to have been asked to do it. i am really here because i think of the authors and organizations and others are to be commended for taking on what is a set of recommendations, data, and analysis on a subject that is extraordinarily group -- important and difficult. i am not in a position to specifically endorse the recommendations, i think they're serious recommendations, but i do think this makes a great contribution. i do have the perspective of having dealt with these issues on the outside as defense counsel, as having tried to deal with them as i think norm accurately described my efforts is deputy attorney general when

we dealt with some foundational and fundamental issues in the wake of stevens prosecution. the subject is important because it relates the most fundamental criminal justice issue of all. the guilt or innocence of the accused. whether, when, and how the prosecution shares information goes directly to the integrity of our legal system, the participants in it, and our institutions of justice. defense counsel has limited discovery tools at their disposal. in a typical case they very have limited resources to conduct their own investigations created the prosecution failed to disclose it information favorable to the ed -- to the defense it may mean this never comes to light. no greater harm can be done by our greater -- our criminals justice system by -- then conviction of innocent people.

the subject is not only important, but it is also difficult. material that is exculpatory must be disclosed. for information of more questionable apparent significance, many believe that it is appropriate for weigh a range of concerns before disclosing. the potential for harassment or harm to witnesses, the integrity of other ongoing investigations or even national security concerns as was referenced and whether information is accurate or favorable to the accused may be difficult to assess and may depend on the eye of the beholder, the theory and the ways in which it might be utilized area did -- utilized. one may question reasonably whether it makes sense to mandate it. that is what makes it hard.

2009, the new leadership of the department of justice, of which i was then apart, confronted a set of concerns and tried to chart a new course. the attorney general had just made a difficult decision to abandon the failed ted stevens prosecution's which was plagued by and destroyed by violations of the brady doctrine. i put together a broad working toup and directed them undertake if thorough review of the departments policies, practices, and training related to criminal investigation and to evaluate improvement. we implemented changes in policy meant to provide direction and guidance to prosecutors. i make no claim to perfection. or any other work product of which i have ever been responsible. here's what we do.

we set forth structured requirements, disclosed and make a record of information potentially favorable to the accused. a copperheads of gathering him a comprehensive review, and a timely and appropriate disclosure and record keeping to allow an understanding of what had been done. to remainalso vigilant throughout the case to obligate us to make disclosures on an ongoing basis. we established a new training protocol, required every attorney to establish a policy, and provide a dedicated resources in each district to assist prosecutors making this decision. studys notably given this and the concerns about judicial standards, we also reminded prosecutors that when disclosure obligations are not clear or when other competing considerations -- prosecutors's may address the scope, timing, and disclosure.

observed [indiscernible] and spoke about the truth seeking role of the prosecutor. the government wins its point whenever justice is done. broadted that providing and early discovery often promotes the truth seeking mission of the department and fosters resolution and provides . margin of error in case we encourage prosecutors to earlierbroader and discovery consistent with any countervailing considerations. i believe today as i did then and others on the panel believe that prosecutors try hard to live up to those standards, most of them. has do have a dual role at been alluded to. though they are seekers of justice, that is their ultimate mission. that while an obviously very

important function, does affect the lenses of the prism through which they see issues. viewates may tend to things through a particular lands. we tried to provide assistance to them to prosecutors in making that decision and remaining objective and we need to take seriously and insist upon prosecutors obligations to make utmost efforts to maintain -- given thend dual role it is the case that judges have an indispensable obligation to oversee the system's guarantees of fairness and make sure that its mission is fulfilled in every case. given the stakes, there is no more important judicial role so we should continue to focus on the shape of it -- the legal

rules and the role of the courts and overseeing the way prosecutors fulfill their obligations. papers why i believe this makes a significant contribution. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for vindicating my decisions as to the order of speaking because your final comments are perfect segue to obtain a judicial perspective. thefinal speaker is honorable alice kaczynski. she was appointed to the circuit court by president reagan in 1985 making him the u.s. -- youngest appeals judge in the country. he came to the u.s. when he was 12 years old. this is quite an american tail. prior to serving on the court of appeals he clerked for justice

anthony kennedy when he was a judge on the ninth circuit and warren burger. during his nearly three decades on the court of appeals, judge kaczynski has seen just about everything and appellate judge can see. in the case of the u.s. against olson, the judge issued a powerful defense in which he ofte, "there is an epidemic brady violations abroad in the land. it -- put acan put stop to it. he trained his keen analysis on the very subject of this report which is the materiality standard. >> thank you. i will spend a couple of minutes talking about brady.

is a rolew that brady that the supreme court has adopted and imposed on us. -- many in this audience who actually practice criminal law, it is hard to understand how brady differs in many ways from other rules, why it is such a bedrock important principle of criminal justice. cases, whether it is mutual discovery or full discovery, and the transaction is in some ways open, the criminal investigations are such that the prosecution has a huge advantage. if it is a physical crime, murder or robbery, the police secure the scene, they talked all the witnesses, if there is evidence to be picked up, they take it, and by the time the

defendant or his investigator comes around, there is nothing left to pick up. forceosecution is able to witnesses to talk or at least take the fifth. they are able to give immunity. they are able to seize records, bank records and the like. if it is not a physical crime, if it is a white collar crime, they can conduct the investigation for years without [indiscernible] candidate the defendant may have no clue this is going on or very little information about it. this is not a situation of some abstract role that the prosecution should play fair. there is only so much evidence of the case, only so much witnesses or facts or pieces of evidence that can be presented to the jury.

most of it is picked up by the prosecution. this is the way the system works. hadsupreme court employees to be fair, you cannot have a fair trial if one side has all the models. cap as kids. justice. principle of you cannot have the juried its decide whatside can to present. often pushed in the background or overlooked. this is an important report, i worth readingll and considering and taking into account but to me it is not a surprise. because this is the nature of

the brady violations. once evidence has not been presented to the defense, it does not come in and you get a conviction, all of the momentum of the process is to uphold the conviction. you have then had an expensive time, you spend judicial time, you have taken 12 or 14 or 16 people from the community depending on how large the jury panel is and kept them there for days and sometimes weeks on end. they have come to the judgment that this person is guilty. all the incentives of the system, the rules we have before , all those things are reversed. judicial instinct is to

preserving the verdict. this is a good thing in many ways because, after all, we in america believe in juries. we believe that when a group of people are drawn and they make a decision about guilt or innocence, that has significant standing. that is something that ought not to be likely set aside but i would suggest that faith in the jury requires more than that. it requires not simply respecting the jury's verdict but also respecting the jury enough to present them with evidence that points to both there is innocence if such evidence. part of what goes on in cases where and this has been the professor and other speakers, what happens, not is -- prosecutors are

bad people, by and large. most of the once i have seen have been quite honorable and very fair and want to do a good job. once the- investigation focuses on a single individual or group and they have a theory of the case, they simply stop looking for evidence pointing the other way. they become desensitized to evidence that might prove the guilt of someone else or prove the innocence or dispute the guilt of the person that is being accused. the blinders are on an these are not evil people. these are not people who want to convict someone who is guilty. want to convict someone who is innocent. they believe this person is guilty and therefore, they look with this filter in mind. putting theat burden on prosecutors to come up with evidence that is

material i and is think puts an impossible burden. it is not their job. they are advocates. they want to win. they want to do justice but they believe in doing justice is by convicting the person or persons they believe is guilty. suggestions of the made for reform have been welcome and it is a step in the right direction. in disclosure is a good idea and should have been passed by now after the debacle of the stevens prosecution, not enough can be said about how bad that situation was, but that is not enough because the statute is passed which still puts responsibility to window out evidence they believe is

exculpatory. once again, as was pointed out, at that point this is not an adversary process. there is no one telling the fromcutor, look at this the perspective of the defendant. look at the evidence and this piece of evidence that looks innocuous to you, here is it's not there. i would favor and again i'm speaking only for myself, i should and i'm speaking for myself, not my court reporter or anybody else, but i have served as a court of appeals judge. i do district court trials. i have done criminal trials. i have taken jury verdict and con vicked people in bench trials. i have served criminal juries. i have been in the process. i know what a little bit of evidence, just one piece of evidence that makes it insignificant can do when you're

sitting around a table like that with 11 other people and you're discussing the case. one piece of evidence can flip the discussion. my view is what's really needed, if we want to implement brady, is to have an open disclosure policy. if it is a prosecutor's file it ought to be presented to the defense, subject to national security, those kinds of exceptions, which must be submitted to the judge. this has been tried, i believe, in north carolina in the lacrosse case. and it was tried in the great state of texas. i think it is well worth

considering on a nationwide basis and in the federal system. let me talk, if i have a couple of more minutes, about the other victims of the brady violations, ones we have heard little about, but we think we need to think seriously about. because every time an innocent person is convicted it means the criminal remains at large. every time you convict somebody who didn't do the crime it means the person who did the crime is still out there and can do it again. as an example let me give the case of michael morton who was convicted for the 1986 killing and beating of his own wife.

he served 25 years in prison because the police focused on him. it was easy. it was his own wife. and because the prosecutor, a man by the name of ken anderson, lied, lied to a judge, and lied about exculpatory evidence he had. years later because of the work of the innocence project and over the vigorous objections of the prosecutor who succeeded ken anderson, john bradley -- that's his name.

i mention these people because these people ought to be ashamed of themselves. they ought to feel ashamed in the community. ken anderson went from being a district attorney and became a judge, then for having lied in court and cost a man 25 years in prison served five years in jail. lost his license. i'm sorry, did i say five years? excuse me. five days in jail. never apologized and said, i'm sorry, i feel responsible for having cost another human being 25 years in prison. obviously he can sleep well with that on his conscience. john bradley, who stonewalled

for six years to keep the dena evidence from being disclosed and tested, he said he made the right decision given the facts available to him. shameful. they ought to be ashamed for having participated in the justice system and committed these kinds of misdeeds. the other victims are the people out there who are victimized by the criminals who aren't caught and jailed because the police and prosecutors convicted the wrong man. in the case of morton, somebody by the name of ken norwood was convicted of mrs. morton's killing, based on dna and other

evidence. he was also charged, and i am going to be careful what i say because he's not been convicted of anything. he's pled not guilty. i respect that and i will not prejudge it in any way. but i want to say there is now evidence that he committed another crime in 1988, two years after the morton crime. and perhaps we can think about the possibility that had the police not focused on morton, had they disclosed evidence of innocence, then maybe the police would have looked at the evidence they had, examined it more carefully, maybe focused on the person we now know is the real killer in the case, which is ken norwood, and perhaps the crime involving the other

victim, debra baker, debra baker might be alive today. this happens again and again in situations across the country where somebody gets convicted and it's the wrong person. let me leave you with a final thought. dna has been quite a boon in many ways, not only in freeing people who are convicted who are innocent -- we have had a common law system where we present evidence and we have with guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we are taught as lawyers and

believe as a society that that does justice. we say it is better for nine guilty men to walk free or 10 guilty men to walk free than for one innocent person to be convicted. but we have no evidence that's what's happening in our courtrooms at all. it's faith, religion. we have no proof and haven't had proof as to what actually happens is that few or any or no innocent people are convicted. dna has given us a rare glimpse into the process. it lets us go back and look at past convictions obtained before dna was a factor and lets us find people we now know didn't do it. that should give us insight as to what went wrong in the process.

why did these people get convicted? the window will close. nobody will be convicted again where dna evidence is exculpatory. this is a rare opportunity to go back and recalibrate our criminal justice system in light of hard evidence that really there are people being put away who didn't do it. this is a sobering thought. it should shake us all to the roots who are involved in criminal justice to think that, in fact our system, the best criminal justice system in the world, that gives us guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and lets 10 guilty men walk free rather than one innocent person be convicted that we are actually routinely convicting people who aren't guilty. it seems to me that is a challenge we must take seriously. we must look at cases where there are exonerations by dna

evidence and we reverse engineer them. what's more, the spectacle that happened in the michael morton case where they have the evidence and it took six years to obtain an order allowing testing opposed tooth and nail by the prosecutor's office, that should not happen. that should not happen. if there is dna evidence, a small percentage of cases with dna evidence, testing should be routine, whether there was a time or a guilty plea. we all know people plead guilty all the time and turn out to be innocent. in this resistance that

prosecutors have is entirely , they say, we are not testing for dna evidence. completely unjustifiable. the people who need to do it, the legislature would be good. but judges have to do it. in michael morton's case, no dna test happened until an ape lat panel ordered it done. that broke loose the floodgates. not only did it free morton, but it also put ken norwood behind bars for his just conviction. it seems to me there is no moral or legal justification for prosecutors to oppose dna testing. any who do it should be shamed for their doing so. it seems this is something the prosecutor should welcome. because if they convicted the wrong person, they should be grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight, free an innocent person, and then go find the guilty one.

thank you very much. >> thank you, judge. we are going to have time for questions now. i just want to follow up with what the judge just said by, of course, all of the great lessons we can learn from dna we have to learn. i just want to underscore in all the cases without biological evidence, which includes virtually every single case in which the question of guilt or innocence turns on intent, it's all the more critical that this favorable evidence be put into the hands of those people who we are respecting and who we are asking to make these decisions. so i want to lead off with a quick question which i want to put to todd to help contextualize the report. this was a randomized study of a number of cases, federal cases, but it actually involves state cases.

can you explain that for those who need the context to understand that. >> so the study included a random sample of 1,497 decisions issued by federal courts from august 1, 2007 to july 1, 2012. the procedural posture of the cases included federal appeals, post trial motions, and habeas petitions. while the federal appeals and posttrial motions were limiteded to federally originated cases habeas petitions can be in state or federal courts. before a petitioner can file in a federal court, all state options must be exhausted first. the state-originated decisions we saw in the study were exclusively habeas petitions and

they were now seeking a remedy in state court. the overwhelming majority of decisions in the study were habeas petitions and appeals. the fact that we have both federal- and state-originated decisions in this study means the trends we see operating in the study sample are by no means limited to just federal cases. >> of course it means those folks who were litigating initially in the state case never got relief on the state side before it got to the federal court. i'd like to direct a question and ask for the purpose of this question to look at it from your defense lawyer perspective. one of the really astonishing findings was that in 64 out of 65 cases with late disclosure there was no relief granted. when you have that kind of case

law, you have lawyers deciding not even to try to litigate late disclosure. i venture to say anybody that's tried a reasonable number of cases has probably routinely encountered the problem of late disclosure. i wonder if you could explain why late disclosure is not a substitute for timely disclosure. in other words, from the defense perspective, why is it important to get this information in a timely way? >> sure. obviously, it's critical to anybody who's tried to prepare anything that the ingredients to the thing you are preparing need to be there before you try to create it. putting on a defense is the same. you need information in order to investigate in advance of the trial. you need to follow up on the information. and to develop your defense. you need to figure out what theory of defense you will have. you can't do it without the

information to evaluate the strength and weaknesses of the case. if you get the information into a trial or on the eve of trial when it could have been disclosed earlier, your hands are tied to do those things. timely disclosure the critical. >> i would encourage anyone with questions to line up at the mike. i want to direct a question to you, judge. i'm going to take advantage of my opportunity. in your dissent, you said the panel's decision, and i quote, effectively announce that is the prosecution need not produce exculpatory or impeaching evidence so long as it is possible the defendant would have been convicted anyway. of course, you were looking at major impeachment evidence of a key witness that was never disclosed.

you already in your talk spoke about the importance of giving the real loser is the jury. my fundamental question is given that, what's the reluctance that courts have to reverse the convictions? isn't it likely if there were a pattern of reversals that would be the best palliative imaginable? >> i think that reversals would be a good start. we operate under the standard -- it's one of those steps in the process we need to take. whether something is material, whether something is prejudicial is a question entirely of judgment.

and if you look at the situation and consider the guy is probably guilty, the jury found him guilty, certainly the ones we see on appeal, they have been found guilty, so there is a great deal of inertia. for reasons i find it hard to explain, most judges are reluctant to use any one case as an example as a way of a teaching opportunity for future cases. i don't share that view, but these are fine colleagues with equal or better experience to mine, more years. maybe they are right and i'm wrong. but to me it's obvious that if you create -- maybe it's my

economics background -- but it seems obvious if you reward stonewalling, you'll get more stonewalling. no two ways about it. >> i will ask one of the authors to respond to the question, whichever of you wants to jump in. the sample cases were randomly selected. by chance you reviewed two cases that involved undisclosed information that contained the same central witness as in the prosecution of senator stevens, a witness about whom the government in that case failed to disclose prior conduct that directly affected his credibility and similar nondisclosure in these other cases. i will ask one of you to comment on what you learned from studying the cases of peter and victor. >> i will take this question. in your report, on page 16 and

17, there is a decision comparison of the two decisions. it's interesting because while the study sample was random we happened to end up with a district court decision in one of the cases and a ninth circuit court of appeals decision in another. we got to review them at different stages even though they took the same path. as norman said, the witness at issue here was the same witness in the stevens case. in that case the department of justice ultimately decided to drop the prosecution, and yet we had two defendants who had the same information about the same key government witness forced to pursue an appeal up to the ninth circuit. unlike stevens because because of less press they got different treatment.

what these decision show us is not only is the -- you have identical facts in different courts coming out differently. even more so you see the disparate treatment under brady. you could be a defendant in one district. maybe the prosecutors say, ok, fine, we'll lose if we keep letting you challenge this. but in another district they are just going to keep pushing it. that's what the decision shows. it's completely unfair. >> thanks. >> one thing that i don't know if she if she mentioned this, but all three cases involve essentially the same cases which were public corruption charges. contexts were with similar. >> question from the audience. >> thank you for this important information and for the suggestions that is you put forward. i would like to ask the judge,

with your open file system do you see any problems where there is a bechblnch trial and how would you benefit those if you can see any? if i can ask, why isn't a continuance a good enough remedy for late disclosure? >> the problem of bench trials applies across the board. the judge has to rule on evidence and ignore himself, if it is a strike evidence and ignore it. i don't see it as a problem. the reality is most of the cases are jury trials. i can't emphasize enough the importance of judicial intervention and judicial activity or supervision. what happened, the difference

between what happened here and in the ninth circuit case is the district judge. solomon took it seriously. you would think, you would think that once there is a disclosure as happened in the stevens case where somebody on the prosecution team blew the whistle, i mean, said they have been withholding evidence, you would think the justice department would slink away in shame and withdraw the prosecution or move the government for setting aside the conviction. no, they fought it tooth and nail. they fought it tooth and nail. what happened was judge solomon who is an excellent judge with a sense of honor, duty, and the constitution. he put down his foot and said, no, we are going to look into this.

that was the difference. the ninth circuit it took getting up to the court of appeals. you cannot get around the need for judicial supervision. or understate the importance of judges taking this seriously. if judges take it seriously, prosecutors will take it seriously. >> part two of the question. on the continuance issue, why isn't that good enough when it is a late disclosure? >> it could be and it seems the minimum thing that at the trial level a court should do in that situation is to assess whether a continuance would help and certainly could be lenient in that situation in affording defense counsel time to respond. but there are circumstances in

which the defense made certain decisions it's hard to back away from and the process is too far down the track. if opening statements have been made and the like, it comes late in the day to have a continuance. there is a big investment in the criminal process. try to salvage it. fairness really does require a hard assessment as to whether an error by the prosecution to disclose too late creates a problem. i agree with the judge. i think judicial supervision is extremely important and the message will be sent that there will be active superintendents. i do think that brings about a process and forces prosecutorses

to do their duty, which is what this is about. >> i think it reflects this is really a trial tactic on the part of prosecutors. i think that's the bottom line. >> we actually did see quite a few cases. one of the problems is it can disrupt the flow of the case. it can be a risk. we also saw a number of cases where if defense counsel failed to ask for a continuance, the court assumed it wouldn't have made a difference in the case. >> thank you. next question. >> thank you very much. i want to acknowledge the judge. you were spot on when you said

the prosecutor should be ashamed in the morton case. my question is i'm interested in learning about the incentives that prosecutors have to not try to pursue further evidence in a case. we have seen particular cases like michael morton where there's a judge that could lose his license and lose his standing in the community. we saw it happen with the central park five where all of the people who prosecuted this case made their way up the chains in new york city and no one wanted to say the kids were innocent. i'm curious about the incentives and if you talk in your report and you can answers this -- talked about incentives prosecutors receive in terms of prosecuting a case to the nth degree knowing this person is, in fact, probably not guilty.

so incentives in terms of monetary incentives to have more and more cases prosecuted coming through the office, them able to hold up a pamphlet saying look how many people i have prosecuted, if you discussed that in your report. >> no. we didn't discuss it this the report. certainly if anyone wants to comment on that, feel free. >> the incentives aren't evident in the discussion of the cases which is why this is an academic report. we didn't go into anything like that. >> i do want to make it clear i don't think there are any prosecutors out there or indeed very, very rare who say the guy is innocent, i'm going to get him convicted anyway. i don't think that's how it

happens. they are convinced they are guilty and there is a piece of evidence that doesn't fit. goes the other way. a witness who said the guy has a beard or the guy was 6'0" and the guy is 5'3". it doesn't fit. the prosecutor says, you know, the guy is clearly guilty, i have this stack of evidence, and there is a piece of evidence, nobody will believe it anyway. they want to sweep it under the rug, not to convict an innocent person, but to convict a person they believe is guilty. the problem is this is their job thinking people are guilty. it is not their job to see the holes in the cheese. they have to look at the cheese. they are there to see the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the reasonable doubt that defeats guilt. that is how it happens. they want and believe if they let this piece of evidence and

hand it over to the schyster defense lawyers they will make something of it and fool the jury into acquitting an innocent person. it shows a lack of faith in our jury system. it is contempt for the jury. the jury is us. it shows contempt for us as a society. >> president simon? >> thanks to the panelists. next we will take you live to the house. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will rorpt title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 756, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1422, to amend the environmental research development and demonstration authorization act of 1978. to provide for scientific advisory board member qualifications, public participation and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 4012, to

prohibit the environmental protection agency from proposing, finalizing or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible, providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 4795, to promote new manufacturing in the united states by providing for greater transparency and timeliness in obtaining necessary permits and for other purposes. and providing for proceedings during the period from november 21, 2014, through november 28, 014. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and it will be printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5162 on which the yeas and nays are order. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar umber 465, h.r. 5162, a bill

to amend the act entitled, an act to allow a certain parcel of land in rockingham county, virginia, to be used for a child care center, to remove the use restriction and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 377 and the nays are 1, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 378 and the nays are 1. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without bjection is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postponefurther proceedings today on additional motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6, rule 20. any votes will be taken later.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. ask all members to take their onversations from the floor.

all members, please take your onversations from the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4049 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the -- suspend-- success ere. will members please take your conversations from the floor. the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will all members please take your conversations from the floor. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4049, a bill to amend the act to provide for the accomplishment of the apostle islands national seashore in the state of wisconsin, and for other purposes to adjust the boundary of that national lakeshore to include the late house known as ashland breakwater light and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, and the gentleman from minnesota will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. labrador: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. labrador: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the ashland harbor breakwater light is an operational light house located near ashland, wisconsin, and is currently owned and managed by the u.s. coast guard. in 2007, the coast guard announced its intent to give up ownership of the ash left-hand side light and only the national park service expressed interest in maintaining public access to it. h.r. 4049 adjusts the boundaries of the apostle islands national lake shore to include the light station but protect the ability of the coast guard to maintain the light as an aid to navigation. congressman sean duffy should be commended for his work on this issue which also has the support of the committee on transportation and

infrastructure. i reserve the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is ecognized. >> mr. speaker. i wish to be recognized. the speaker pro tempore: yes, the gentleman has been recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> first of all, i would like to commend representative duffy with whom i share lake shore on the world's largest freshwater lake. and also borders on our district. and i must tell you, mr. duffy, i found the television commercial with you and your family and your children to be my favorite commercial of the last election. mr. nolan: of which there were

not many favorable commercials for anyone. so it's with a fun and enjoyful spirit that i rise in support of your legislation, to prove to those beautiful children of yours that a lot of us really like each other and know how to get along and support the efforts of one another. mr. speaker, with that in mind -- yes, i'd be glad to yield. yeah. no, i'm not done. no. ok. mr. speaker, h.r. 4049 transfers ownership and management of the ashland rbor breakwater light of apostle island's national lake shore. thanks to the leadership of the late democratic gaylord nelson, congress established the apostle islands national lake shore in 1970. the area consists of 21 islands and 70 acres of lake shore in lake superior. it is a popular tourist destination in the summer and

gaylord 5,000 acres of nelson wilderness area. apostle islands already manages eight historic light houses, which were transferred to the national park service in 1986. this bill would add one more to the collection. and contribute to the mission of protecting these historic, cultural resources. additionally, the text of this bill ensures that the coast guard will continue to maintain historic access to the light house. we support passage of this bill and look forward to working with the majority to advance more legislation that helps to enhance our national parks. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. labrador: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, for yielding, and i

thank the gentleman from minnesota for his kind remarks about my ads which i know there weren't many positive ads running in the duluth market but i did have one. so i appreciate that, mr. nolan, and thank you for your support of what is a very important bill for folks in northern wisconsin. i have a picture of what this actual light house looks like right off the community of ashland. light -- this bill is the bill that will transfer the ashland breakwater light from the coast guard to the national park service. this lighthouse has stood here for over 100 years, standing strong on the shores of lake superior. in dark nights and in storms, guiding our ships a safe passage to our harbor. but also welcoming back travelers who have left the greater ashland community and then on their way home. i had a chance to live in ashland for 10 years, raising

my children, my second-born son my born there and i think third, fourth and fifth were born there as well. i lose count after a while. but it's a great community. and this lighthouse is a big part of our identity in ashland. but right now the lighthouse has an uncertain future because the coast guard has indicated several times, but most recently in 2012, that they're going to give up management of the lighthouse. and so no public entity aside from the national parks service and the apostle island national lake shore stepped forward and indicated that they would obtain and maintain this very important lighthouse in our community. absent this legislation, there's no guarantee that this historic lighthouse would be maintained and that it would continue to operate and be accessible for educational purposes. h.r. 4049 will allow the apostle island national lake shore to maintain the

lighthouse, alongside, as mr. nolan mentioned and i think mr. labrador, eight other lighthouses that they now currently maintain. just a little trip down history lane, in 1986 the coast guard transferred eight of these lighthouses to the parks service. but they didn't transfer this one. all were -- all we're doing right now is saying, let's redraw that line and include this one with the other eight. so the park service can now manage this lighthouse as well. if i was looking at this bill, i might say, well, i have a concern if i'm a fisherman or boater who might use the waters outside the lighthouse. i can guarantee you that the way this is written and the way the line is drawn, that there will be no additional rules or regulations coming from the feds that are going to affect your ability to fish or boat right around the lighthouse. so we've adequately addressed that concern. and in this house, to have so

many different folks come together, people across the aisle who share a border and share a lake, but also share a love for the environment and all it has to offer, we also have the national park service who supports this bill, the apostle islands national lake shore, the u.s. coast guard, the wisconsin d.n.r., the wisconsin historical society, the ashland chamber of commerce, which is very important, the city of ashland, and a lot of local outdoor recreational communities. so with that i'd ask and urge the pass and of h.r. 4049 and i want to thank everyone for their support of -- for what is a very important bill to my community in northern wisconsin. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. labrador: mr. speaker, we have no more speakers on our side and we reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, i yield

the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. labrador: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4049. as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. labrador: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5040. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 464, h.r. 5040, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to convey certain federal land to idaho county in the state of idaho and for ther purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from idaho and the gentleman from minnesota each will control 0 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho.

mr. labrador: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. labrador: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. labrador: thank you, mr. speaker. i am the author of h.r. 5040, which directs the secretary of the interior to convey a 31-acre parcel of land to idaho county, idaho, to use for public recreation. idahoans deeply value their second amendment rights and many use firearms for hunting and shooting sports. the safe and proper use of firearms is often a tradition passed down from generation to generation. people need a safe, designated area where they may sight their rifles and teach safe firearm as practices. nearly six years ago a county in my district, idaho county, began the process of searching for a suitable location to install a shooting range to serve the needs of the county residents interested in

exercising their second amendment rights. idaho county, which is 83% controlled by the federal government, began working with the local b.l.m. office in cottonwood, idaho, to identify land that the b.l.m. could transfer to the county for use as a shooting range. the b.l.m. identified a buried land field in the county as a suitable location because the site is already used casually by recreational hunters and the general public as a shooting range. the land also provides the proper safety barriers because it is situated on an elevated bench approximately 240 feet above a nearby road. and surrounded by hills. the county and the local b.l.m. officials agree the site was perfect for a shooting range. the county began to process seeking administrative transfer from the b.l.m., but soon ran into procedural roadblocks. the site of the proposed shooting range is within a portion of the lower salmon river, which was identified by the b.l.m. for potential

inclusion in the national wild and scenic rever -- river system. because of existing b.l.m. regulations, the parcel cannot be transferred to the county administratively. as my staff and i met with the idaho county commissioners to come up with a solution, we determined the only path forward was to introduce legislation in congress to convey the land from the b.l.m. to the county. my bill, the idaho county shooting range land conveyance act, would convey the 31-acre parcel outright to idaho county for use as a shooting range. the b.l.m. has spent a great deal of time and resources studying the proposed site and has determined the land would be perfect for a shooting range. the local b.l.m. office in cottonwood has been instrumental in gathering the necessary environmental data to support the land conveyance and i am grateful for their ongoing efforts to work with my staff and finally resolve this issue. my office has also worked closely with the idaho county commissioners and idaho county sheriff to develop a plan to manage the land for public use,

as a shooting range. part of the plan includes allowing idaho county law enforcement to use the range to conduct firearms training and qualifications. idaho county has waited nearly six years for this process to be completed. idaho county residents want a safe, remote location to exercise their second amendment rights and my bill will provide a solution that is long overdue. i urge support for the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, i want to commend representative labrador for the work that he's done on behalf of his constituents here and their recreational activities in their future. h.r. 5040 transfers 31 acres of public land to idaho county for the purpose of establishing a public shooting range. the county will pay thed a

miven costs -- the administrative costs associated with the transfer and release the united states from any future liability. historically a bill of this nature would contain stronger language to guarantee that the transferred land would continue to be used for a public purpose. or the ownership would automatically revert back to the united states government. these so-called reversionary clauses ensures that once transferred, the land is not sold or developed in a way that was not intended by congress. it's important for congress to establish clear and fair expectations when transferring management of an asset owned by the american taxpayer. we encourage idaho county to use the land as intended by this bill. with that being said, this bill merits our support and we urge its adoption by the house. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from yithe is -- idaho is recognized.

mr. labrador: we have no further speakers and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. nolan: i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. labrador: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho yields back also. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 5040. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. labrador: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3608. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 30 -- 3608 a bill to concern taxable income to members of the grand port and band of lake superior -- portage and bake of -- band --

portage band in lake superior. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho. mr. labrador: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ment -- without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. labrador: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. labrador: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 3608 would protect certain funds paid by the state of minnesota and held by the united states in trust for the grand portage band of lake superior chippewa indians from federal and state taxations. under the bill the funds may be distributed to tribe members and it will not be taxabling as long as each payment doesn't exceed $2,000. payments stem from a settlement in which two chippewa tribes

agreed to forego certain treaty hunting and fishing rights. in 1990, legislation was introduced to protect them from state taxation. however by the time it was enacted, only one of the two tribes was granted the tax relief. indian and tee on alaskan native affairs held a hearing on the matter. neither the law nor other information provides a reason of one time.sion this bill asks that both bands of tribe be accorded equal treatment and this allows the grand portage band the same tax benefits. the committee on natural resources reported by unanimous consent than chairman camp of the ways and means committee and

chairman goodlatte of the judiciary committee have graciously agreed by et letter to in the exercise their jurisdiction. as always we appreciate their cooperation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is ecognized. mr. nolan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. thank you to the gentleman who is retiring, he will be missed and thank you to chairman young who i had the good fortune to initially serve in this chamber about 40 years ago and ranking member hanabusa on the subcommittee on indian and native alaskan affairs for their support of this bill and i want to thank the staff for their efforts on this legislation. mr. speaker new york simple term, bill corrects a technical

mistake in existing law. thereby allowing members of the grand portage band of lake superior chippewa to exclude up to $2,000 in payment from the state of minnesota as taxable income. by way of background, in 1988, the grand portage band and another band of chippewa entered an agreement to relinquish certain harvest rights and privileges accorded under the treaty of 1854 in return for annual per capita payments in the state of minnesota. in the year 2000, congress passed the omnibus indian advancement act which stipulated that a portion of these per capita payments should not count as income for the band members. the problem was, the legislative language included only the boys fort band. the grand portage band was

inadvertently, accidentally left out. as a result many members of the grand portage band have been denied fbsrble assistance and other benefits they are entitled to because their income appears higher than the law permits. this bill simply corrects the mistake by amending the act of october 9, 1973, to allow members of the grand portage band up to $2,000 in per capita income payments from the state of minnesota from their taxable income. it's the correct and the fair thick to do. let me -- thing to do let me also point out, mr. speaker, that this bill marks another step toward restoring the letter and the spirit of the 1854 treaty between the federal government and the the chaplain: what of lake superior, a treaty marked by serious violations from the -- and the chippewa of lake superior, a treaty marked by serious violations from the beginning, violating the lands

reserved for the indians in perpetuity. i often point out to my colleagues that the bust of chief buffalo greets us as we enter the house chamber from the west front. chief buffalo was recognized as the head chief of the greater chippewa nation. at the age of 92 years of age, he red led a tribal delegation to washington to meet with president fillmore and paved the way for the treaty of 1854 to stop the removal of lake superior chippewas from their native homes. it was quite a trip. they left wisconsin's madeleine island by birch bark canoe, mind you, 92-year-old man, traveling all the way to salt st. marie. ste here -- to sault marie. then the railroad took them to

albany new york and finally back onto the train to washington, d.c. where they made their case to the president of the united states. in asking my colleagues to support this bill, i ask thems to also remember chief buffalo and the diligence and the long, hard work, and the long and difficult trail that is often, often required to do the right thing when we are representing people that we've been, in our case elected to represent. it's a good lesson in point in a time in life where we have a kind of fast food mentality and everybody is expecting things to happen now. the voyage, extraordinary effort that chief buffalo made is a lesson to us all. here we are, 160 years later, still trying to fulfill the result of that important mission that he made. this legislation to restore a

small pose of a larger trust relationship is part of that journey. mr. speaker, i urge passage of this bill and i thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. labrador: i have no further speakers, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman from minnesota. mr. know lan: i yield back. mr. labrador: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3608. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those being that the affirmative, the legislation is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. bishop of georgia for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection, the entlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: chairman deutch and i will convene a meeting on the dangers nuclear weapons in iran could pose. the director of the c.i.a. and

n.s.a. will testify about his concerns and the guarantees needed to monitor and verify this agreement. in fact, he has warned that were he still in his role as c.i.a. director, he, quote, would feel compelled to advise the president that the agreement could not be adequately verified, end quote. mr. speaker, congress needs to remain engaged. we need to continue our oversight, we need to use all the tools we have available to us including strengthening and increasing sanctions against this regime in order to ensure that the president does not sign an agreement that is not in our national security interest. i thank the speaker for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. thompson: mr. speaker, currently more than 113 million americans are facing long-term disease and -- or dizz ability. significant policy -- or disability. significant policy advancements have been recently signed into law to encourage development of drugs for those with limited medical options and continuing to get diges noic tests to patients more quickly. as someone who spent most of my professional career serving those with life-changing disease and disability, a scared goal of health care provide sers to improve the quality of life for their patients. this is particularly true when it comes to those with limited speech, whether they suffer from stroke, trauma, or progressive neurological diseases such as a.l.s., m.s. or huntington's. i'm pleased that after years of recommendation the centers for medicare and medicaid services have lifted prohibitions on unlocking speech generating devices from accessing other

technologies such as email. our continued goal should be to ensure the mobility of people with disabilities can be enhanced in our modern world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? weather, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to bring awareness to the plot of a 34-year-old christian pastor who was unlawfully arrested by the islamic republic of iran for refusing to refouns his -- renounce his christian faith. mr. fates patic rick: he and his wife are prominent in the house church movement in iran, credited with establishing 30 different churches. after the arrest of ahmadinejad in 2005, the church movement became the subject of authoritarian crackdown,

prompting the cupple to return to the united states. on september 26, 2012, he returned to iran to visit family and continue his humanitarian work to establish an orphanage. during this trip, he was arrested and charged with undermining national security. in early 2013, he was transferred from tehran to the prison in the town of kuraj, an institution known for harsher and often life-threatening conditions. i call on the administration to act swiftly for the immediate return of this american to his family. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. earlier this month, the american people sent a strong message to

washington, one that was apparently not received by the president. mr. lamalfa: his late etc. threat to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal imgrants would not only serve as a massive apuce of power but also make clear the disconnect between this administration and our citizens. the american people deserve a government that can demonstrate the abilitied on commitment to enforcing our nation's laws, not a president who sidesteps congress and the american people to advance an agenda which applies exclusively to one side of the aisle. i urge the president to stop going around the books and orking together to solve immigration problems. to take step it's a secure ours borders, respects the rules of law, stops violent criminals at the border and prevents future illegal immigration. i call on the president to work with congress. mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: mr. garrett of new jersey for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, o2013, the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. jeffries: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask that all members be given five days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jeffries: it's an honor and privilege to once again have the opportunity to stand on the house floor and to anchor the congressional black caucus' special order hour where today we want to discuss some of the issues and challenges confronting this country that we hope this newly constituted congress will be prepared to

take up as we move into the 114th congress. there's still a lot of business that's undone over the remaining few weeks that we have left during this session, but a whole lot of challenges that we've got to confront as we move forward. 150 years or so ago, president abraham lincoln publicly pondered the question, how do we create a more perfect union? president lincoln asked that question at a time when the country was tearing itself apart in the context of the civil war. and since the conclusion of that war, since president lincoln publicly pondered that question, year after year, month after month, century after century, we certainly have made some progress,

significant progress here in america. we still have a long way to go. and it's still relevant for us to ask the question, how do we create a more perfect union? where do we go from here? so i'm pleased that so many of my distinguished colleagues from the congressional black caucus have come to the floor today to share their thoughts and their insight and their licy prescriptions and our continuing march toward a more perfect union. let me first just yield to the dynamic chairperson of the congressional black caucus who's provided such great leadership to this caucus, to this congress and to this country during her career, the distinguished gentlelady from ohio, chairwoman marcia fudge. the speaker pro tempore: before the gentleman is recognized, the gentlelady from ohio, the

chair will receive a message. att: -- madam secretary: the senate has agreed to the amendment of the house to s. 1086, cited as the child care and development block grant act of 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. fudge: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank my colleagues, jeffreys and horsford, for leading the congressional black caucus hour. it is an issue that i think is important to the entire country. and it should be a priority for all members. not just members of the congressional black caucus. a discussion on where congress goes from here, in pursuit of a more perfect union. mr. speaker, even before the final ballots were counted from the midterm elections, conservatives began sharing their priorities for the

upcoming congress. instead of promising to improve our health care system, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle began promising to renew their campaign to repeal the affordable care act. a campaign that's wasted millions in taxpayer dollars with 53 unsuccessful votes. instead of searching for common ground, they're still committed to finding a way to impeach president barack obama. instead of using the next congress to create more opportunities for the american people, the decision has already been made to continue efforts to obstruct and undermine the president. none of these actions will move our nation forward or do what's best for the country. we must do something more than advance a partisan political agenda. it's irresponsible, mr. speaker, and an insult to the very public that gave us this awesome responsibility in the first place. we were elected to represent the american people, all of the american people. let's write and pass legislation that will make

their lives easier and their futures more promising. it's time for this congress to unite and move forward together . this is not the time for doubling down on the tactics of distraction, obstruction and confusion. we have the opportunity now to lay a foundation for the 114th congress that is built upon bipartisan corporation and a shared commitment to doing what's best for all of our citizens. i urge my colleagues to join the c.b.c. in doing the people's work. i yield back. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished chair for her observations. certainly for pointing out that while we should be coming together to march toward perfecting our union, there are some inexplicably who want to march toward impeachment. before even seeing presidential action, same type of folks who from the moment that barack obama was sworn in as president you believe he exceeded his

authority. just by raising his right hand and taking the oath of office. so let's just hope that we can hit the refresh button on the partisanship, on the obstruction, on the other stuff and come together to do the business of the american people. and certainly the gentleman who i will yield to next has been a great patriot, helped to bring our constitution to life for tens of millions of americans. he's one of this country's greatest freedom fighters, a civil rights icon and a distinguished member of congress, it's my honor and my privilege to now yield to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, congressman john lewis. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i want to thank my friend and my colleague, congressman jeffries, for organizing this special order.

thank you for all that you do. thank you for speaking up. and speaking out. thank you for finding a way to get in the way. mr. speaker, i marched toward a more perfect union -- our march toward a more perfect union has been long, hard and tedious, but we must continue to move forward. i know there are forces that want to stop us, slow us down and take us back, but as a nation and as a people we have made too much progress to turn back now. through hard work, discipline and with the blessing of the almighty, we can and we will move to redeem the soul of. and create a more -- of america and create a more perfect union. the american people are ready. they have grown by leaps and unds to build bridges of understanding between diverse communities.

as their representatives, will we follow their lead? can we work together in this body as one people, one family who live in the same house, one house, the american house? we don't have to be mean to each other. we don't have to put each other down. my work in the movement taught me my faith -- taught me, my faith has taught me and many others to respect the dignity and the worth of every human being. there's some good in the worst of us because everything that is was made by our creator. that's why we must respect the worst and -- worth and dignity and inspire the divine in each one of us. a visionary who planned a historic march on washington in

1963, and the founder of the brotherhood of sleeping car porters, one said, we may have all come here on different ships, but we all are in the same boat now. my colleagues, my brothers and sisters, we must keep the faith, we must press toward the mark of the public good and put ur personal ambitions aside. as mr. jeffries did a few moments ago. let me paraphrase the words of a great republican president. who lived in a more divisive time even than our own. he said, brave men both living and dead have consecrated the american soil through their ears, sweat and blood. they will never forget what we

did here. we must be dedicated to the great task remaining before us. and make sure they did not sacrifice in vain, that this nation under god should have a new birth of freedom, that the government of the people, by the people and for the people should not pass from the earth. thank you, mr. jeffries. and thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. mr. jeffries: thank you, congressman lewis, for those very eloquent thoughts and for continuing to really function as the conscience of the c.b.c. , as our caucus functions as the conscience of the congress. it's now my distinct honor and privilege to yield to someone who i serve on the budget committee with, she's the distinguished member of the house of representatives, a fighter for the people, for the disenfranchised, a voice for

the voiceless, it's my honor to yield to the very distinguished congresswoman, gentlelady from california, congresswoman barbara lee. ms. lee: thank you very much. first, let me thank the gentleman from new york, congressman jeffries, for this very important moment and theme tonight, where do we go from here, but also for your leadership in conducting these special orders. to make sure that the american people really know the truth about what's taking place here in washington, d.c., but also to hear the voice of conscience from the congressional black caucus. such as we just heard from our great warrior, congressman john lewis. also i want to thank congressman horsford for being part of this for the last couple of years in terms of his tremendous leadership. you know, the other night i had an event with young people in my district. a select series sponsored by the martin luther king freedom center. our young people, congressman lewis knows these young people, they travel with me every year

to selma, montgomery, birmingham. these young people, we started the center in the 1990's and these young people's mission in life is to make sure that the new generation of leaders understand, one, that violence is not an option. secondly, understand that we all are in this together. and we should be united as a country and fight for the american dream for all. he topic of last -- two nights ago, the election series was, where do we go from here. we had white students in the audience, we had african-american, latino, asian-pacific, old people, middle aged people, young people. and it was really amazing. we had the co-founder of the united farm workers, former state senator and we talked about, where do we go from here as a community in oakland and

also throughout the country. and what we need to do here is really get back to work for the american people. that's what we heard over and over at our lecture series. you know, unfortunately ever since the republicans took control of the house of representatives, we see the governing through extortion and brinksmanship, including a government shutdown that cost the taxpayers $24 billion. i hope that's not where we go from here. looking at even or at least some are saying that they're eyeing another shutdown and are refusing to act on immigration while planning another series of votes to repeal the affordable care act. they've even gone so far as to threaten impeachment because our president has continued to lead where they failed. where do we go from here, congressman jeffries, let's hope not there. i hope we go where my young people in my community talked

about the other night, and the threats about a government shutdown over immigration reform is outrageous. my district is a very diverse and dynamic district. makes it really a great place for my constituents to live, work, do business and raise a family. yet we have many, many pockets of poverty, it's home to a vibrant immigrant community. families from all over the world, many of them, and they told me again the other night, they're feeling the pain each and every day of our broken immigration system. it's been more than 500 days since the senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. we need to have an up or down vote, families deserve that. time is really running out. we have three weeks of session left, so we need to get something done. that's where we need to go from here. if congress fails to act on immigration reform, our president can and he should take action to keep families from being torn apart.

just like every president since dwight d. eisenhower, our president should act. as the president has said, immigration reform should come from congress. it should come from us. that's what my community said in terms of moving forward. let's get it done in the next couple of weeks. we have a bipartisan bill, let's come together and have a vote. our colleagues across the aisle need to put our economy ahead of partisanship, that means stopping their repeated attempts of eliminating access to affordable, quality health care for millions of americans. this past with weekend marked the beginning of the second year of open enrollment under the affordable care act. repealing the affordable care act and its protections for families would hurt all of our constituents it. would make health care less affordable and less accessible. yet every time republicans vote to dismantle the affordable care act, they make it perfectly clear that charging women for being a woman is ok,

charging more, that denying victims of domestic violence coverage, that's ok, and allowing insurance companies to increase premiums to increase profits. and that's ok. that's not what the american people need. where do we go from here, let's not go there. millions have been covered and let's move forward to make sure our country has universal, accessible, affordable health care for all, it is a basic human right. we need to get back to doing the work of the american people, the work of forming a more perfect union. finally, i want to point out an article, there was a recent edtorial in "the new york times" in which he discusses historical and structural issues that continue to perpetuate racial disparities between blacks and whites today. i ask unanimous consent to insert this article into the

record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: he states that black-white equality -- inequality is greater today than it was in apartheid in south africa. for young people of color, especially young men, have been left behind the economic recovery. it's leaving them behind and far too often, they are marginalized and forgotten. the poverty rate for african-americans is 27.2%, more than 2 1/2 times the rate of poverty of white americans. nobody in our country should have to live below the poverty line, where the wealthiest -- we're the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. the african-american unemployment rate is 10.9%. young men of color are stop and frisked at will, they are more incarcerated than any other group. the jobs that are available

don't pay must have if you have -- enough to get by while our safety net and nutrition programs continue to be hacked and slashed by house republicans. beyond the lack of opportunity, police misconduct and the criminal justice system are constant reminds of the tragic inequality which is still persistent in the daily life of black america. where do we go from here? let's move forward so that the -- so that we remember that the deaths of michael brown and trayvon martin and eric garner and oscar grant, one of my constituents, their deaths, we've got to remember, are fradgic x.s of the senseless deaths of young black men. as the mother of two black men and young black grandsons, i have to have uncomfortable conversations with them, thousand walk, thousand talk, how to interact with police. this is not just my reality but the reality of millions of other black mothers, grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers.

this is something no parent should have to do. no one should be afriday of the police who are sworn to protect and serve them. this is something congress must take leadership in addressing. finally, let me just say the work of building a more perfect union is not just rhetorical. as members of congress, we do have a unique opportunity to do just that. to quote our drum major for justice, who congressman lewis had the privilege and honor to work with, dr. martin luther king jr. he, said, a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. we have the privilege tonight to remind this body that we are the molder of consensus. thank you again, congressman jeffries, for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. mr. jeffries: thank you, congresswoman lee, for your eloquent observations and for laying out a clear pathway as it

relates to many of the challenge twofse confront here in america. certainly amongst those challenges you spoke to, the notion that we've got a broken criminal justice system that in far too many communities has placed a target on the back of young african-american and latino men in a way inconsistent with the democratic values of this country and the notion -- notion that we will -- we were all created equally. and soy look forward to partnering with you on many of these issues as we all collectively move forward in this wonderful body. we've also been joined here today by another civil rights champion, someone who has fought for the disenfranchised and to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity under the law, he's the distinguished gentleman from the lone star state of texas and i'm pleased now to yield to congressman al green.

mr. green: thank you very much, congressman jeffries. i also thank in his absence, congressman horseford. the two of you have been almost inkept rabble when it comes to these special order hours. i want to compliment you on the outstanding job you have done but i also want to compliment congressman horseford for the job he's done on the resources committee, he's represented his constituents exceedingly well. know that in the annals of history, when they look back through the vista of time, it will be said he served us well in the congress of the united states of america. with reference to the relevant question of the hour, as it relates to a more perfect union,

where do er and query we go from here, it was appropriate,ic, that you introduced -- appropriate, i think, that you introduced this topic by referencing president lincoln. appropriate because you're imminently correct. it was a time of great turmoil when he announced that he would issue an emancipation proclamation. and on january of 1863, when he issued the emancipation proclamation, the country was in he midst of a civil war, being torn apart, there was much to be said about his announcement that he would issue the emancipation proclamation. there was great debate and many people who said it should not be done, that it was not worth the

paper it would be written on to be quite candid with you, was said, because it would only free the slaves in the states that had left the union. states that, quite candidly, at the time he, had no control over. but he issued the emancipation proclamation and i thank god that he did. because by issuing the emancipation proclamation he, laid the foundation for the 13th amendment to the constitution of the united states of america that was in fact executed in 1865, december. but for the emancipation proclamation, i don't know that i would be standing here in the congress of the united states of america tonight. by issuing that emancipation proclamation he, changed the course of history. dr. king was right. the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, however it doesn't do it of its own accord. it takes the hands of men and

women to bend it. so i'm pleased that he did. so i'm also pleased that there was another opportunity for a president to forge a more perfect union. president harry truman had the pportunity in 1948 to issue an executive order as was the case with lincoln and the executive order for the emancipation proclamation he, issued an executive order to desegregate the military. there was much to be said about it. in fact, that executive order led to the birth of the dixiecrats. there was a split in the democratic party because the honorable harry truman decided he would issue executive order 9981 to desegregate the military. he issued it, the military was desegregated and i contend that this was also one of the many

reasons why the country itself moved along to desegregation and integration. these were two out-- two outstanding and well noted executive orders, issued by presidents of the united states. if president lincoln could issue an executive order and emancipation proclamation. if harry truman could issue an executive order for desegregation of the military, surely president barack obama can issue an executive order to liberate many people who are living in the shadows of life and im-- an immigration declaration, if you will. i believe the president should issue this order notwithstanding all that's being said. there was much said and much being done when lincoln issued his executived offer. much said and much being done

when truman issued his. much said, much being done now. but i think the president should do this and i think he should be bold when he does it. because he will be lifting people out of the shadows of life and i am confident that while many will be angry with him, god will not. i think god will smile on the president for issuing this executive order. more than 15,000 executive orders have been issued. not one president has ever been impeached for issuing an executive order. not one. there's talk of impeaching president obama. if you didn't impeach, we didn't impeach lincoln and we didn't impeach truman and we didn't impeach reagan and we didn't impeach many of the other president who was signed the more than 15,000 executive orders, i don't think that we ought to impeach president obama.

finally this. as an aside. there is much talk about the president's legacy. and what he has done to form a more perfect union while being president, you will. but all of this talk about his legacy misses the mark in my opinion. because there are many who think that the affordable care act will be the better piece of his legacy and i think it's a great piece of legislation, i supported it, i still support it. there are many who think that saving the auto industry will be his legacy. i think this is significant. exceedingly so. i supported what he did. there are others who believe that his work in human rights and human dignity, especially as it relates to equal pay for equal work for women, will be his legacy. i think it's a great piece of work and i commend him for what he's done but the president's will in the'ons to come

be that he became -- in the eons to come will be that he became the president of the united states of america. the mere fact that the honorable barack obama was elected not once, but twice, speaks to our efforts to form a more perfect union. i think that his greatest legacy will be his having served as president of the united states of america. that fact alone will be something that we will never, ever erase from history. i thank you for the opportunity to visit with you and i pray that the president will be bold and sign the executive order. will lead with the executive order, that may lead to comprehensive immigration reform. and a pathway to citizenship for those living in the shadows of life. god bless you. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentleman from texas for his very thoughtful and eloquent observations. i think it's so important that you pointed out the president's

place in the context of his legacy relating to his election because i believe it also ties in to his legitimacy in moving forward with executive action on immigration. this is the first democratic esident since f.d.r. to be elected to consecutive terms, having secured a majority of the vote from the american people. and so he has all the legitimacy, all of the electoral mandate to act in a bold fashion. we know that president george w. bush came into the presidency under questionable circumstances. didn't receive a majority of the vote of the american people. and i'm not sure what took place down in florida but certainly

there were significant questions as to the authenticity of the final result. came into office under questionable circumstances, yet there was no talk of impeachment. as he proceeded to get us into not one, but two wars, and jam a reckless tax cut to benefit the wealthy and the well off down the throats of the american people. and if you just take iraq, for liedle, his administration their way into a conflict that has cost the american people thousands of lives, billions of dollars, international legitimacy has been jeopardized. and no one from this side of the aisle talked about bringing forth articles of impeachment in

any meaningful way against george w. bush. and you have a democratically elected president, barack obama, overwhelming electoral college landslide, got a mandate to act, and there are some members on the other side of the aisle who just can't help themselves. itching to try and delegitimize this president. shame on you. let's just hope that we can move forward in a more productive fashion as it relates to how we interact with the executive brample. the whole world is watching and they expect taos behave responsibly as we move forward. how do we create a more perfect union, act in a bipartisan fashion, i think there are at least four areas

where there should be opportunity to find common ground. we should be able to find common ground as it relates to immigration reform and dealing with our broken immigration system. we should be able to find common grouped as it relates to giving america a raise. we should be able to find common criminal it relates to just ti reform. i have -- justice reform. i have been informed by the bipartisan task force on overcriminalization by the willingness of democrats and republicans, conservatives and progressives, to try to work issue of o solve this a broken criminal justice system that we've got in america. there are areas where we should be able to find some common

ground. let me start by dealing with this question of the executive order on immigration. because there is a lot of hysteria in this town now about how some people in the congress are going to react to the president if he decides to issue some form of executive order on immigration, as if this president would be doing something extraordinary. the history, in fact, tells us ,hat since president eisenhower every single occupant at 1600 pennsylvania avenue has issued executive orders related to immigration. in fact, there have been 39 such orders from eisenhower all the way through to president george

w. bush related to the topic and subject matter of immigration. in fact, if you look at some of the executive orders that were should by president ronald reagan and president george h.w. bush related to undocumented immigrants from central america and the need in their view to try to keep families together, they were some of the broadest executive orders issued by any president in the area of immigration. where was the impeachment talk back then? why are we subbing this president to such reckless conversations? i thought that we were trying to come together in the aftermath of these elections to see if we could have a productive 114th

congress, because we certainly know that the 113th congress or is on track to go down as the least productive congress in the history of the republic. that's quite a designation. i mean the least productive congress? if we go down memory lane and think of some of the highlights of a congress that brought us a reckless government shutdown, lostconomy, $24 billion in . productivity because of this and threatening the full faith and credit of the united states of america, the congress that brought us sequestration, $85 billion in randomly spread-out

cuts across the government in a way that put hundreds of thousands of jobs in jeopardy, failed to renew unemployment insurance, leaving millions of americans on the battlefield of the great recession, these are the highlights of the 113th congress. i don't think that's a record to be proud of as we move forward. so i think we could all benefit from a reduction in the rhetoric in an effort to try and find common grouped. if you don't like what the president may do on the issue of immigration, you are going to control the house of representatives and you are going to control the senate. just act. do something. stop talking. fix our broken immigration

system. you have the power to do so. and the senate acted in a bipartisan fashion last year, passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill that was not perfect, but certainly was a good-faith attempt to try and address the problem. and there were 52 democrats, two independents, 14 republicans, if my recollection serves me correctly that partnered together to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation. so i'm just hopeful that the house will come together and legitimately try to tackle an issue. and just stop throwing out the amnesty to apply to everything that you don't like. this country's greatest tradition, we have never had

dual citizenship and we shouldn't have dual citizenship moving forward. we should try to find a way to bring these 11 million undocumented people out of the shadows in a fashion that independent economists have said will be beneficial to the american taxpayer and result in dramatic reductions in our nation's deficit. that's immigration reform. and i'm hopeful that we can find some common ground in that area. the second area where i think we should come together in our march toward a more perfect union has to do with giving america a raise. right now, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. in other words, in the

wealthiest country in the world, in our great republic, under that federal minimum wage, you can have somebody who works , 52 ime, 40 hours a week weeks a year and at the end of the day with a family of three, find themselves below the federal poverty line. at's a classic definition of working poor. why would we submit that into law? so i think the responsible thing to do is for us to try and figure out how we can come together and raise the minimum wage. we couldn't get a vote in the house of representatives on h.r. 1010. this congress that would have raised the minimum wage to

$10.10 an hour over the next year or so, let's hit the refresh button and try to get something done next congress. and this is not just something that democrats embrace, this is not simply something that loose states embrace, this is not something that progressives simply embrace. if we are going to take a message from the outcome of the election early in november, we can't pick and choose what message we want to take. how about we draw some lessons from the fact that the voters of aska came to the polls and overwhelmingly supported an increase in the minimum wage in

that state. the voters in arkansas came to the polls and overwhelmingly supported an increase in the minimum wage in that state. the voters of nebraska came to the polls and overwhelmingly supported an increase in the minimum wage in that state. the voters of south dakota came to the polls and overwhelmingly supported an increase in the minimum wage in that state. those are four deeply conservative, deeply red states. a raise.ants looking for issues where we can find common ground beyond immigration reform. perhaps we can start there. and one of the reasons i think we should start there is because if you look at the what the

minimum wage means in real terms right now, we're falling behind in terms of where we once were and also in terms of making sure that we are giving the people who are working on the minimum wage a fair shot to pursue the american dream. if you were to look at this chart that's before us, you will only 17% of 968, the people who fell into the category of a low-wage worker had some college experience. but in 2012, that number has ot way up, 46% of the people falling into the category of a low-wage worker with some college experience.

no wonder there's a lot of anxiety and uncertainty about the future of america amongst the people we represent all across the country when you've got folks with some college experience falling into the category of a low-wage worker. and in 1968 about 48% of the a le low-wage workers, had high school diploma or g.e.d. that number has shot up, 2012, 79% of low-wage workers had completed college or obtained their g.e.d. americans are more educated now than we were 45 or so-plus years ago in terms of the work force, but earning less. that's a fundamental problem

that we've got to confront in this country. and raising the minimum wage is one way in which to do it. and the other thing we should to the ook at related minimum wage is the fact that the people who are on it in large measure are actually trying to support themselves on a full-time basis or support their family. you know, one of the most popular myths put forward by those who are determined to do everything possible to stop america from getting a raise, like to say, well, people who work for the minimum wage are

teenagers or they work part-time, after school, live with their parents. all they're really doing is trying to earn some extra spending money. it's a cute argument, but when using ally evaluate it some objective factual analysis, you see that these are simply myths designed to undermine the effort to raise the minimum wage for people who are actually struggling to support their families. because unlike the popular mythology that is put forward that these are teenagers or after-school workers or people trying to get some spending change to go to the movies, the reality is, the average age of people who are working for minimum wage numbers in america

is 35 years old. 88% of the people working on a minimum wage right now are not teenagers. they're 20 years or older. more than a quarter actually have children. and 55% of these individuals, as is chart illustrates, work full-time. so let's have an evidence-based discussion about the need to increase the minimum wage that's rooted in objective factual analysis and not hysteria or mythology designed simply to evade the discussion. the fact that the minimum wage increase has been accepted by

deeply conservative voters in arkansas, alaska and south dakota, i think provides with us a starting point to move forward and attempt to find common ground in doing something that makes sense simply for america. i mentioned immigration reform as a possible avenue of trying to identify common ground. i mentioned minimum wage. i think we also have to try to eal with the issue of a broken criminal justice system. if you think about the fact that in america, there are more than two million people incarcerated in our country, that is a tremendous waste of human capital, tremendous waste of our economic resources and results

human amatic loss of productivity. as i have actually been pleased over the last several years that people on the left and on the right, progressives and conservatives are finding their way toward common ground to deal with a criminal justice system that clearly is broken and starting perhaps with the notion that we've had a failed war on drugs. that has resulted in putting people behind bars far too often, and disproportionately african-americans and latino drugbut putting nonviolent abusers behind bars in a dramatic waste of taxpayer dollars. in a manner that has proven to

be ineffective from a criminal justice standpoint. as a member of the bipartisan task force on over criminalization chaired by mr. sensenbrenner from wisconsin and the democratic leader of the effort was bobby scott, the distinguished gentleman from virginia, one of the things that have striking as we move forward with our exploration, was the federal system, more than 50% of the people who moreurrently incarcerated, or 50%, are therefore drug substance abuse crimes. ly about 8% of the current

occupants of federal prisons across america were convicted of violent crimes. something is wrong with that picture. and i'm thankful, actually, that states, particularly in the deep south, conservative states, with republican governors and republican held state legislative bodies, have recognized the failure of the excessive law and order policies brought to us in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the fact that it was costing their taxpayers dollars, wasting resources, and they've come together to reform the criminal justice system. it's happened in texas. it's happened in south carolina.

it's happened in alabama. it's happened in kentucky. it's happened in louisiana. it's happened in georgia. states,hese aren't blue these aren't traditionally democratic states. these are traditionally conservative states, recognizing the need for criminal justice reform. so i'm hopeful that as we move into the 114th congress we can find our way toward dealing with this issue. we've got senators from the other side of the aisle who have expressed an interest in ackling this issue and we've got democratic and republican members of the house judiciary committee and beyond who have indicated a willingness to try to fix our broken criminal justice system to eradicate mandatory minimums to restore

discretion to judges, to focus less on punishment as it relates to nonviolent drug abusers and to provide treatment and rehabilitation so we can help people successfully re-enter into our society. we've got to finish the job as it relates to the disparity between crack and cocaine. it was 100 to one, this congress acted, it's now 18 to one, but there's still no pharmacological reason for there to be any disparity between crack and cocaine. and we should make our reforms retroactive so we can free thousands of people unnecessarily behind bars right now for a law that this congress has deemed to be unjust. criminal justice reform. a third area where perhaps we can work together. and lastly, as we prepare to wind down this congressional black caucus specialed orer, and

i also want to express my thanks to my good friend and colleague steven horseford, the distinguished gentleman from nevada who throughout the last two years courageously stood on the floor of the house of representatives, co-anchoring the c.b.c. special order, and we not -- we know that the best is yet to come from congressman horseford, but the last issue we've got to perhaps tack until a bipartisan fashion is fixing the damage that was done to the voting rights act by the supreme court. we all should want tone courage americans to vote and participate in our great democracy. it's that participation that preserves the integ i have to the democratic republic -- the integrity of the democratic republic of this great country. why anyone would want to

suppress the vote is beyond me, with the exception of noting that some view it as a partisan , a s of maintaining power pyrrhic victory, perhaps, because at the end of the day these efforts to disenfranchise people are bad for america. this is a chart that illustrates that in the aftermath of the 2014 elections, some people -- in the aftermath of the elections, some people saw it as a mandate to su press the vote and bills to suppress the vote were introduced in every state represented in a red color. laws introduced to suppress the vote. that's how the 2010 elections seemed to have been interpreted. i'm hopeful that coming out of

the 2014 mid-term elections, that we'll actually come together, there's a bill in the house of representatives, it has republican support, it has emocratic support, to help americans who want to vote, vote. and undo the damage that was done to the voting rights act by the supreme court. now the voting rights act, as i close, has a great bipartisan history. in 1965.acted into law we're going to celebrate the 50th anniversary next year, and signed and championed, of course, by lyndon baines johnson, support of civil rights leaders, dr. king and of course our own congressman john lewis. but every time the voting rights

act was re-authorized, it was re-authorized by a republican president. it was re-authorized in 1970, signed into law, by president richard nixon. and then it was re-authorized again in 1975, signed into law by president gerald ford. and the voting rights act was re-authorized again in 1982, president law, by ronald reagan. it was re-authorized again in 2006, signed into law by president george w. bush. it has a great bipartisan history. if we're rooking -- looking for areas where we can find common

ground, where there's an opportunity for democrats and republicans, for conservatives and progressives to work together, we've got a lot of options. we can fix our broken immigration system. we can deal with criminal justice reform. we can give america a raise. and we can fix the voting rights act. on the occasion of our celebrating the 50th anniversary of its passage. i'm hopeful we can put the dysfunction and obfuscation and government shutdowns and impeachment talk and sequestration and the serial flirtation with the debt ceiling and the -- and defaulting behind us and come together, find common ground and march toward a more perfect union in the 114th

congress and with that, i yield ack. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. jeffries: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m.

>> is it would consider the environmental impact statement, as having to fill the requirements under an environmental policy law that has to be followed in order for a cross-border permit to be considered. >> let's look at the 60 votes needed in the senate to pass the measure. you quotele, and senator mary landrieu as saying that i am confident we will have the 60 votes to pass it. where do they stand with the counting of the votes? >> as of right now it is seal -- it feels it has 59 votes. last week, to others pledged

their support for the bill. as of right now we haven't found that 60th vote. landry said they don't think she would have pushed it if she didn't have 60 votes. it seems like a fair amount of pressure. you read tweeted -- r saying senator schumer marched in the climate votes. give us a snapshot of some of the other pressures the senators are feeling. >> democrats are feeling a lot of pressure from toironmentalists who wants tie keystone to climate change and make the argument that by allowing this pipeline to go forward it would just exacerbate the level of gas emissions. for any democrats and want to be

taken seriously on climate change there is a lot of pressure. senator schumer has said he is voting no. >> bill cassidy in the house got 31 democrats to vote for his measure. what happens to congressman cassidy's keystone measure of senator landrieu's passes? passes, that the house bill will be considered passed.that is the bill that will be sent to the president's desk . senator landrieu has said that it doesn't matter to her as long as the bill reaches the president off best. -- president's desk. >> here's the headline in "rollcall" -- "dominates the senate roll off but does louisiana care?" both candidates want to be able to take on some kind of victory, however they are going to get it, to the voters.

the question is do louisiana voters think this is a issue. for senator landrieu a lot of her legislative victories that she has counted on have had pretty direct impact on louisiana citizens, for example earlier this year when she successfully negotiated premium increases. >> it is a big issue to president obama. has the white house said whether or not he will sign or veto the bill? didn't want to say directly one way or another by president obama has repeatedly said he wants the state department process in the separate supreme court process and nebraska to play out. he wouldn't have a bill at his desk, but they haven't said one way or another if they would issue a definitive veto threat. >> read more on

rollcall.com. thanks for that preview. the debt of the sierra leone surgeon and a nebraska hospital today from the ebola virus was among the topics at a four among global health security. that is next on c-span. epa administrator takes questions about the administration's environmental. policy.onmental on our next "washington journal," we will talk to a congressman about issues, including the keystone pipeline, government funding, entitlement programs and immigration. then congressman walter jones will join us. we will discuss president obama's funding request to combat isis, authorizing the deployment of additional personnel to advise him to advise and train iraqi security

forces and kurdish forces. journal" is live every morning. up next, dr. tom frieden talks about ebola. we will also hear from kathleen sebelius. >> i would ask folks to take a seat as we get started. good afternoon and welcome. executive director of the health medicine and society program. i am delighted that you have joined us for our second session. we could not have asked for a more timely talk. before i introduce the session,

let me take a moment to tell you about the series. clinicians are kept up-to-date about scientific medical advances and to promote excellent in recent -- excellence in research and practice. public health rounds is a partnership between two aspen programs, one i worked for, which has a domestic focus, and global health and development which works on international health issues. this series is made possible with funding from the aspen innovation fund for which we are most grateful. to schedule it for the six times a year, taking advantage of our prime location here in washington, to engage individual thinkers and doers in the field. this is an invitation-only event

and we ask you to join us because we believe you can take the focus ideas and spread them further. we are live streaming this event and a video will be up on our website within the next 24 hours. feel free to share it with colleagues are to watch it again. now it is my great pleasure to introduce the man who actually need little or no introduction, dr. thomas frieden. on ebola will take us into the heart of the most recent infectious disease scare. he will be reminding us that microbes have no respect for national borders, which means that this is an act of self interest to respond to outbreaks around the world. has directed the cdc since june, 2009, and in those years he has dealt with h1n1, avian flu, mrsa, and many other

infectious agents that have never reached the front pages. he has also been involved in global efforts to eradicate polio and to control multi drug-resistant super kilis s -- rdrug-resistant tuberculosis. he has also played a role in obesity prevention. he spent his early career as a disease detective in the cdc's and later as the commissioner of the new york city health department will stop he cut teen smoking in half and helped the city become the first in the u.s. to eliminate trans fats from restaurant menus. somewhere the middle of all that he has managed to publish 200 scientific articles. earned his medical degree and a masters degree from columbia university and completed his infectious disease trading at yale. thanks for being here,

especially at this busy time. [applause] thank you. thanks to the aspen institute for bringing us together. goding -- i'm going to through a large number of slides because i want to get a lot of information out there but i also want to do to other things. one, leave plenty of time for questions and discussion, and withremember to leave you what i think is the single most important concept that i will be sharing. that is that infectious diseases are here to stay, but we can make a difference, we can control them and push them back if we focus on three fundamental principles. first, finding threats when they first emerge. second, responding effectively. having learned from those

activities, preventing them wherever possible. finding,formulation of stopping, and preventing, is going to be essential to every aspect of our infectious disease control measures. cdc works 24/7 to save lives, protects people, and save money through prevention. we have more than 12,000 health professionals who work to find, stop, and prevent health threats. we analyze information around the world and most of the data you will see comes from the cdc. we also work with individuals and communities and health care workers to implement strategies to respond and prevent. we also serve as the de facto reference laboratory for the world, and the cdc has more than 2000ifferent laboratories,

scientists working on a broad range of areas. and we have important partnerships all around the world. has staff in 60 countries. also -- we also have a variety of programs that work around the world. finding,c concept of stopping, and preventing is how you can think about the different programs. we have programs in influenza so we can track how strands spread around the world and what is the best choice for our vaccine here. we have programs and immunization where we work closely with the world health organization. immunization over the past decade has saved more than 10 million lives and is responsible in and of itself for more than a quarter of all the increase and decrease in infant mortality.

best buys in this country. we also work on malaria control, and we embed back into ministries of health where that program is operational. not dissimilar from what we do in this country. we put our staff and to state and local departments. we don't establish large offices, rather we strengthen the systems in place and hospitals, hospital systems, to support them for better infection control. we do the same thing globally. is the program, the largest bilateral global health program that has ever been, and which has been remarkably successful, the cdc provides about half of the treatments.

the infrastructure established has been very important in helping to enable to respond quickly and effectively. perhaps the single most important thing we do in global health is a program called the field epidemiology training program. this is based on the cdc epidemic intelligence service program, a two-year program where you take a highly trained physician or veterinarian or dentist or nurse or pharmacist, and over the next two years, you train them to do a very specific style of field in the genealogy. it-- field epidemiology. you train them to identify an outbreak and stop it. you embed them with a local entity and help them respond to urgent threats. that program has been the backbone of the cdc for more than 60 years and for decades we have been helping other countries do a similar type of epidemiology.

we have now trained over 3000 epidemiologists from around the world. 0% of the graduates stay in countries generally working in positions of leadership. allows a program that the cdc to strengthen governments, public health systems, health care systems around the world, for their sake and for hours. -- ours. to ave had to respond large number of emergencies, natural events, infectious diseases, potential environmental contamination, and war. years wehe past two have been discussing the issue of global health security. we are truly connected by airplanes, food supply, air, water. extend ourreat vulnerability depends on how vulnerable other parts of the world are.

we have three major risks that we face. the first are emerging organisms, as ebola emerged in west africa for the first time ever. the second are resistant organisms. the third are intentionally created organisms. the same advancements that allow us to do more faster would allow toeone with malicious intent create organisms that may be difficult to deal with. we had three opportunities that really give us a lot of hope and momentum. the first is that there is a public health framework for responding to health security threats. that framework works. it is committed to by every country. there is an evaluation system to accept it. second, there are real technological advances. now we are able to do rapid testing for the plague bacteria.

in just 20 minutes, with a dipstick. that test is in africa today and has already been used to rapidly detect, and as a result, treat and prevent, outbreaks. not just a laboratory work but also in communications technology. stories, success whether it is china's successful containment of h one and nine -- h1n9. setting up a system by which they can track and stop flow. for the global collaboration in response to a variety of threats. that leads us to the goal of prevention, detection, and response. the global air network is quite striking, and we are ever more connected. interestingly, west africa is

closer to europe than it is to east africa or southern africa, but in many quarters there is a little bit of a conflation of what is africa and what is west africa. the west african countries that have been heavily affected by ebola are struggling and beginning to show proof of principle, that we can stop it. global health security is something that we have committed to for several years. we implemented pilot programs in 2013. those programs showed real success and promise. the one in uganda was able to result in very rapid detection of outbreaks and meningitis, cholera, pedal a very rapid response. 2014 has been to implement together with the department of defense in 10 countries programmed to advance repsonse.ntion det

we are hopeful that with the emergency response of the president we are able to close some of the blind spots, to address some of the weak links that make vulnerabilities around the world our vulnerabilities. by 2020itment is that we will have 30 countries with at least 4 million people effectively preventing and protecting against other outbreak. outbreak. another start with bioe security and biosafety, making sure laboratories are saved so that organisms don't unintentionally or intentionally get out. programs, which are a tremendously effective way not only of promoting health but of reducing health risks that may spread more broadly. nothing could make that more apparent than what we have been dealing with measles over the

past couple of years. outbreaks anywhere in the world results often in outbreaks here. measles is highly infectious. we are also focusing on surveillance for diseases in humans -- about three quarters of all newly emergent -- newly emerging infections come from some part of the animal kingdom, and we still don't have a handle on the natural reservoir of ebola. are trying to understand that better and prevent future events where ebola could be introduced into our society. on the prevention front there is antimicrobial resistance prevention, and that means antibiotic stewardship and also identifying and stopping the result -- the spreading of resistant organisms. what a different world we would be in today if these basic

systems had been in place in west africa a year ago. it doesn't take much to identify a cluster of people with hemorrhagic illness, it is a very unusual disease. that much take laboratory testing. it does take a lot to stop it, even if it is very small, and it takes an enormous amount to stop it if it is a pandemic. that means having information systems, having disease and response capacity. response capacity means having an incident management system with emergency operations centers. this is fundamentally how we organize to respond to an emergency, and we have the metric, the key metric, that every country should be able to activate their emergency

operations center and respond within two hours to address. if you can do that, you can cut you can of steps and respond much more effectively and prevent things from getting as out of control as ebola has gotten now. to talk about ebola for a minute look at different infectious disease spreads and ebola is scary. itss scary because of fatality rates, which is generally in the 50%-70% range. we think that with meticulous clinical care we should be able to get that down substantially, addressing hydration and fluid management, but it is still a very deadly disease. compare that with things like sars, around 10%, or even the 1918 pandemic which is about 1%-2%. rates as high.ty -- is high.

hasthat doesn't mean it anything like the epidemic potential of influenza. one of the fundamental facts about ebola is that from everything we have seen, it only spreads from someone who is ill and it only spreads from direct contact with body fluids of someone who is ill or has died. the spread has been primarily by ing andwo -- caregiv unsafe burials. burial practices may promote the widespread transmission. is bottom line with ebola that despite recent progress the epidemic remains severe. that core public health intervention can stop it. success requires speed and skill, deploying effective prevention and control resources. i think there are three

overarching principles that are essential to response. the first is speed. the second is flexibility. the third is keeping the front lines first. just to mention speed for a moment. even a one-month delay in scaling up services to respond to ebola could result in a tripling of the size of the outbreak. that is why we have been working around the clock for the past 46 months, and that is why we have been working around the clock for the past few days, surging people into mali. flexibility is very important. the incubation time of ebola is 2-21 days but the usual incubation time is about 8-10. every weekend at half there is another generation of cases. you have got to be ready to respond wherever it is most needed. the front lines first is a key

concept. staff who are working in west africa continue to be frustrated by the lack of simple things that will be very helpful. 170 staff on the ground in west africa, the largest global response of history. we have been aided enormously by our partnership with the dod. despite all of the good wishes, still we deal with things like the need to get into a village that is so remote that not even helicopters can get out, or to take dugout canoes and get to a place where there is a cluster of cases, or to hike four hours three forest to get to a diamond mine, where we find a cluster of ebola and 20,000 people. and getn't get in specimens out we may have a cluster of hundreds or even thousands of cases.

those are the three key principles we try to ensure, to adhere to. the way i think about the ebola outbreak is as a forest fire. at the center are liberia, inea,a leone, and gu which have bushfires all over. the first time the world has ever had an epidemic of ebola spreading widely around countries, to multiple countries. but around them are the sparks that emerge from that forest fire, that might land in lagos or monaco or mali or senegal. each of those sparks has a potential to create another set of wildfires. unless it is rapidly extinguished. just to give you a sense of how asked that effort needs to be -- in nigeria, when an ill traveler het from liberia to lagos,

had to be carried off the plane, he went to a local hospital and his ebola diagnosis was initially not suspected. pretty soon there was a cluster of cases in lagos. ground had staff on the who were working on polio eradication in nigeria. we brought staff from other parts of africa and within 48 hours we put 10 of our top staff on the ground. we were able to help the government repurposed their polio infrastructure to manage the lagos outbreak. we were able to take 40 of the trainees we had helped to become disease detectives to deal with the polio. we allocated their work to ebola control. 899 the following weeks, contacts did 19,000 home visits.

they constructed a evil treatment unit. they trained 2000 health care workers. got more than 95% of their contacts monitored every day. they missed one. it went to another city and started another cluster of ebola. they had to repeat the operation there. center, but with all of that intensive work, you were able to stop the outbreak. nigeria is now ebola free. that is the effort it took to prevent one case of ebola from becoming an outbreak or epidemic. given how central nigeria is to african travel and transit, it was crucial to do that. that is the struggle we are today engaged in in mali. beyond that second ring of countries that may have an immediate ember or spark that ignites an outbreak, every other

potentialat has the to have ebola or other deadly infectious diseases needs to be, more fire resistant. in the case of infectious disease control, that means detections systems, response systems, and prevention. the same three principles. we have fiverol basic principles -- incident management, organizing our system. last week we ensured that mali had appointed an incident manager and we are now scaffolding around that individual to provide effective incident management. they createdmali, an ebola treatment unit to provide isolation and care. they have one confirmed and that treatment unit which is currently being staffed by doctors without borders. upport -- their

traditions are very different which includes washing and touching the body. grieving, itay of needs to change to protect people from ebola. that means change in communities that are very widely dispersed, which don't have a lot of trust of the government and society, which may be cut off without internet, cell phone, radio coverage. it is a challenge. for this infection control in the entire health care system. we have to ensure that the whole system in these three west african countries is ready to consider ebola and that is not easy. it initially presents quite a bit like malaria, and these are countries that are hyper and dimmick for malaria. the rate of malaria infection is in the range of 20 and 70%.