brick plant in hebron that is subject to the mack rule a. rule based on studies that are tightly held again and only visible to the bureaucrats. acres of ntless private farmland and ratchland in our state and the states around us that have been owned it's ely for generations, up for grabs if this waters of the u.s. rule continues to go forward, a rule that inquiry by the science and technology committee to find, to get, to repeal the secret maps that the e.p.a. was creating as part of this massive land grab. it comes down to this, mr. chairman, we are at a time in our country when there is very, very low confidence in the public. in our government. let's restore america's confidence and america's government. and let's provide the one great safeguard to corruption that we

can provide and that's transparency. i thank you for the time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is ecognized. ms. broons: i re-- ms. johnson: i verve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. schweikert: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close if the gentlelady is prepared to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. ms. johnson: i yield back. mr. schweikert: have you ever had a moment when you approach the microphone and you got to accept we all are passionate about our views and you heard say, hings that, shall we get your blood pressure moving a bit but let's do this without being hyper ballic and walk

through some of the realities of some of the information that's laid out here. i want to respond to something that ranking member johnson said. i want to first caveat, she's always been kind to me, but we have the confirmation from the the . itself and we'll put documents into the record that they're perfectly capable of blinding anything that's confidential, anything that's personal. we have the comments from the administrator mccarthy on march through that they can do this and they didn't see it as a real problem. so let me walk through something else that i'm finding absurd and i'm finding trouble to best way to articulate this. we spent about an hour in our office sort of just searching the internet on this subject and if you go about a decade ago, the number of our friends

on the left who are demanding something almost identical to this, so what's different? it wouldn't happen to be a different philosophy, a different president, a different party in the white house, would it? so let me back up and say why do i embrace this secret science bill, this 4012? i genuinely in every fiber of my being believe that we will get better policy, bet remember design, more creative ideas because whether you're on the ft, the right or just an ordinary person, you don't know whether the e.p.a. rule set are optimal. you may believe you are but we're doing it on faith. peer review is wonderful except for the fact that peer reviewers don't see the underlying data. the beauty of this piece of legislation is neither you nor

i right now know for absolute collective analysis whether the e.p.a. is even going far enough. or whether they're going too far or whether another approach that would be dramatically more efficient, what happens when that researcher gets their hands on a lynn year data set and matches -- linear data set and matches it up with something that no one thought there and they discover noise in the data that there's opportunities to do it better, faster, more efficiently, save lives but maybe even do it cheaper? u will not know that until they have the franchise on the information, on the brokerage of the data is broken up, and what is so stunningly disheartening here is much of the concept, if you go back and look at the speeches from the

president in 2007, 2008, memos from the president 18 months demanding this saying it's the wave of the future. if you embrace science but not science of an elite few but the fact of the matter is our nation, our country, our world is made up of really smart people that have the right and the ability to give us input to o this better. i beg of my fellow members here, stop being afraid of true transparency. stop defending the incumbent class that thinks they are the only legitimate scientists who have the right to put forward what our future looks like. i may be behind this microphone a couple years from now if this bill passes and say i never knew we weren't going far enough. you may be behind that microphone over there saying

the proud analysis of the data says there was a dramatically better way. but we need to pass this bill to have that opportunity. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-57. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 113-626. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand for ivision of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-626. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? that the gentleman from arizona. does the gentleman have an amendment? does the gentleman have an amendment? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-626 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 756, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to provide a commonsense one word amendment to h.r. 4012. my simple amendment adds the word online to the disclosure requirements found in this legislation. the congressional budget office has determined that my amendment would not score and would not affect direct spendings or revenues. my amendment is supported by the chairman of science, space and technology committee, lamar smith. my amendment also has the support and -- of the sponsor, mr. schweikert, and i'd like to thank both the chairman, mr. smith, and congressman schweikert for their efforts on this legislation in my support of my amendment. as a result of my good governance amendment, they would make all scientific and technical information relied upon for rulemaking available online before proposing or finalizing new regulations.

i strongly support h.r. 4012 and am proud to co-sponsor this commonsense bill offered by my good friend and fellow arizonan, mr. schweikert. it would require the earned run average to use actual science and requires that the science be made available for peer review and reproduction. a recent poll from the institute of energy research found approximately 90% of all americans support making studies and data utilized by the federal government available to the general public. by the way, the general public is not stupid. the intent of the bill is transparency, and i believe the best way to accomplish that goal is to require this information to be posted online. for far too long the e.p.a. has used secret studies and so-called peer reviews from bias sources to justify regulations that support their job-killing agenda. not only does this practice result in the lack of transparency and also leads to hundreds of thousands of jobs being destroyed across the country by unreasonable and unnecessary regulations.

a requirement similar to my amendment was adopted by this body when the house passed h.r. 4315 this past july. a provision found in h.r. 4315 required that data used by federal agencies for in the endangered species act listing decisions be made publicly available and accessible through the internet. finally, h.r. 4012 protects personal and confidential information and has the provision that makes clear such information will not be disclosed as a result of this act. my amendment would not conflict with such policy. again, all my simple one-word amendment does is require that scientific and technological information requirements in the underlying bill be posted online. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my commonsense amendment and i urge passage of the underlying bill. thank you, mr. chairman. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. johnson: thank you, mr.

chairman. i appreciate mr. gosar's amendment. at least it clarifies the underlying intent of this bill and that this information relied on by e.p.a. should be thrown up on a website. the peer review science relied on by e.p.a. also involves personal health information and other confidential data that is legally protected from disclosure. no legitimate research would violate the laund make confidential information, for example, a trade secret or information protected by hipaa, the h-i-p-a-a, accessible to anyone who has internet connection. this makes the underlying problems with the bill that much more obvious. and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and i'm going to yield the rest of my time to mr. foster of illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: thank you, mr. chairman.

i'd like to thank the ranking member for her leadership on this issue. we frequently hear my colleagues across the aisle say, i am not a scientist, in response to one of the stance they may be taking on a matter which has a strong technical or scientific aspect to it. well, i am a scientist, and that is why i am standing today in strong opposition to the secret science reform act. even my colleagues in the house who are not scientists, when they have a question of law they'll consult a lawyer. but that doesn't seem to be the case when science is concerned. and so i think it would be good if in this house we spent a little while listening to the scientists who are concerned with these issues. today, a letter was introduced into the record from the american association for the advancement of science signed by 42 organizations, representing scientific organizations and research universities. in the letter they state that the research community is

concerned about how some of the key terms in this bill could be interpreted or misinterpreted, especially terms such as materials, data and reproducible. would the environmental protection agency, for example, be excluded from utilizing research that involve physical specimens or biological materials that are not easily accessible? how would the agency address research that combines both public and necessarily private data? these are all important questions which this legislation and sadly this debate has not addressed. so i stand alongside thousands of my colleagues in science in opposition to the secret science reform act and in support of what has been referred to in this debate as so-called peer review. let us scientists set the scientific standards and not washington politicians. thank you and i yield back to the ranking member.

the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: well, thank you. am a scientists and i am a dentist so i understand both science and hipaa. provision 2 of section 2 of h.r. 4012 protects personal and confidential information and has a provision that makes clear such information will not be disclosed as a result of this act. my amendment would not conflict with such policy. so you're telling me that president obama and members of the democratic party can yell and scream for the last couple weeks about the need to make all information available for free at the same speed to everyone on the internet, net neutrality issue, but y'all have a problem with making the science about which the e.p.a. justifies the peer review and reproduction? wow. we are really the party of secret science. can we all say jonathan gruber, and do videos count? this is an absurd objection from an administration that claims they were going to be the most transparent administration in the history of this country.

i'd like to yield back to my friend, mr. schweikert. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. chairman, paul, for having two of us from arizona up here. i'm prepared to accept the amendment as the sponsor of the bill. mr. gosar: and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas. . the chair: the gentlelady from texas. ms. johnson: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor will vote aye. new year's day tsh-snay. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in art b of house report 113-626. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts eek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part b of house report number 11-626, offered

by mr. kennedy of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 756, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. kennedy: i'd like to echo the comments of my colleagues, particularly mr. schweikert, about the importance of transparency. an open government with transparent rules and regulations is at the core of our democracy. i also believe in the unassailable value of science. when this country's greatest minds come together to tackle our greatest problems, we are a stronger nation. whether we are talking about advancements and achievements in cancer treatment or clean water, science makes us healthier, stronger, and richer. unfortunately, the bill we are considering today takes science off the table for the e.p.a. the very agency entrusted with keeping our air clean, our

water safe, and our homes clear from toxic substances. the bill before us leaves the e.p.a. with unworkable standards, prohibiting it from certain studies simply because they contain information that by law cannot be made public. my amendment would fix this oversight. the kennedy-mcgovern-clark amendment says the e.p.a. can and should use the best scientific information available so long as that data complies with the highest academic peer review protocols. the e.p.a. relies on roughly 50,000 scientific studies every year. as written h.r. 4012 would drastically shrink this number. the bill before us could prohibit the e.p.a. from using other government funded research like n.i.h. studies linking toxic substances to premature birth or c.d.c. research on mitigating impacts on natural disasters and human health. imagine if we took this

approach across the whole of government. the results could be catastrophic. you don't have to take my word for it. i have here, mr. speaker, a letter from the conference of boston teaching hospitals who write that, quote, research conducted at our hospitals while not originally undertaken for environmental protection purposes, is sometimes by the e.p.a. and other federal agencies to develop scientifically based policies, much of this research uses permanent health data protected by both federal law and our institutional review board guidelines, end quote. why would we want to lose research by the best and brightest minds in medicine that could protect the american people? i'm proud to say that the conference supports my amendment stating that, quote, by allowing the e.p.a. top consider peer he review publications at its work, this amendment would ensure the best available science is the foundation for the e.p.a.'s important work, end quote. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the letter --

submit the letter for the record. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. chairman. furthermore, c.b.o. and analysis of the bill had dribbling conclusions. for each scientific study cite suesed, the e.p.a. could enkur an additional cost up to $30,000. this bill could cost taxpayers an additional $1.5 billion every year. so this will ensures the e.p.a. money, ve to spend more use fewer studies all without being able to use the best science available. there are several protections in place already to ensure that the science the e.p.a. uses is the best science available and at that is credible. first, any study and all studies go through significant peer review process that includes an independent analysis. second, the office of science and technology policy is already working to ensure that all publicly funded research is available online. third, public comment period

will cover anyone, individual or organization, to submit evidence supporting or opposing a proposed regulation. however, this bill puts limits on the public comment period to prohibit the e.p.a. from taking into consideration valuable studies that come to light along the way during that open comment period if they provide private information. mr. chairman, this makes no sense. i urge the house to accept my amendment, clarify that the e.p.a. may use the best science that is peer reviewed. yield another 20 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kennedy: while upholding the necessary protections for kchdention information. i'd also like to thank my colleagues from massachusetts, congressman jim mcgovern and katherine clark for supporting this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona, for what purpose does do you seek recognition? mr. shikert -- mr. schweikert: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. schweikert: as i approach the mike here i want to make it clear that my friend on the

other side who is speaking for his amendment has been very ind to me and my office, but the amount -- amendment ultimately doesn't do what we just heard. let's walkthrough the sentence. any peer reviewed. it doesn't say highest and best. ok. let's walkthrough the next portion of this. peer review if you actually look at the methodology and mechanics is the study plausible, credible. they don't get the underlying data set. do we all remember our statistics 101 class? multiple parts of an equation so the sample sets over many of the difficulties are, yet we are going to rely on peer review. for peer reviewers that never see the underlying data. and the fact of the matter is, if any of you have web access right now, there are website

after website after website right now talking about retraction of peer reviewed articles. you're willing to hand hundreds of billions of dollars of potential costs and regulations, you're willing to hand the health of americans over and not be willing to there ansparency where is an egalitarian nature where my university, your university, researcher here, one on the other side of the world, someone who happens to be darn good at math, and has some other data sets out there and matches it, but they are excluded because they don't meet the definition of the official reviewers, and even the official reviewers never see the underlying data. this amendment does not say the finest and best and most highest standard of review.

it says any peer review. with that, mr. chairman, i request my brothers and sisters here in this building vote no on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, has 45 seconds remaining. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the balance of my time to my colleague from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized for 45 minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank my colleague from massachusetts for the time. mr. chairman, there used to be a time when our republican friends respected science, there used to be a time when people like physicist from michigan was welcome in the republican conference. sadly, those times are long gone. if we can't agree on basic scientific principles, then there isn't much hope for us to agree on much else, so i will remind my colleagues on the record. up is up. down is down. gravity exists, the earth orr bits the sun, and -- orbits the

sun. and climate change is real. it doesn't matter whether the data is private or public. it matters whether the findings are peer reviewed and can withstand scientific scrutiny. scientists understand that the real litmus test for supporting a finding is independent confirmation using a completely independent method. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. kennedy. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. kennedy: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a 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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 194. the nays are 230. he amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. suppose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee risings. -- rises. >> mr. chairman.

the chair: state of the union has had under the consideration h.r. 4012 and pursuant to house resolution 756 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 401 as pursuant to house resolution 756, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question ised odd. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the environmental protection agency from proposing finalizing or disseminating regulations or assessments

based upon science that is not ransparent or reproduceable. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. the house will be in order. members please take conversations from the floor. members please clear the well. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. john son: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the yeam opposed to the bill? ms. johnson: i am in its presents form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. eddie bernice johnson of texas moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4012 to the committee on science, space, and technology with instructions to report the same back to the house forth with with the following amendment. add at the end of the proposed subsection b the following, four, the subsection shall not apply to any covered action that is in response to emergency with the potential to harm the health and safety of a community, including, a, a disease outbreak such as ebola or the pandemic flu. b, a release of toxic chemicals into public drinking water supplies. and c, a new clear bilogical or terrorist attack. -- nuclear, bilocal, or

terrorist attack. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. schweikert: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. let me begin by saying that his -- the speaker pro tempore: members in the rear of the chamber please cease conversations. members in the rear of the chamber, please cease onversation. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. let me begin by saying that this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. i have already spoke on it at me length about the problems

with the underlying bill. the bill would prevent the environmental protection agency from using the best science in its mission to protect public health. however, this motion is to recommit highlights a specific and very troubling aspect of the bill. as written the bill would prevent e.p.a. from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating risk, exposure, or hazard us assessment or guidance based on known public information. i and my democratic colleagues how this ed about language would impede e.p.a.'s o ility to respond t emergencies and disasters. i'll give you an example -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend for a moment. the house is not in order. members please cease conversation. the gentlewoman from has a right to be heard. -- the gentlewoman has the right to be heard. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson: thank you. i'll give you an example.

if my hometown of dallas, we had a well publicized case of a man named thomas duncan, tragically dying after being infected with ebola virus. this gentleman was originally sent home from the texas health presbyterian hospital when his symptoms were not initially identified as ebola. after ebola was identified, great efforts were made to disinfect areas where the gentleman had contact while he was infected with ebola. nd i have a picture. displayed here. and here in my hand is e.p.a.'s list of disinfectant for use against ebola virus. the e.p.a. disseminates this critically important information on its site. however, under this bill the e.p.a. could be prevented from

disseminating this type of information because e.p.a. registered disinfectants are frequently supported by legally protected information of confidential business information. in my hometown, not my district, two nurses who work at the presbyterian hospital contracted ebola. as a former nurse who worked in dallas, i think it would be appalling to put our frontline health care workers and as well as the general public at risk of the deadly ebola virus or any other infectious disease, all so that we can take a political shot at e.p.a. as another example of how this bill could affect the emergency response, e.p.a. could be prevented from providing guidance during toxic chemical spills like the one that occurred earlier this year in

west virginia. the e.p.a. will be prohibited from disseminating vital information to the local authorities. what is remarkable is that the natural resources defense council warned the committee of this exact issue in a letter back in february. let the ma -- but the majority chose to ignore those warnings and this is plain irresponsible. my amendment would fix this problem by exempting any response to an emergency that could harm the health and safety of a community. the amendment won't fix all of the problems with this bill. but it will prevent one of the more morally objectionable out-- more -- outcomes of this legislation. i urge the adoption of this

amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> mr. speaker, i wish to withdraw my reservation and rise in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. schweikert: on this particular occasion, on this motion to recommit, this m.t.r., it does win a point on creativity. but if we actually just heard part of it, you're telling me that the e.p.a., when they respond to a spill, they're showing up, embracing secret information on how they're responding. it's absurd. and maybe even the motion may be well meaning, but when you start using definitions of emergency, community, including with a long dash, we all know where that leads and it leads both to chaos, inefficiency and actually doesn't make a lot of drafting sense. so let's move on to what we're really here about. the underlying bill. i've been shocked at sort of

the crazy hyperbole that we have heard today about the secret science bill. this bill is actually very similar. all it does is provide transparency substantially as president obama campaigned on. walk through the mechanics. and this was -- we were having a little debate in our office whether i should i have -- whether i should hold these up. this here is a stack of letters, memos, demands from folks on the left, happened to be there was a republican president and even some of these, when they were in the majority here, demanding disclosure of the underlying data from the e.p.a., there's en part -- the former then chairman was demanding the data and saying if he didn't get it he was going after contempt. so what's changed? seriously, what's changed here with the left on transparency? is it just the fact that we now

have a democrat in the white house? so let's actually walk through what we've all campaigned on in here. is there a member here that when you got in front of your constituents did not promise more transparency in government ? that's what this is about. if you're going to create rule sets that affect every american's life, their health, their economic future, don't they have the right to see the underlying data? and think of the arrogance that's going on right here. if you believe that the e.p.a. is the sole keeper to all great knowledge, that they're the only ones qualified to be creative, to understand, is there a better way, a more efficient way, a healthier way, then vote against the bill. but if you believe in the american people, if you believe in our institution, if you

believe there's amazing knowledge all over this country and all over this world, this is the transparency that make us healthier, that make us more efficient. that make decision making coming out of the e.p.a. much more rational. this is what we all campaigned on. this is what we promised. let's go vote for it. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. johnson: request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the time of any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 196, the nays are 230. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. johnson: request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 237, the nays are 190678 the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on additional motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which a vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members will take their conversations off the floor.

he house will be in order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5681. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5681, a bill to provide for the approval of the amendment to the agreement between the government of the united states of america and the government of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland for cooperation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defense purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from new york mr. engel, will each control 20 minutes. the house will be in order. the house will come to order. staff will take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from california is recognized for 20 minutes. mr. royce: i ask unanimous

consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. royce: i will share with the member here's that i rise in strong support of this legislation to extend for another 10 years the united states-united kingdom mutual defense agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. that includes the majority members. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: this agreement is governed -- has governed our nuclear cooperation with the united kingdom for 50 years now and as always, i appreciate the cooperation of our ranking member, mr. engel of new york,

to bring this legislation to the floor promptly, to bring it to the floor today, and by acting today, will ensure that this vital cooperation with great britain continues uninterrupted. now speaker, the united states has no closer ally, we all know that our societies are founded freedom ed belief in and universal human rights. and as a result, our close consultation on major foreign policy issues has long been routine and coordinated action frankly is the norm between us and the u.k. we share an unprecedented defense relationship and the advantage of that is, it has helped us secure our shared interest and values since the world wars of the last century. we have fought side by side in conflicts from world war i to

afghanistan and today we have joined forces along with other partners to battle isil. our intelligence cooperation is unique. we are both founding members of nato, we have should eard disproportionate share of the burden -- shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden in nato and we do that because we understand that the world remains a very dangerous place, but also because we know if we do not do so and we do not lead, no one else will. our cooperation on defense includes this unique partnership on nuclear security. and this mutual defense agreement is the framework through which this partnership takes place. it enables the exchanges of nuclear materials and technology and information that has been renewed many times, actually, this goes back to 1958. so this bill we will renew here, it will take it for another decade to ensure that our full

cooperation on defense can continue uninterrupted. so i would just urge my colleagues to support the bill to demonstrate our unwavering commitment to the united kingdom a friend, a partner, an enduring ally, and i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. engel: i rise in strong upport of h.r. 6 -- of 5681. the speaker pro tempore: i wish the -- the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to consume. mr. engel: i want to begin by thanking chairman ed royce for his leadership on this legislation which i'm proud to co-sponsor. since 1958, the u.s.-u.k. mutual defense agreement has underpinned cooperation between our two countries on defense-related nuclear technology. the u.k. is the only country

with which we share this sensitive nuclear technology. it reflects the special relationship that binds our countries together. every 10 years, this agreement has been extended to stay up to date with new technologies and build new areas of cooperation. now normally, these extensions go into effect automatically 60 legislative days after the update aid greement is submitted to congress, however, this agreement will lapse on december 31 before we reach that 60-day mark. if that were to happen, the revised agreement would have to be resubmitted in the next congress the 60-day clock would reset and most importantly, there would be no legal authority to continue defense-related nuclear work what would that mean ? first a regular scheduled transfer of nuclear material between the u.s. and the u.k. would grind to a halt. secondly, ongoing work on submarine propulsion would be interrupted which would affect the deployment of our allies' nuclear deterrent.

thirdly, hential change of sensitive information that benefits both of our nations would be delayed, including information related to threats from other countries. mr. speaker, we cannot allow disagreement -- this agreement to lapse. passing this bill will protect these critically important defense programs with one of our closest allies. i urge my colleagues to support this important bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i'll just reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you. i'll close then, mr. speaker. i just want to reiterate the importance of passing this bipartisan, noncontroversial legislation to ensure that there is no lapse in the u.s.-u.k. mutual defense agreement. i thank the chairman as always for his cooperation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i thank mr. engel. i think by moving quickly here we can send this bill to the president's desk. i'm proud to nolet, -- to note,

i'll add, that we recognize this special relationship in the house with the british american parliamentary group which was formed shortly after world war ii and each year members of congress and members of parliament convene to discuss our partnership. and last year congress dedicated a bust of winston churchill that is prominently displayed in this capitol. we just had an unveiling today of the bust for havel and it will stand next to that of winston churchill. mr. speaker, the united kingdom remains our closest ally and most important security partner and the mutual defense agreement is a key element of our unmatched special relationship. as churchill used to call it. by renewing this agreement, congress will ensure the uninterrupted continuation of our close nuclear cooperation with the u.k. and reinforce our joint ability to provide strategic security. so i urge my deleegs -- colleagues to support the legislation and i yield back

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 5681. 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 california seek recognition? mr. royce: mr. speaker, i move that the house now suspend the ules and pass h.r. 3398 as amended. the clerk: h.r. 3398, a bill to authorize the secretary of administrator of the united states agency for international development to provide assistance to support the rights of women and girls in developing countries and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california and the gentleman from new york will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from california. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm going to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and also to include any extraneous material for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: thank you. and, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as e wishes to use. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of this measure. it's called the girls count act. and i do want to thank mr. chabot of ohio for his work on this important piece of legislation. what this does is it aims to increase birth registration rates in developing countries. and usually the births which are not being registered are of infant females. nearly 1/3 of all children around the world have never had their births registered by their country's civil registries. almost hard for us to recognize here. 1/3. and a child whose birth is not

recorded has no birth certificate to prove her age or his age or parentage or citizenship, making these children especially vulnerable to violations of their basic rights. the lack of a birth certificate usually prevents individuals from acquiring essential pieces of identification that you need in life like a driver's license, like a passport. and can also impede any financial transaction you're going to make. taking out a loan, taking out a ortgage, basically these girls tragically don't count. for girls in particular this lack of documentation can undercut existing legal rotections against girls being trafficked. or made child brides. and as they grow up, girls without an official identity face high barriers to work, high barriers to education or political participation, and

all of this, all of this in places where we need women and girls to be actively shaping their country's future. to improve prospects for development, to oppose extremism in their communities, and that's why i'm pleased that the house is acting on h.r. 3398, because this bill supports efforts to increase birth registration by encouraging the state department and usaid to work with countries on improving their civil registries. the bill promotes the development of laws and policies to prevent discrimination against girls and improve property and inheritance rights for women. and lastly, the legislation requires the state department and usaid to provide more relevant breakdowns of foreign assistance whenever possible so that we can be sure women and girls are benefiting from our efforts. so this bill compliments other work that the house has done this congress, particularly our

efforts to combat child trafficking, and to promote safe international adoptions. ensuring that every boy and girl is counted can prevent children from being trafficked, prevent them from being exploited or denied a loving home. and i'm proud of the house work thus far to address this critical issue and i believe that this bill in particular is another step in advancing this agenda and that's why i would just like to recognize mr. chabot for all of the work he put into it, as well of course to recognize mr. engel's contribution. thank you. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 3398, the girls count act of 2014, and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, i'd like to thank representive chabot and for sentative mccollum

offer authoring this important legislation. it's very good legislation, it's very important legislation. i'm proud to be a part of it. around the world nearly 230 million children under the age of 5 have never had their birth registered or been issued a birth certificate. most of these unregistered children are girls. i know -- some of them face serious vulnerabilities. the lack of birth registration makes it harder to get official documentation and as a result these children often become targets for child labor, abuse, human and sex trafficking, child marriage, recruitment into militant groups and other forms of exploitation. unregistered children are often prevented from access to health care, including necessary child immunizations, and from enrolling in school. down the line many of these children will be unable to inherit land or money, start a business or even open a bank account. this sort of marginalization often hits women the hardest. unregistered women are more likely to be confined to their

homes and invisible to the outside world. lack of registration limits their choices and opportunities and impedes the long-term development of their communities. h.r. 3398 will enhance efforts to get more children registered and reaffirms our strong support for programs aimed at addressing the undercounting of girls in the developing world. it encourages countries to support the programs and expand the rights of women, especially property ownership and social security rights. the legislation authorizes the secretary of state and the administrator of usaid to support important civil registration and vital statistics programs focusing on birth registration and allows them to work with local government ministries to ensure equal access to these programs. this compliments the work of organizations around the world that are engaged in the important work of protecting vulnerable children and puts pressure on other governments to act. while improving birth

registration systems helps the most vulnerable population, it has positive ripple effects across our whole society. governments with better records can provide better services, tailor more effective policies, and bring more people into full participation in their economies. this basic practice can help make entire countries stronger. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. i once again thank chairman roadways for his cooperation and bipartisan -- royce for his cooperation and bipartisanship and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on asia and the pacific and author of this particular bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman royce for his leadership on this important issue and i also want to thank my friend and colleague, mr. engel, and ms.

mccollum, for their leadership and support as well. mr. speaker, it's no secret that we're living in challenging times. the international community is having to confront new evils it seems like every day. it's critical that we confront these evils with determination, resolve and intelligence. this bill, the one before us today, really actually does this. with this bill congress has the opportunity to address an injustice that is holding girls back from fully participating in society. but, worse, exposing them to the particularly horrific evils of human trafficking. there are 230 million children around the globe under the age of 5 who have never been recognized as being born. their births were simply never recorded. in eastern and southern africa, for example, only 38% of children are registered by their 5th birthday. think of that. nearly 2/3 of the children born

in those regions in africa are not registered. there's no recording of their birth. they in essence don't exist to the government. these children, a majority of become girls, invisible members of society. and miss a critical first step in securing their fundamental human rights. being recognized by your government is necessary, for example, for determining identity and citizenship and age and obtaining access to education and health care and many other things. when a girl is not counted at birth, it's difficult if not impossible for her to own land or start her own business or vote and she's at risk of being confined to home and oftentimes left unpaid. lack of a birth certificate keeps girls from fully participating in society, it increases the risk of child marriage, forced labor, recruitment into mill it contaminant -- into militant groups, human trafficking and

sexual exploitation. the girls count act would help put an end to these horrors. the bill directs the department of state and usaid to work with our international partners, to support the issuance of birth certificates in developing countries. the bill will ensure that the most important step in a new citizen's life, the registration recognition of their very birth by their government, actually occurs. mr. speaker, the lack of a birth certificate denies children their fundamental human rights, that we as americans oftentimes take for granted. this bill would make it u.s. policy to encourage the registration of all children worldwide and make sure that girls do truly count. with that i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, i want to once again thank mr. royce and mr. engel for their support and leadership in this, and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: mr. speaker, i'll close now and i want to again thank the chairman and thank mr. chabot. getting children registered at birth helps to get them off to a good start. this bill encourages governments to enact laws and policies that give all children, including girls, a chance to be full participants in society. so i strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well. and i guess i'll reserve the balance of my time? thank you. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. before i close, i would like to also mention the contribution of congresswoman betty mccollum and congressman chris smith. chris smith is the chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health and global human rights and international organizations. he is also an original co-sponsor of this bill and i'd like to yield him three minutes

at this time. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. for his leadership in helping to bring this legislation to the floor. congress -- y to chairman chabot for his girls count act of 2013. happy and thankful to be an original co-sponsor and to urge the house to vote for it. mr. speaker in many parts of the world, girls are discriminated against simply for being female. indeed, this blatant disregard for the value of the girl child often begins in the womb. especially in countries such as china and india, where we see the horrific practice of sex selection abortion. this cruel practice in turn has led to a gender imbalance that has fed other crimes against women, especially sex trafficking, which has risen exponentially in the people's republic of china because of the missing daughters, because of this discrimination against

the girl child in utero. let me point out that in her book, unnatural selection, over girls and the consequences of a world full of men, it traces the history of sex selection to population control. again, we don't count the girl as being of meaning and of course this is talking about a physical count, so we have a record of these young ladies and these young girls. but there are consequences that, again, continue throughout the life or the lack of because she is destroyed early on. there are over 160 million missing girls in asia new york china, mostly, and in india. a direct result of sex selected abortion and that discrimination of the girl child has profound implicationers in region and for the world and of course for all of those girls who have lost their lives. again, i want to thank mr.

chabot nor important legislation and betty mccollum, this is a very important in making sure we know where the girls are, that they're being counted so they can fully participate in society. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back, the gentleman reserves, the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i will close now and urge my colleagues to vote for bill.mportant i thank chairman, i thank mr. chabot, mr. smith, ms. mccollum. this is a bipartisan, important piece of legislation and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: the point i would make in closing is in the wake of the horrors we've seen perpetrated by isis against women, and boko haram against schoolgirls, kidnapping and enslaving them and robbing them of their freedom, we had one of

these girls testify before our committee who would far -- who had narrowly escaped boko haram but lost her mother and father. i know so many of us are deeply concerned about the plight of women and girls around the world, this recognizes the suffering and aims to empower those who have been cast into the shadows of their society. birth registration is one of the first steps in the fight to preserve an individual's basic rights under the law. and it is also a critical means to ensure the full participation of women and girls in communities and schools. let's help girls count, that's what this does. and again, i want to thank mr. chabot and betty mccollum and mr. chris smith of new jersey as well for their leadership on this measure. which i encourage all members to support.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the amended. 3398 as 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 california seek recognition? mr. royce: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 754. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 754, resolution condemning the government of iran for its gross human rights violations. the speaker pro tempore: the pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i ask unanimous consent that all members have

five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm going to yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to use. mr. royce: i rise today in support of this resolution which condemns the government of iran for its gross human rights violations. this bipartisan resolution, which i have introduced together with my good friend from new york, the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee, eliot engel, comes at a very important moment. the administration together with the world's powers is seeking a diplomatic solution to iran's nuclear program. e all want this outcome. it's unclear how an agreement in the long-term national security interest of the united states can be reached but one thing is clear, we can have no illusions about the true nature of the iranian regime. the history of rogue regimes

teaches us that the manner in which these governments treat their own people is a pretty good indicator of how they will treat their neighbors. of whether they will abide by international agreements. and this is a regime that has systematically violated the fundamental human rights of large segments of iranian society since embarking upon the revolution that brought it to pow for the 1979. it is a regime that rules by force. preventing the people of iran vernment. ing their own the world saw the undemocratic nature of this regime back in 2009 when millions of iranians took to the streets to peacefully protest a stolen lection. not many are going to forget the images of the young girl bleeding to death in the capital city there, and today the leads of the green revolution opposition movement are confined to their homes, they're under

house arrest, and of course at the time, thousands were imprisoned, many disappeared, hundreds were tortured. it is a regime that has brutally suppressed the voice of human rights activists and journalists and religious minorities but what i want to focus on today is the plight of women who in particular face heinous treatment. recently, the parliament in iran enacted a law. what they were responding to were attacks, acid attacks that had occurred because young men in this militia had taken it on their own responsibility to go up to women who were uncovered and throw acid in their face. and the reason for the enactment of the law which followed the harassment and arrest of a human

rights activist a woman who protested the fact that young men were themselves taking on this responsibility of enacting sharia law and doing it sometimes by moe to -- by moing, driving by and throwing the acid, sometimes walking up to the women, they were doing this with impunity. the state, the government was not coming in because the argument that these young men were making was that, well, sharia law that they do this so this our enforcement mechanism. what strikes me is the brutality of the law passed by parliament that would enact a law providing legal protection to citizens to enforce a strict islamic dress code. and other behavior prescribed under sharia law. in other words, it is cover for these young men to say if you're going to go out there and enforce the islamic revolution and do it by throwing acid, you

now have protection under the courts to do it. this law will embolden these young men, it will embolden them and other vigilante groups who in recent months have prowled the streets of iran's cities, conducting these cruel acid attacks on innocent women. i was going to hold up one of these pictures today, i thought better of it. i think what we should do say peel to reason here and make an appeal to the parliament in iran and say, reverse this law. reverse this act. you're only going to encourage more acid attacks. let me underscore this point. today iranian women face the terror of knowing that state sanctioned vigilantes may attack them by dousing them with corrosive acid, disfiguring them and blinding them this is an unspeakable reality there. in 2014, the women of iran frankly are under siege.

not by an external force but by their own theocratic government. this is not the history of cyrus the great. iran was the home of the first him rights document. thousands of years ago. that was persian culture. what is this? we who live in freedom have a moral responsibility to condemn this brutal regime and insist that it treats its people with the dignity and respect that they deserve. this resolution stands for the principle that u.s. foreign policy can and must pursue strastiege -- strategic objectives like the dismantling of iran's nuclear weapons program while supporting democracy and human rights. ultimately the best chance far peaceful iran is a democratic iran. these two go hand in hand. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from new york, mr.

engel, is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.res. 75 a resolution condemning the government of iran for its gross human rights violations. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he wishes to use. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. when the president was elected in 2013, he came to office with a reputation as a so-called moderate. some hoped that the human rights situation in iran would improve. we know that was a false hope. on so many fronts, things have gotten worse. it's interesting, the people who say he's a moderate, no moderates were allowed to run for president in the iranian election. there were six hardliners at the end that were allowed to run. he may be the most moderate of those six hardliners, but he's still a hardliner and i think we're seeing it time and time and time again. in fact, we don't even really know that he has the power to make decisions.

the supreme leader is the one who makes all those decisions. so while we can hope for certain things, i think we have to deal with things unfortunately as they are and that is what -- and not as what we wish they were. for example, iranian authorities have dramatically escalated the number of executions of iranian citizens. this is from the so-called moderate regime. according to the u.n., there were 852 executions between july, 2013, and june, 2014. earlier this month, iran jabbari, accused of killing a man who she apparently stabbed in self-defense while she was being sexually assaulted that evidence wasn't allowed to be part of her trial. while she was in prison awaiting execution she was tortured. we remember the massive protests that chairman mentioned after the fraudulent 2009 iranian elections. we all remember the images of tens of thousands of iranians,

brive iranian citizens, taking to the streets, and we all remember how the iranian government responded, sending the militia to brutally beat peaceful protesters, leaders of that green revolution remain under house arrest to this very dade. reals you minorities also face constant danger in iran. this is especially true for members of the b'ahai faith. they are frequently detained by iranian security forces. since 1979, hundreds of their leaders have been execute the united states has helped to shine a light on iran's human rights violations. we pushed the u.n. human rights council to continue the work on iran. i have been one of the strongest critics of the human rights council and its outrageous bias against israel but they've done important work to reveal the scale of human rights abuses in

iran. since 2010 the administration has sanctioned 19 iranian officials and 18 iranian entities. we have gone after them for they involvement and complicity in serious human rights abuses and restricting the basic freedoms of the iranian people and i'm proud of the role congress has provided in putting forth these saxes. the most recent dedication was the governor general of tehran province on may 23 of this year. we singled him out for his involvement in censorship and other activities that limit the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of iran's citizens. this occurred even while the p-5 plus one is negotiating with iran on its ill list nuclear program and even as those negotiations continue, we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to the horrific abuses taking place in iran every single day. the resolution we're now

considering urges the administration to use every tool at its disposal to target, expose and punish those who violate the human rights of the iranian people because at the end of the day, mr. speaker, despite the sharp differences between our governments, we have no ill will toward the people of iran. to the citizens of iran. they are unfortunately oppressed by a government that calling itself their government but is really a brutal oppressor of the iranian people. on the contrary, i believe that people of our two nations should be natural friends. iran would be the natural u.s. ally in the region but because of the iranian regime, this, of course, cannot happen and will not happen as long as they are in power. hope that this resolution will demonstrate to the people of iran, who are our friends, not government, but the people of iran, that we join them in seeking a future

for their country based on the respect of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution, i thank the chairman as always for his cooperation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights and international organizations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: thank you, chairman royce. i rise in strong support of h.res. 754, condemning the government of iran for its gross human rights violations. and authored by my good friend and colleague, chairman ed royce. i want to thank him for, especially on the eve of the november 24 deadline for the , nian-u.s. talks on nuclear this is very important to have this discussion on the floor of the house. so your timing as well as the substance is deeply appreciated by all, especially the victims

in iran. ironically iran wants the world to lift sanctions and thufttrem this nuclear capabilities -- and trust them with nuclear capabilities, despite disregard for the most basic of human rights of its own citizens as well as u.s. citizens. the u.n. special repertoire for human rights in iran noted in a march, 2014, statement that hundreds of individuals reportedly remain in some form of confinement for exercising their basic rights, including 179 about a hay, 98 -- baha'i, 98 sunni muslims. mr. speaker, it's now been nearly 2 1/2 years since american pastor has seen or hugged his children, rebecca or jacob, or his wife. and she has been a tireless advocate on his behalf. she was back here yesterday on capitol hill pleading for her husband.

members will recall that the pastor was arrested in iran in september of 2012. he was in iran to help orphans, orphans. and he was arrested while he was there and he was there with the full knowledge and consent of the iranian government. i had chaired two congressional hearings on the pastor. his wife testified at both. and to hear this noble, brave and loving wife present her husband's case brings tears to your eyes. she testified at a hearing that frank wolf had chaired previous to the two that i had and you could have heard a pin drop when she told her story and told about the agony that both she and her family, especially her two young children, experience knowing that their father has now been given an eight-year sentence and has been subjected to torture of many, many kinds. we're also concerned about robert, a retired agent of the

f.b.i. his daughter lives in my district. that family is in utter agony. he got seven years. emir, a 31-year-old retired u.s. marine, disappeared while visiting his grandmother in iran in 2011. he got 10 years. and now recently jason, a "the washington post" reporter, has disappeared. mr. speaker, this resolution sends a clear message to the iranians and to the world that we care about human rights, but i would also ask that the president of the united states invite to the white house the family members of these americans unjustly held captive in iran and to ask, petition, push for and link to our negotiations the release of these americans and for a fuller expression of human rights in iran. i thank chairman royce and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, a member of the foreign affairs homeland security and transportation committees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank chairman royce for this legislation and i offer my strongest support, because if nothing else, it reminds us of what the iranian regime really is at its foundational core, what its essence is. with much of today's focus on the prospects of a nuclear deal with iran and the potential military cooperation of our nation with theirs against isis, we absolutely cannot and must not forget the unacceptable and appalling human rights abuses the iranian regime commits on a daily basis. just today the u.n. resolution condemned iran's numerous human rights abuses which include an alarmingly, as they say, an alarmingly high frequency of the use of the death penalty, the persecution and imprisonment of religious and ethnic minorities, and the

suppression of multiple individual freedoms. and the list just goes on. firsthand reports continue to emerge, describing how of the over 800 documented executions over the past year, 80% were for drug offenses and legal due process was almost never given to defendants. we don't even know if the defendants committed any offenses whatsoever. also disturbingly in 2014 alone at least eight people under the age of 18 at the time they allegedly committed their crimes were executed. mr. speaker, the president promised to improve the iranian regime's human rights record. really, does anybody -- does anybody take that seriously at all? realistically the iranian regime has only ramped up the oppression of its citizens and we absolutely must remain clear-eyed, clear-eyed when dealing with this extremist regime in all accounts, whether it's a nuclear deal, whether

it's cooperation against isis and certainly when it comes to the human rights violations. mr. speaker, i yield the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i'm going to, mr. speaker, yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. clawson, a member of the committee on foreign affairs, and committee on homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clawson: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm here in support of h.res. 745, and i wholeheartedly support this resolution. and i commend chairman royce for his important work and leadership on this issue. any successful negotiation must be based on mutual trust and respect. trusting and respecting the iranian regime as an equal member of the world community

of nuclear power producers would be a tragic mistake in my view. iran has not earned our trust or israel's trust or the world's trust. for 35 years iran has done anything but earn our trust. it's time for iran to free christian pastor, iran's horrific human rights violations, their state sponsorship of terrorism and public condemnations of our own country and their repeated can he niles of -- denials of israel's right to exist spell potential disaster here, i'm afraid. let's not trust the untrustworthy. this dilemma reminds me of the scorpion and the frog fable that my friend tom cotton recently used. a frog is about to cross a river. when he's asked for a ride by a

scorpion. the frog knew the scorpions are poisonous and untrustworthy. he knew that if the scorpion stung him on the way across the river, they would both drown. when the frog asked for assurance from the scorpion, the scorpion replied, of course i won't sting you. if i do, we'll both drown. halfway across the river, of course, the scorpion struck and as they were both headed for their demise, the frog asked, why did you sting me? to which the scorpion responded, because it is my nature. even though the frog knew that the safe way to go was to say no to the scorpion, he caved in , dismissed better judgment and the result was tragic. let us not repeat the mistake of the frog. we cannot give iran a free ride

across to nuclear weapons. we must not hand the keys of nuclear proliferation to a scorpion-like regime that cannot be trusted. so what do we do? we can't do a bad deal. we can't walk away, but we also can't trust iran. what must iran do to gain our trust? treat its people right. treat its neighbors right. treat israel right. with dignity and respect. i think we have many rivers to cross before we get to that state. as we work on this iranian nuclear dilemma, which will take years, we need to seek concrete progress towards these civil liberties that have been mentioned today. they must stop the crimes against humanity exposed in chairman royce's resolution. to gain our trust, iran must

acknowledge the right of israel to exist. and stop financing -- i request 30 seconds. mr. royce: i request, mr. the er, if i could yield gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded 30 seconds. mr. clawson: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. in the 1930's the world trusted a scorpion, thinking that we had a -- had achieved peace in our time. and millions paid the price for that mistake with their lives. let's not stand here some day and admit that we messed up. because we trusted an iranian scorpion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i reserve the balance of my time. for the right to close. i'll reserve the right to lose, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: i thank the gentleman from new york. i ran down here and got to get my notes together. thank you. mr. speaker, i've said time and time again the iranian government must improve the status of human rights in their country. let's not pretend though that this resolution is taking place at this time outside of any context. there is a context. and the context is that we're closer than ever, than we've ever been, to reaching a peaceful agreement with iran on nuclear weapons. i don't know what's going to happen on november 24 and i suspect the people who do know aren't telling the public just yet. but i do know that we've made substantial progress and that we're close. and the context is important, that we should stand with the people of iran and stand for their human rights and i absolutely believe that that's the right thing to do. therefore i am a yes vote on this. but i have to ask the question,

is this the most well-timed time for this resolution? i do worry that we could undermine the negotiations. but this is the -- but the four corners of this resolution are right, so i'm a yes vote. and i think today's resolution, which highlights the human rights abuses in iran, but it also could be improved if it included words and language about the best way to bring those abuses to an end. i believe improving human rights in iran is much more likely if we secure a nuclear agreement. the best way to empower human rights leaders within iran is to engage, not isolate, increase sanctions and the threat of war hurts you because it allows hard liners in iran to claim that they're under imminent threat and therefore there's no time or space or room for human rights. i believe that a nuclear agreement will actually increase the likelihood for

human rights advocacy. i don't want to see us go back to the days when we talked in terms of the axis of evil it. didn't improve the freedom and security of americans or anyone. i like the fact that we have embarked on the path of diplomacy. president rouhani has talked about diplomacy. and i believe -- 30 seconds? mr. engel: i grant the gentleman an extra minute. i yield an extra minute to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: thank you, thank you. president rouhani has prioritized diplomacy and i think this is an important opportunity that we should pursue. in the final analysis, human rights are what the united states should always stand for and we in this congress should never not stand for human rights. i'm proud that we are clear on human rights in this resolution. but i simply want to admonish it on us that taking action

that could undermine very delicate negotiations may not be the best timing that we've ever pursued. for the last 30 years and i hope for the next 30 years we will always raise the banner of human rights wherever and whenever but i think we should be sensitive to the reality of the moment that we're in. let me just say thank you to the brave souls who stand up for human rights under very difficult conditions in iran and i want to thank the gentleman for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: if i could yield myself two minutes to responds. one of the reasons the timing on this is important is because this is the timing that the iranian regime has chosen to pass legislation that would protect those young men who carry out this acid attacks against women. one of the reasons i am bringing

this bill to the floor is because i am concerned about what it tells us about a regime that rather than come the defense -- come to the defense of these women who admittedly were in violation of the dress code in terms of their facial -- in terms of their -- their mode of dress, allow individuals in a theocratic country to make the decisions that they are the arbitrator of what is sharia law and then to exonerate them by saying it is the right of the individual to step in against another and enforce sharia law rather than have the state do it, this is a theocratic state that is taking a principle against the individual, against individual freedoms, especially against rights of women, to an

extra step that is so injurious to human liberty but also the fact that they would do this now and that they would be so unconcerned that we might not even respond to this or that the international community would have a reaction to this. i think it demands a reaction because if we do not in the court of international opinion hold them to account for these kinds of acts in their parliament, what's the message that is given to those who are encouraged to further violate women's rights and minority rights in iran. that is why i'm pushing this bill today and i had a conversation maybe a week ago, a little longer than that, with a group of iranian american women about their experiences in iran and their reaction to this parliamentary act and their reaction to the acid attacks which are increasing in number

to a truly alarming percentage. you know, i mean, there have been over a dozen of these now. so that's -- that's why the timing of the legislation, it is in response to this and in the process it catalogs the other abuses that the regime recently s undertaken under president rahani at a time when we thought they might put a different foot forward to the international community. i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: mr. speaker, let me close and in closing i want to send a message of support to the iranian people as they build a better future for themselves and their children. today, this house exposes the gross violations of human rights by the iranian regime, the iranian people deserve better,

and i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: well, mr. speaker, plrp observers that were tempted to believe that iran's president would usher in a more tolerant attitude at home. i think that many of us suspected that might be the case. because he did occasionally offer a less antagonistic rhetoric than his predecessor, even if he had had the history he did have in the securities service. but it turns out that was wrong that assumption was wrong. n a new report, the u.n. has alarming increase in the number of executions, including political prisoners and juveniles, religious minorities such as the peaceful baha'i, since the president took office in august of 2013.

the motif of this regime is becoming a religious dissident, swinging by the neck from a crane if you watch the news coming out of iran. i won't, again, articulate my concerns about these acid attacks that are going on but this comes, i think, at a time when millions of iranians yearn for basic freedoms. basic freedoms that we in the west take for granted. and i think it's a -- i think it's incumbent upon all of us, as the house is doing today, to stand with the people of iran who suffer thunder thee oklahomacy and to speak out -- who you have under this theocracy and to speak out. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 754. 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 resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. royce: i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3582 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will reminority title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3583 a bill to extend the number of scholarships available to pakistani women under the merit and needs based scholarship program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel will each control 20 minutes. he chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i'm just going to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm going to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. royce: i rise in strong a yousafzai he malal scholarship act and i want to thank ms. ros-lehtinen, who authored this bill along with the gentlelady from texas, ms. granger and our colleague from new york, ms. lowey. earlier this year the foreign affairs committee held a hearing on women's education which underscored the point at the heart of the bill. a modest investment in educating women and girls in the developing world, particularly in areas beset by poverty and radicalism, can pay long-term dividends that help stabilize societies and promote market-based economic growth and advance u.s. national security objectives. i have for years expressed concern about the appalling state of education in places like afghanistan and pakistan d the subsequent rise of madrasas, those that prey on the

disenfranchised and breed radicalism. what i'm speaking of now are the diobendi schools in particular. the situation for women in areas where access to session actively suppressed is particularly grim. in pakistan's northwest frontier province and in other area, literacy among women is between 3% and 8%. under 8%. i visited all girls' schools in pakistan in the northwest frontier, only to learn later when i came back for another visit that they'd been destroyed and it was no longer possible to visit that site. it is therefore fitting that malalall was named after yousafzai who at the age of 15 dared to defy the taliban and survived a brutal assassination attempt and ultimately, inspired

of girls to on demand their education, she is known for leading that effort. she became the co-recipient of this year's noble peace prize. for -- noah belle peace prize for her -- nobel peace prize for her struggle in her words for the right of all children to have education. this requires that usaid award least at least that have the scholarships made available through its existing program to pakistani women. it adds no money to the program but provides support and policy guidelines to make sure that these scholarships are going half to women. the bill also emphasizes the importance of working with the pakistani diaspora. those communities in the united states who already are doing so much back in pakistan relating to education and to the medical colleges and universities. tapping into this vast pool of expertise and resources will

prove invaluable to our long-term commitment to promote educational opportunity for girls in pakistan and elsewhere. and i again want to thank my colleague from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, for her leadership on this issue and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 3583, the malala yousafzai scholarship act and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i would like to begin by thanking my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, ileana ros-lehtinen, for her commitment to girl's education and her sponsorship of this bill. she works hard at everything she does and i'm proud of her for her work in this bill. i also want to thank mrs. lowey

for the hard work she's put in this through the year, she's always been a good force on the appropriations committee, with earmarks, pushing for these very, very important things that we are putting forward here in this resolution. i want to also thank my fellow new yorkers, grace meng and jerrold nadler, who are co-sponsors of the bill as well, as nita lowey is as well. some of the most effective programs we funded in pakistan in the years since 9/11 are those that support education and particularly education for girls. legislation before us today ensures that at least 50% of the scholarships that usaid provides in pakistan are made available to girls and women. as the president has said if a country is, quote, educating its girl, women have equal rights, that country is going to move forward, but if women are oppressed and abused and illiterate, they are going to fall behind, unquote.

the world bank's economist has said that financing women's education yields the highest rate of return of any investment in the developing world. but there is another compelling reason for the taos support female education in pakistan and in other countries. -- in other countries around the world. educated women and girls are proving to be some of the most powerful weapons in the fight against radicalism. take the example of malala, the courageous young woman. we all know about her. she was recently awarded the nobel peace prize. as a teenager she became a vocal advocate for all girls to have the right to an education at a time when the taliban in afghanistan prohibited access to education for girls. when she wouldn't follow their orders, the taliban shot her in the head for defying them. after recovering, thankfully, from the violent attack on her life, malala's passionate calls

for universal education inspired millions, i know she inspired me, and spurred action around the world. at a speech she gave at the u.n. in july of 2013, she said of the taliban, and i quote her, they thought the bullets would silence us but they failed and out of that silence came thousand of of voices, unquote. mr. speaker the positive impact of these voices will only continue to grow in pakistan and around the world as more and more girls are given the opportunity to get an education. so therefore i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, i thank chairman royce once again for working with us and for being a vocal voice in all these important resolutions. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, chairman of the

foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and north after character the author of this measure but also herself a former educator who understands only too well the importance of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman royce and ranking member engel, not only for helping bring this bill h.r. 3583 to the floor today, smooth,orking in such a bipartisan manner throughout the -- their time, two years and beyond, to infinity, and helping bring our -- all of our members together on incredibly vexing issues, whether it's iraq and iran and isis and you name it, our committee works in a very smooth way. and it's thanks to the leadership at the top. i also want to thank congresswoman granger, kay granger and ronking member nita the state foreign ops

subcommittee. they joined me in introducing this bill, it's as much theirs as it is mine and also senator boxer on the senate side for her leadership on this issue as chairman royce so nicely put it, i am a former florida certified teacher, that's what i used to do in my real life and i'm a lifelong student and one of the most senior women in congress today, i've been around a long time system of i hold the issue of education very near and dear to my heart. we know that access to education is a game changer for any society, mr. speaker, it could transform developing countries, lives of so he many, especially in the vulnerable populations. . greater access for women and young girls, it leads to an increased respect for human rights, it leads to a rise in prosperity and well-being and a

more peaceful and stable society. everyone wins. a society in which women have unfettered access to the education system, expands the horizons not just for the girls and the women involved but for everyone in their community and their nation. these countries that limit access to education for young girls and women are missing out. they're missing out on the untapped potential of nearly half of their population. imagine how much more productive and how much better off some of these nations would be if they promoted a more inclusive society, what are they afraid of? it is no coincidence that the countries that are more -- most susceptible to human trafficking and exploitation or the trappings of extremism and terrorism are also those

countries that restrict a to education. education is the most important factor in empowering young girls and women to become successful members of our society and protecting them from the ignorance that enable as abuse, radicalization and exploitation. and that's precisely the case in p.c.a. a country which has -- pakistan. a country which has one of the highest number of children out of school already. they are not going to school. 2/3 of all children are out of school -- out of school are girls. the numbers are troubling. barely half of all girls in pakistan are enrolled in primary schools and that figure drops to 30% for secondary schools. these numbers are even lower in rural areas where poverty is

ever increasing and girls have even less access to schools. and a lot of this has to do with the taliban, mr. speaker. that radical terror group that seeks to impose is a i had -- shari'a law and for bids women, for bids -- fored bies women, fored bies -- forbids women, forbids girls access to education. that's why this bill is so important. we need to help ensure that we can counter the taliban's efforts to deny fundamental rights to women and limit their contributions to pakistani society. the united states provides merit and needs-based scholarships to pakistani children, but this bill will ensure that at least half of those scholarships go to women. there is still much more to be done to ensure access to education for all women in pakistan, and indeed throughout

the world. doing so would mean a safer society, a healthier society, a more stable and secure world and so it would be in our national security interests to make it so. this is but a small step in the right direction and i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i thank again my chairman, chairman royce of california, mr. engel of new york, for guiding our committee in such a wonderful bipartisan way and with that, mr. chairman, i yield to you the balance of my time. thank you, sir. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks time? mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. i believe i'll close now. i want to first of all again thank chairman royce for working closely with us on all of these pieces of legislation. i thank ileana ros-lehtinen again for her hard work and her

collegiality as well. thank you. and the legislation that we're passing now and the three pieces of legislation that we passed beforehand makes me very, very proud to be the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee. i think we do good work on the committee. i think we do good bipartisan work on the committee. and it's issues like this that are really very crucial and very important for the powers that be all over the world to see the fact that foreign policy in america is bipartisan, that we're strongest when we work together, that we're strongest in tackling foreign policy issues when we do it in a bipartisan nature, and we've done it on the foreign affairs committee. so i want to tell the chairman how proud i am to work with him . mr. speaker, humanity will never reach its full potential until all children, and especially girls, are given the opportunity to get an education and educated women and girls make critical economic

contributions, stabilize whole communities and serve against extremism. this important legislation would ensure girls and women be given at least 50% of the scholarships we provide in pakistan, a nation that continues to face enormous challenges, including the threat of terrorism. again, i want to thank everyone, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. r. royce: mr. speaker, mr. eliot engel did something impactful. he quoted, he quoted from the speech before the united nations last year of malala in her own words, i thought i would just close by making her closing argument. which was, the extremists are afraid of books and pens. the power of education frightens them. they are afraid of women. the power of the voice of women frightens them.

that is why they are blasting schools every day. because they were and they are afraid of change, afraid of the equality that we will bring into our society. thank you, i ask for an aye vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules, pass the bill, h.r. 3583. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- as amended -- 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 pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. perry: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. today is an important anniversary. on november 19, 1863, president abraham lincoln delivered the gettysburg address. prior to this famous address, lincoln arrived at the gettysburg train station. earlier this year the house passed my bill to permanentmy -- permanently preserve this historic landmark without utilizing any federal funds. currently this bill awaits consideration by the full senate. the battle of gettysburg marks a turning point in american

history. by preserving the lincoln train station, i hope to inspire my fellow citizens to learn and appreciate the significance of the gettysburg campaign, the gettysburg address, the civil war and bravery of the soldiers who in president lincoln's powerful words gave the last full measure of devotion. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, as we come to this season of thanksgiving, a time to celebrate the precious gifts of family, friends, community and country, please allow me to pay special tribute of gratitude to some outstanding northwest ohio citizens whose lives made a significant contribution to building a better community and america. we honor them for who they were and what they contributed to the betterment of our lives together in what some have

called our beloved community. in particular, let me recognize business leader barry greenblat. his magnificent personality as founder of barry bagels and a work ethic like none other. ms. gene t. overton, a pioneering woman who gladly assumed the role of mother for our community. former mayor of waterville, ohio, three terms, chuck payton, who lived as a many for others, a navy veteran who logged four decades of public service. cheryl shipman who dedicated her career to ensuring recreational opportunities for children, older adults and people with special needs. oh, she was a leader. and how people trusted her in toledo. nd finally, mr. music, born in toledo's birmingham neighborhood, for more than 60 years under his baton, delighting hundreds of thousands of people in his incredible, incredible music that floated over our community and free concerts for decade

after decade after decade. what magnificent americans these individuals were and, mr. speaker, it is my great honor to place their life story in the congressional record. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the u.s. fish and wildlife service announced that the agency is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days for the public comment period on their proposal to list the northern long ear bat as endangered. this species can be found in 38 states and if listed under the endangered species act the consequences could have significant impacts on farmers, foresters, landowners and the states themselves. the underlying issue is that neither habitat loss nor human activities have played a role in the losses. the northern long ear bat is

suffering from a fungal disease which awakes bats out of hibernation in winter. once awake, these bats leave the cave in search of food and unfortunately starve or die during the colder months. rather than placing a limitation on land use that has nothing to do with the spread of a disease, i would encourage the fish and wildlife service to focus on research into countering the white nose syndrome. the american people deserve as much. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. tomorrow at 1:00 p.m., congressman ted deutch and i will convene a hearing on the threats that an iran nuclear deal will have for global security. we are just five days away from the deadline and this is what

is airing right now on iranian state-run television. quote, iran will not even go back one step from the research and development and the enrichment of uranium, end quote. this leading ayatollah also threatens u.s. military bases and israel, saying that iranian ballistic missiles can, quote, hit and raze to the ground anyplace in israel as well as any american base in the region, end quote. state-run television. iran continues to make these overt threats to us and to our ally, the democratic jewish state of israel, yet president obama engages this evil regime as if a nuclear program exists in a vacuum. mr. speaker, this is an on use it and dangerous way -- an obtuse and dangerous way to approach the greatest threat to global security and congress must not allow any deal with iran to leave in place the possibility that the regime can obtain a nuclear weapon. thank you, mr. speaker, for the

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. e there further requests for one-minutes? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today because the american people keep asking, where have all the good jobs gone? and i truly appreciate my colleagues, congresswoman slaughter of new york and congressman tonko of new york, for joining me tonight. we're talking about jobs that can create a middle class way of life. for the people who occupy them as well as local businesses. jobs that produce living wages, that produce good health benefits and pensions and 401-k's you can depend upon. now, since the 1980's, unlike any period following world war

ii, because the united states is importing more than we are exporting, we actually have lost millions and millions of jobs. people complain about a budget deficit, the reason we have a budget deficit is because we have a trade deficit. in fact, since the mid 1970's, every single trade agreement the united states has signed of any consequence has resulted in more and more and more red ink. go to any store in this country. i don't care if you're trying to buy a suit or an automobile or curtains, i really don't care what it is, if you can find something made in america, that is a discovery. what does that mean? it means that rather than export more than we import, we have been driving down the living standard of most americans,

decade after decade. jobs here disappear. while capital moves abroad and exploits penny-wage workers who have no hope for a better life because they have -- they live in places that have no democratic values. it's a shocking number to put on the record but since the mid 1990's this country has amassed trade .3 trillion in deficit. and that's a conservative estimate, amounting to a job loss of over 8.5 million good jobs. that's what this red ink is all about. figure. ocking but the american people sort of know it, innately, but when you really put it up there, they go, yeah. that's what happened. if you look here, this shows that with more imports, you get fewer jobs.

yep, when the trade deficit keeps getting worse, if you're out of a job yet, keep buying foreign. i'm not against trade. i'm for balanced trade. but i'm not for trade that puts our country in this kind of economic hole. this is just one example, and we'll go back to it later, this is the most recent agreement that the united states signed called the korean free trade agreement. we were supposed to be able to sell 50,000 cars in korea. guess what. we've been able to ship, here's our piddly little shipment over there, 7,450 cars. guess how many they've sent over here? look at this arrow compared to that one over there. imported vehicles from korea, over 561,000. compared to 7,450. so when you start wondering where your job has gone, think

about what's happened to these trade agreements and how they have put us deeper and deeper in the trade hole and then in the budget deficit hole. when i ask individual americans how their life is going under the corporate globalization model, that has been accelerated by the so-called free trade agreement, if they answer honestly, and if they're not a multimillionaire investor, consistently the response is one of great disappointment and too frequently, one of great distress. the middle class many america is in trouble. dmb the middle class in america is in trouble. it's safe to say this is a direct result of the free trade deal that was benefited only the wealthiest in the global environment in which we live. wealthy investors who can survive anywhere. in fact they have a lot of houses. paris, geneva, you name it. but each of us has a house that's our most important asset.

and we come from little communities across this country and we have a right to a good life. our people have a right to a good life because they work so hard. trade policy is the major reason, in my opinion, that america cannot employ all americans seeking work. i wanted to allow my colleagues to also speak this evening. let me just give you a couple of examples, practical examples, actually, the list could go all across this floor if i were to roll it out. fort smith, arkansas. a ask the 1,860 workers who lost jobs at whirlpool when production was shifted to mexico. or how about the 300 people who worked at the vise grip plant in dewitt, nebraska, a town of only 572 residents who all lost their jobs and some would say their town identity, when the company moved to china to keep the name competitive. our how about maytag from

newton, iowa. one of america's icon products. shut down. moved to monterey, mexico, and if you look at the census statistics, from the time that happened over a decade and a half ago until today, poverty in to a level sen up of 25%. this is happening across this country. how about the 535 workers who made hearing aids in eden prairie, minnesota, who were laid off when the starkey laboratories factory moved to mexico and china. every american listening knows a company or more that has done exactly the same thing. if you go down to those countries and you see how the people live, you couldn't stomach it. you simply couldn't. i have gone down to the area in xico and worked -- and asked the workers in those factories and said, take me to where you

live. and they do. and it's sad, to see a tiny little crate barrel house, powered by a light bulb connected to a battery. and this is what development brings them? come, now, the world can do better than that. 13,000 citizens of our congressional district in ohio overseas, fted outsourced to someplace else they know this tale all too well. and i would ask my dear colleague from new york, new york has been battered just like ohio has been battered, congressman paul tonko, one of the greatest leaders on economic growth for our country, who has taken time tonight in a very busy week to join us here. thank you for coming to the floor tonight. mr. tonko: you are going to be joined in a minute by our representative from rochester, new york, representative louise slaughter and she and i, we can

suggest live along the erie canal corridor. she has the western end of upstate new york, i have the eastern end. that corridor became the birth place of a necklace of communities, of milltowns work the development of the erie canal. and product activity, product discovery, product development was the theme ongoing in that region. and people deathered their american dreams in these milltowns. they came, they worked their fingers to the bone they came up with product ideas, and that was the pulse of our community. manufacturing was alive and well. and then we saw this onslaught of what was called trade negotiations process. where we could get into this concept of providing for negotiations, but those negotiations have grown a far distance from trade barriers and negotiations on tariffs. it became a way to encourage

blic policy in a very veiled kind of concept. so that you are addressing far beyond the tariff measures and the trade burdens and what we have today as you indicated is trillions of dollars in trade deficit with these manufacturing jobs have left our home communities in upstate new york and are now in many situations in underdeveloped nations or newly developing nations. when we look at the transpacific partnership that is looming as one of the largest, not the largest most complex trade negotiation ever, you're going to look at situations where you have a minimum wage of 25 cents, for instance, in vietnam. or an annual -- or an hourly salary, average hourly salary of 75 cents. this is not what we want to bring as a condition for our

american workers. so we can't compete with that, nor should we. and we are holding down the workest' right the human rights of these people in developing nations by agreeing to these sorts of agreements. i think that we can do better, we must do better. i stand for fair trade. this free trade concept where we sacrifice american workers, we ind the rusting of manufacturing towns as a result, it's not what the doctor ordered for the american economy. we need to be fair to the middle class who have found our american prosperity found in middle class centers where they're able to raise a family, grow a community just by a fair salary and the security of knowing that your job was your grounding in that community. free trade has taken away that

american dream for far too many. we need to do better. we cannot continue to endure the trade deficits that are of the trillions of dollars and watch the many, many millions of jobs lost in the ensuing efforts because that is an unsustainable outcome. i watched as so many manufacturing centers left our area. i represent the mohawk valley, hudson valley capital district reof new york. we witnessed a huge exodus of job. i have people telling me today as they're closing down factories, they cannot compete with situations in china, for instance, where there are many onditions that favor those businesses because of these sound partnerships they have their government where they buy the factory and perhaps pay the utility bill and further manipulate the currency. there's a lot of work to be done on these issues, we need to make sure we go forward and have a sound overview by congress so that there's an investment by congress and we're not

circumventing our responsibilities and going forth with sound policies that will strengthen the great many of us called the middle class of america, provide for the american dream to be deathered in these milltowns where we have manufacturing opportunities that are paying sound salaries, providing great benefits and not destroying workers' rights. i thank you for leading us in this discussion and look forward to exchange manage thoughts here in the ensuing hour. ms. kaptur: thank you for coming to the floor this evening. i grew up in a family where the work ethic because we believed in it and were wanting to get somewhere. you worked long hours but you could save a little money. now you save money, the banks pay you .07% interest or something like that. if you're a saver, off good work ethic, a good savings ethic, what does the market yield you really? and what i worry about is the work ethic itself.

i talk to many employers now and they say marcy you know what, if we have to hire 40 people for part-time jobs in a retail store, you can't believe how many people we have to go through to find people who really want to work. one of the things that's happening across this country is people don't believe, large numbers of people don't believe working counts because they've seen what's happened in their own families and we stand to lose the work ethic itself among major segments of this population. that's very worrisome to me and we see related social problems and rising poverty. i mentioned in the ray maytag situation new york newton, iowa, i'm not just picking on newton, iowa. there was a community that lived for that company. fred maytag is buried there, overlooking the park he is endowed and the people who helped elevate. to see poverty increase 25% of

the total community tells you where we're headed. and that's just one place. but it's all across our country. before i call on congresswoman slauther to add her eloquent words this evening, i wanted to mention, norma mcfadden who worked in my district, one of 150 employees who made crayons. r a company called dixon ticonderoga, one of the oldest manufacturers dating back to 1845. before factory closed in 2002. nor mark along with many of her colleagues took advantage of what was then called trade adjustment assistance which since has been eliminated and she got an alternative degree as a phlebotomist but many of the jobs of her fellow co-workers, there were no jobs for them to go to. and that poor factory in sandusky, ohio, just shuttered, the property hasn't been reused,

these were people who really -- they made a good product, they worked for years, they were proud of their community, they were proud of their company and all of a sudden it was just all jerked away. and i can guarantee you, the people who are working those jobs outside of mexico city, do not earn a living wage. what are we doing? what are we doing to this country and what hope do we provide to the people of other countries that their work matters? i say what we're yielding is social instability. instability. and if you look at the murders around this country, and what is happening with the drug epidemic in this country, don't think there isn't a connection between hopelessness and what is happening, not to some of the wealthy people that prowl around the capitol who are, you know, who have the ability to pay to get here or have lobbying firms here or somehow want to reach a member of congress on some very arcane amendment they wanted,

i'm talking about the average person who will never come to washington, who has a belief in this country but it's starting to erode at the edges, because their economic future is so uncertain. i wanted to call on a real fighter for the american people ho has been a stalwart protagonist of enormous dimension here for jobs in america and for the fair treatment of workers everywhere and for jobs in america. congresswoman louise slaughter, the ranking member of the rules committee. such a gifted member, thank you for being here tonight. . ms. slaughter: i hope that people listening to us will understand that some of us here have been trying for years to try to save american jobs from bad trade policy. now, every time the congress debates a trade agreement they make these grand promises.

i remember when nafta, 250,000 brand new jobs going to be coming to rochester, new york. well, none of it ever happened. we were promised this great bright future that never showed up and thankfully over my career here, which has been nice and prosperous and creative, i have never yet seen a trade policy that came out of this congress of the united states that benefited in any ay the american manufacturer or the american worker. i come from a district that was devastated by nafta, and i want to tell you a story about eastman kodak. eastman kodak is a name that everyone knows. everything they've done for motion pictures. a study was done once and showed that kodak, that word, two people that heard it that it was solid, it was good, it was dependable, the backbone,

basically, of rochester, new york. great patrons of the art. great education, everything that they did. during the first world war, george eastman made sure that every soldier that went away from the first world war got a camera, and it was in the day that you had to send the camera back to the factory to have it developed and opened. all these soldiers back and forth while they were overseas fighting -- even in the country got this eastman kodak camera going back and forth every month. it would take me all night here, this is a company that won the second world war. engineers that had come from this country, devastated -- company, devastated, they started some smaller companies hich we have great hope. in fact, the laser beam that ok down the three somali pirates that captain philips

and the sailors were in a smaller one. they shot simultaneously and shot three pirates with a laser beam from rochester. the night vision goggles that everybody is so concerned which the navy seals took down osama bin laden, components from rochester. so we have all that ability there, but we took the jobs under them.om we -- this comes down, this debate called fast track which wouldn't mean too much to anybody. in the 1970's, we were the largest manufacturer in the world and we were saw no end to that prosperity. people innovated and wonder elf things we were able -- wonderful things we were able to do. it was solid as a rock and knew it was always going to be there until it wasn't. fast track came up in the 1970's when we were the largest

manufacturer and the idea was since we were so good and we wanted to help rebuild the economies of other countries that we would allow the president and trade administration who negotiated a trade to bring an agreement once they were finished with it to the congress of the united states with no committee action whatever. we are not even told what was in those trade agreements. i personally have tried on behalf of higgy freeman to find that out about textiles and i could not. the idea was to vote up or down. no amendment. no nothing. just a quick vote and go. taking away the whole reason for our existence here to sent ent the people who us here and to do what we could to keep the united states prosperous and forward looking. so when i was chair of the rules committee, briefly, because it came under the purview of the rules committee,

we were able to get rid of it. unfortunately, the korean trade agreement was filed before we were able to get rid of it, so korea was done under fast track. i appreciate so much what you've shown us with that. it was very troubling with me about korea. south korea, as was pointed out, 740,000 cars there. there are 26 dealers in south korea that will sell american cars. 26. but during the same period that 7,000, they sold 561,626 here. now, we obviously wanted to -- south korea to prosper. we lost so many lives there. we fought very hard for their freedom. we also signed a treaty that if ou attack anybody in south korea, that the united states is obligated to fight. you think with all of that, we rebuilt their economy, we saved their country, that they might sell american cars?

but what we've seen and what we tried to say on this floor, the three of us all talking about it, you're buying a pig in a polk here. it's not going to work because the simple reason, if we never had enforcement on a single one of our trade bills, we simply reduce our tariff, everything comes flooding in here and it is not tariffs that keeps our goods from selling in other countries. it's the unseen trade barriers. they don't like the bumper. the steering wheel is wrong. the window doesn't fit. or they simply let it sit at ports, docks, rotting and rusting or whatever. they don't sell it. we have not a single thing to do about it. now, i have a bill, i'm going to reintroduce in january, a bipartisan bill with a lot of outside support that simply says with the trade agreement being negotiated by the united states of america would also be

accompanied by an enforcement part which would be persons in the labor department who would -- not the people who wrote those bills. the people that write those bills have such pride of authorship they never -- i don't know a single time, maybe once or twice with w.t.o., we tried to do something about unfair labor practices. we don't really worry about that. we just take it or people take it. so the bill that we have says that we can also do what we call snap back, that congress itself can stop that until they do away with the unfair barriers that prevent our goods from being sold in their countries as the agreement stated they would be. now, we're about to do another one, if you can believe it. this was a hum dinger. this was was over 11 countries. again, we have no idea what's in it. trying to get fast track. we have a good start, i think, on stopping that. i'm trying to think -- get the

number here that we have i think 30 republicans have signed on not to do fast track. is it 150? we have a total of 150 members of the house who will not and certainly in the senate and we have let the president know that fast track won't work here. this new bill, from what we hear about it -- food safety is a real crucial issue one of my colleagues, rosa delauro, said when you hear about delta shrimp, you're probably reading issue is - the food so important. when we cause them to lose money when they bring in bad fish which is not tested nearly enough when it comes in or anything else, it causes them to have economic loss, they can sue us. think about this for a minute now. they can sue us if we enforce our own clean air standards and

our clean water standards and our food safety standards. i will tell you, it boggles the mind to simply think about it. what we are asking, and we let the president know and the whole world that we're trying to get to understand that this congress and the united states will not stand by for fast track to have a bill come up here that will disamate again parts of this country in the united states, threaten our food safety laws and not have our ability to read the thing, to have committee action on it, to amend it, all that will be gone under fast track. and we would only be able to vote up or down. i will tell you we've had such devastating losses from playing the game that way that it would boggle the mind that we would stand by and watch that happen yet again in cases where it

would be even worse. and so i'm so pleased to be here tonight and join with my friends who try to fight the good fight. this is a magnificent country and all of us have certainly benefited from it. to be able to be a representative in the congress of the united states is remarkable, but with that goes a heck of a responsibility and that responsibility is to leave this place better than we found it. we can't do that with this trade bill. so i urge all my colleagues, everybody listening to pay attention what's going on here and help us to get people that represent you to join us in this fight to stop this frayed agreement in its tracks. i think it goes without saying, i have nothing -- no problems with free trade. now, free trade i got a lot of troubles -- let me back that up. i have no problem with international trade. it's the wave of the future. we are doing it. free trade, people can come in

here and eat our lunch. let's have fair trade for a change. it would do a world good. thank you very much, marcy. mrs. capito: i want to thank you for -- ms. kaptur: i want to thank you for fighting for jobs from coast to coast. thank you very much. ms. slaughter: it's a pleasure. ms. kaptur: we appreciate your contributions this evening. following what congresswoman slaughter stated, i can guarantee you that coordinate to polls done by the pew research center, over half of americans say that free trade has been about u.s. job losses. and you know what, they've experienced it. they know that whether it's nafta, whether it's the china deal, whether it's cafta, latin america or korean cafta, that it's operated the reverse and enough people have now sadly suffered, that they have internalalized what's going on and they're wondering what has

happened to this country. and not only have they lost their jobs but because the economy haven't grown as fast, we're seeing that there's a downward pressure on wages in this country. i see people being hired in plants in my district now in the auto industry which is doing better because we refinanced it a couple years ago, but before people used to be able to go in there and earn $20 or $30 an hour, all right, now they're starting them at a little above minimum wage. they're working them seven days a week, 10 hours a day. they're working two and three times as hard because there's this downward pressure on wages. and i mentioned norma mcfadon in ohio, ked at dixon i tell you two out of the five displaced manufacturing workers who were able to be rehired had wage reductions of more than

20%. so, yes, congressman tonko. mr. tonko: i'll add to that statement, representative, you know, there was a g.a.o. study, report that was called for by representative george miller, representative sandy levin and that report clearly indicated that provisions of these trade agreements have not been carefully and well enough monitored and enforced and also violations that were discovered which require investigations. they were not done expeditiously. that ought to raise concerns to members of congress who might just casually dismiss this authority that we should have to review these agreements. these agreements, again, are far beyond tariffs and trade barriers. they include public policy components that would range from worker protection to environmental concerns to food

safety to consumer protection. these are all given dynamics and should not first foremost be part of these agreements but because they are can have devastating consequences. and, again, i think this effort here is about greed. it's about providing for those that can control and manipulate that economy at the expense of diminishing the worker. and we've seen what's happened here as we've lost american jobs in our manufacturing base the people that have been displaced from the manufacturing centers are now that g in jobs na are pro are providing for jobs, the renew mexico ration, and we're also watching the developing nations and their workers getting paid with a minimum wage of 25 cents or an average hourly rate of 75 cents. that is really destroying the worker, not only in this country but around the world.

to this nation and her needs, it's about growing our middle class, growing our economy, protecting our middle class. and when we're sending off jobs in this casual, dismissive time of agreement concept called fair trade -- free trade, it's not -- it's not a fair outcome. fair trade i to be and we need to go forward and certainly -- i agree with the comments made by representative slaughter. we need to make certain there's not a fast track opportunity where we circumvent the responsibilities of congress where we should have debate, where we should allow for amendments and not just move to a single up or down vote. that is dangerous. that is far reducing the involvementngress. it's relinquishing congress of its responsibilities and its duties and the empowerment it can bring to the american worker. so there's much work that needs to be done here. and as one that represents many, many manufacturing towns that in their hay day provided for great jobs, great

opportunity and for the tethering of the american dream, we need to move forward with progressive responses rather than this attack on working families in this country and around the world. . ms. kaptur: new york is embattered and i want to recognize tim ryan of youngstown, ohio, who fights for the people of our country and certainly for the people of his district this northeastern ohio, a leader here, a rising leader here nationally and i thank you for joining us here tonight. mr. ryan: i thank you. upstate new york with ms. slaughter, the great lakes states, we are the ones who have seen over the course of the last three decades what has happened to our manufacturing base. and both of you have hit the nail on the head.

you look at the politics and the elections from, you know, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, these are all about economics. these are average people not feeling like they have an opportunity to latch onto the american dream. and when we talk about these trade agreements, the issue comes down to manufacturing, how can we re-invigorate manufacturing in the united states? it's not just the trade agreements but whatever progressive tax policies with the research and development, renewable energy, and talk about windmills. you have to make everything that's in that wind-mill. the steel, all of the component parts need to be manufactured. why wouldn't we focus on that getting done in the united

states and manufacturing jobs that pay more, more secure pensions, and higher benefits. that's ultimately the ladder up. i'll give you an example where we got this right. we had an opportunity in youngstown, ohio and gerard, ohio for expansion of a new steel mill, up to a billion dollars and we needed to do site preparation work and got $20 million from the stimulus package and they said you need to level the playing field with china. , ohio steel mill ut it, over 1,500-plus workers to build the facilities. investments back in the community. that's when we get it right, when we level the playing field and put the tariffs on their dumped products coming into the united states. about. me is what is all

down the ohio river, over to toledo, chicago and the great lakes, east on 90 and go through pennsylvania and into new york, these are the regions of the country if we want america to insecure that we have to get these re-investments back into the communities and can't ignore what needs to be negotiated. our opportunity here, our job here, i think, is to lift all of these other countries up and not exploit and then have the bad food come back to the united states or the cheem products come back to the united states, whether we are talking about drywall or baby food or whatever the story is from the last couple of years, i think we have the opportunity to right the ship and we have to have a coalition here in congress that is willing to do that. we do have the opportunity. think about this. and i know my friend from

minnesota wants to speak a little bit as well. if we had a national manufacturing policy in the united states, if we said we are going to rebuild the united states, how many members of this congress if we said, how much is your combined sewer that you are going to have to invest in in the next 10 years, a billion? hundreds of millions in small to mid-sized towns like the ones i represent. if we put people back to work and made the investment and our building trades all went back to work, union workers, good contracts, good wages, good benefits and incentivize manufacturing with the tax code, research and the rest and invest in renewable energy so we can make the solar panels and make the windmills, we could light up the united states again with a

few key changes. but i think having a trade policy that congress has input on that levels the playing field, that does not sacrifice our clean water, clean air and food is the way to go about it. i thank my friends and thank the dean of our delegation for this leadership. and we have to keep pushing back and i thank you for the opportunity to be here with you and hopefully beat this thing back. ms. kaptur: thank you for your time, leadership and the great voice you give to america's economic future and all those who work to make it possible. thank you for the respect you show them and the amount of time you devote to make it in america and toward manufacturing in america. thank you so very, very much. we have marvelous leaders who have joined us tonight from across the country, from

minnesota, great lakes' state that has received its fair share of battering over the years and great, great member, keith ellison, a member in our progressive caucus as well as a leader in the minnesota delegation. mr. ellison: i thank the gentlelady for lead ange and picking up this important issue of trade agreements and trade promotion authority. i just want to say that minnesota has had its experience with trade agreements. according to policy experts, if you look at the north american free trade agreement, which lifted tariffs and other trade agreements, it's led to the outsourcing of over over 30,000 minnesota jobs. it did bring in some jobs.

after the lost jobs and net gain jobs is a loss of 13,700 jobs. the thing is some people say trade will help. it will help some people. but when you look at everybody, t has not been a job gainer as it was promised to be. and i think that's very important and i'm glad congressman ryan and you have been speaking in a local frime work. i can tell you from our own state of minnesota, we have the best workers in the world and can compete with anybody, but only on the basis of a fair trade. we believe we can make great products but when other countries are dumping, when they are manipulating their currency when all kinds of crazy things are happening like that, we aren't talking about fair trade but free trade and free trade is

free-for-all trade. when the trade deal comes, that it really does support labor standards and environmental standards. i won't be standing against it, but until then, i have to stand against it. i also want to say there has been a lot of talk recently because of this trans-pacific partnership that has been negotiated and there is a lot of concern over it. but before people get worried about the new trade deal, the new nafta, they ought to worry about fast track, because here's the thing, whether you like these trade deals or don't like them, i doubt that you believe that their purpose, as they come out of the hands of the u.s. trade representative and all these other countries, i doubt you believe that they can't benefit from any negotiation or

any amendments, because around here, we have never seen a perfect piece of legislation and the best can be improved. and yet if we grant trade promotion authority, we will only have an up-or-down vote. we will literally abandon our national sovereignty to other countries who will be able to sue american companies for lost profits. and i don't mind dealing in an american court but in an international court, just because we want to ban smoking and just because we want to take care of our people. we may therefore be sued for lost profits. we don't know what the trans-pacific partnership really ople have seen pieces of it

here and there. we don't know, because it has been negotiated in secret. keith, can you send me a copy of that trans-pacific partnership, i want to know what it says. i say, they haven't let me see it. not in its entirety at the whole thing. and after they get the trade promotion authority, they are going to give us a few weeks to basically look it over and then we can only vote it up or down. ms. kaptur: these agreements are so powerful, they actually should be treated as treatees, because they involve so much more than just goods. when you get into the legal right to sue and you look at what's happened to our country under these trade agreements, i don't know about minnesota, but

we have the emerald ash bmb bore. cities like toledo and cleveland are losing 10%. and that critter got in here in packing material. but who gets taken to court from sending in dirty soil here? there is no legal recourse. look at the department of agriculture's budget, you will find it skyrocketing as american taxpayers are being charged to try and clean up some of this mess that is happening across our country. is like the horn beetle and eating hardwoods across our country. the damage is enormous, and there is no place where we can old to hold the importer and

exporter responsible within the laws of our country. what kind of a crazy system is this where we tie the hands of the american people. under nafta, we were told that we would have 200,000 more jobs in our country. when nafta was passed, we fell into trade deficits with mexico and actually we lost nearly 100,000 jobs to mexico because of nafta. these trade agreements, they say they're one thing, but they actually come back and turn negative numbers. negative numbers. i look at this korean account. we were supposed to have 50,000 cars here and all we have gotten here is a handful, several thousand and the koreans have managed to sell over half a million here. if you go to those countries and look at how they keep our vehicles out and how they promote their exports of parts

here. the auto motive dealers were here. why were they here? when they try to repair a car and a part comes in and the car was in an accident and you have to replace the hood, the fit isn't as good. the metal is thin. and they can't make it fit the repair. so the customer in our country gets mad and these replacement parts are coming in from all over the world. it's an inforier product. it's not their fault, for heaven's sake. they are caught in the system that doesn't work for them and doesn't work for us. we have to figure out a better way. i think congressman tonko wanted to add a remark there. mr. tonko: as we continue to continue to banter on this importance of trade and free trade versus fair trade. i can't help but rebe reminded

that has eer spirit taken this nation to moments of greatness where that greatness was written by the american worker. oftentimes the immigrant who came to this country to pursue the american dream. and what we need to do here is have history instruct us. let us understand what the greatness of this nation is about. our best days lie ahead of us if we do that, if we're willing to take lessons from american history. where our sons and daughters o, as our ancestors, many of them immigrants came to our shores. it was their creative genius and their ingenuity, their work ethic, their passion that grew these opportunities of manufacturing in our mill towns.

. they were undeniably the impetus. today we need to understand if given a fair shot we can continue to grow upon that greatness. but if we suffocate that american dream, if we suffocate the american worker, if we deny just renumeration into that sweat equity, if they pour themselves into that job, if they're denied that job because of these trade deals, these negotiated outcomes that are denying, again, the worker across the world, then we all lose. it's important for us to understand that we need to invest in the manufacturing base. this is a walking away from history. this is an allowance of greed to take over the equation, of job creation. this is about providing for

greed for very few. you look at the relationships between the worker and the owner, the manager of the situation. we have reduced the worker. we see what average income is looking at. we see what household income is looking like. we have destroyed this. we have put people into lower paying jobs as they lost that manufacturing sector job. we have not allowed for the job growth. we look at the chart that representative kaptur has displayed for us this evening. it's overwhelmingly convincing. when you look at the activity in one direction versus the activity in the opposite direction, it's absolutely blatantly obvious that we need to do better and we don't do that. we don't begin by relinquishing the role of congress in this process. a fast track, as has been talked about this evening, denies the opportunity for fair debate. it denies for the opportunity for amendments. it requires a simple up or down

vote. we don't need to put public policy for worker protection, vironmental standards, child labor issues, consumer protection, public safety, all of these items are tossed into these agreements where there isn't the appropriate discussion and where the worker is held down, 25 cents for minimum wage in vietnam, 75 cents is an average hourly wage, and then tossing people out of the american dream here that they wanted to tether. that pioneer spirit needs to be fed. that pioneer spirit needs to be nurtured. that pioneer spirit needs to be respected. that pioneer spirit needs to be revered. when we do that with sound trade opportunities, we will prosper, because we have the intellectual capacity as a nation, we have the work ethic as a nation, we have the creative genius as a nation to prosper. give us the fair opportunities to grow our economy and allow

for trade policy to initiate a new era of greatness for this country. that's when we are going to respond in justice, in fairness, in social and economic justice that will llow us, again, to write these new nanls of history. with that i yield back to the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. kaptur: mr. tonko, thank you for the passion you give on the floor of congress. we know we have our finger on the heart of where the american people are. it's just this city that's out of sync with where the public is and we have to get them aligned once and for all. you would think that a place that has been amassing mammoth trade deficits because of trade policies over the last 25 years would not be brain dead, but apparently some people are brain dead over on the executive side and they have

allowed america's communities to sink further and further into debt, into trade debt and job loss. they are completely connected, and if you go to these other countries -- and i had this chart up here about korea. japan is the same. japan is the same. if you look at the number of vehicles coming here versus our vehicles going there, we are dealing with closed markets. t's not like these other places like our stuff. they find ways to block our products from going in. oh, gosh, 20, 30 years ago i went to japan to trying to figure out why they didn't buy new cars. i said the head of toyota, honda, please, we'll give you free spark plugs. they were the best plugs we made in our country. just try them out. the chinese would accept 2% of automobiles in their market from anyplace else in the world. ok. when our market was open, over

half the vehicles on our streets are from every place else in the world made there rather than here. ok. today, 30 years later, it's the same in japan. there may be 3% of their market. ugohs, 't even take for heaven's sake. you're facing mammoth trade imbalances. the most important thing, the people over at the national security council, economic division, should do is pay attention to the united states of america for a change and ask yourself -- why isn't this formula working? and you know what, your decisions are hurting the american people who are funding your operation over there on the executive side. somebody better pay attention to these mammoth, mammoth hem radges, because i tell you -- hemorrhages, because i tell you what, this recent election is not an ideological one. the american people are trying to find a way to start getting

a little traction in their economic way of life, and they're having trouble. and this city isn't listening, and the structures that are there to help the american people are completely out of kilter, and they've bin out of kilter for a long time. and it's not fair to the american people. it is simply not fair. we have to raise our voices here. i know there are living rooms out there that are listening to us tonight and they're cheering what we're saying because they have lived it. they have lived the job loss. ey've scratched and tried to get two and three jobs to try to hold their family and their household together. we've seen families split up because of the lack of income, and it isn't their fault. they're trying. ey're trying to get a foot hold. i remember one president, i didn't like what he said, he said sort of walk with your feet. if you got a problem, move somewhere else. what, where we live

our community, our home, our family, our neighbors, the community we built together really means. it means something. it's us. we've invested our lives there. our parents, our grandparents. it isn't so easily cast away. i hope that's not an old-fashioned american idea, but people have labored for years to build our libraries, to build our museum, to build our zoos, our marinas, all of our parks. you just don't so easily walk away. our home means something to us, and it isn't fair to the people who have contributed so much to the betterment of this country to have it so rough. and it isn't their fault. all the people who are homeless, all of the people who have fallen on tough times -- and they want to work. these are workers. why should workers have to go on to food stamps, for heaven's sake, in the united states of america? what an embarrassment that is for this country. and then we have certain people here in the congress who say, oh, just cut them off. what are they supposed to do? where are they supposed to go

when their jobs have been royally outsourced elsewhere? and fought a few jobs. millions and millions. i've had the gift in my lifetime of being able to travel to go follow the jobs, go see what happens when trico moved out of buffalo, go see what happened when mr. caufy moved out of cleveland. -- mr. coffey moved out of cleveland. then you say, oh, someone is making a whole lot of money out of the outsourcing of jobs. you know what, it's not the people in my community. it wasn't the workers. wasn't even the small business people. but it's the capitalists who take the money, those people who are rich enough to own these companies and they figure out they can outsource it so they can make more money, not work with the people in these communities who've given their life, their sweat for these places. it's just -- it's so disrespectful. it's unamerican. it's unamerican what they are

-- it's un-american. it's un-american what they're doing. mr. tonko: again, if the gentlewoman from ohio would yield. you talk about the ownership, the pride of developing community and neighborhood. the investment that the worker made in growing family, developing households, building neighborhood in a strong and powerful and meaningful way, those are the mill town memories. those memories guide my heart and soul. i'm from a mill town. i still live in that mill town and represent that mill town here in the house of representatives. and it was the clamor of that assembly line that resonated to people of all ages in that mill town. it was the activity. it was the hustle and bustle of manufacturing that resonated, that came the pulse of manufacturing, and that became the heart of a mill town. you knew which day the mill was shut. it was silent. but now the silence is deafening, and we need to bring

back that resurgent, that opportunity which meant the american dream, meant an opportunity to earn a paycheck, the dignity to earn that paycheck and to be able to raise a family and develop and maintain a household. that's what it's all about. it's about economic and social justice. and so we have work to do, and i believe that washington needs to listen to small town, mill town across this country, to the middle-income community that reminds us it's about the dignity of work, that they want to invest their skill set, they want to invest their professionalism, they want to invest their work ethic in building a product and allowing us to taste that greatness of manufacturing. you know, we look at the data that our assembled that should guide us here and we see c.e.o. salaries and productivity rising steeply upward and meanwhile flattened if not

dipping south is the average worker's salary. something is fundamentally un-- you know, unjust about that outcome. something is fundamentally unsustainable about that outcome. and if we're going to enjoy prosperity, every strata of the income ladder is is affected if we're not dealing with worker fairness. then and only then, if we address worker fairness can we rightfully hope to have a better tomorrow. and isn't that what we're about, providing hope, instilling hope into the hearts and minds and souls of individuals and families of workers, of mill towns, of the american people? ms. kaptur: congressman tonko, your service gives us hope. thank you for joining us this evening and i'm going to yield some time to congressman keith ellison of minnesota who has spent the evening here with us. thank you so much for working

overtime on behalf of your constituents and all of america. mr. ellison: let me thank the gentlelady for yielding again. i just wanted to point out that i think that president obama correctly said that income inequality is the defining issue of our time. i think he was right when he said that. but when you look at why do we have the flat and declining wages that the congressman from new york, paul tonko, just mentioned and you mentioned, why? what are the components of this? well, i can tell you it's clear we have not invested in public infrastructure, which would put people to work and improve productivity. it's clear we have allowed the tax system -- we've cut the taxes of the wealthiest and most privilege of our society and those at the middle and -- we failed to educate people properly. but one of the components that we can never forget is this trade policy. you cannot intelligently claim

that you want to do something about income inequality and pass these trade deals which ship jobs overseas and put pressure on wages here. this is a key part of how we get the american middle and working class back getting raises again. i yield back. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman so much for that excellent point. i take it by the signal we have -- our time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kaptur: we thank you for being very with the gavel and thank all those who are present for listening. i yield back our remaining ime. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen, is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. mr. paulsen: 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 subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: i rise to honor the work and memory of congressman bill frenza who passed away on wednesday. he represented the third congressional district of minnesota for 20 years. retiring in 1990. actually, mr. speaker, many of us tonight had already planned to speak today to express our love and appreciation to bill from this floor even before we learned of his death. we are keeping with that plan tonight. i must admit, mr. speaker, as i stand here in this chamber where bill did some of his best work, that my heart is more full of emotions than my heart is full

of ideas. there are many facts that i could recite about the service of bill, but i'm going to capture the man that we knew that we loved and respected. when i received the news that bill passed away, there was a scrap of paper on my wall in my office and also in my minnesota wall that became my prized possessions. there are today wills. fantastic, detailed little drawings while he was on the phone, while he was in committee meetings, listening to testimony or doing debates. such is the hype activity of this brilliant mind, when he was required to sit still, his drawing hand had to be moving. bill friend ell was more a-- fre

nzel. he was always pushing positive ideas and in the interacks, he as leaning forward, like a person walking boldly into a stiff wind. he was a serious legislator, pouring line by line of the federal budget. that practice continued after he left congress. would make a phone call requesting his copy of the annual federal budget and amazing to me that anyone would want this massive document sitting on their book shelf, but this bill would go through this .udget line by line greatestway he did the ood was row minnesotaing and

advancing international trade. i suppose it began by looking at the great good being done by the world and we represent in minnesota, companies that feed and restore health to millions and billions across the borders of the world. bill believed and he was absolutely right there is no force that has done more to raise people out of poverty, to foster the spread of human right or expand democracy than international trade. within bill's lifetime, united ates, germany and japan were this, they have become our best friends and best allies. no stronger advocate for international trade. he was the indispensible man in the passage of the north american free trade agreement. and has been the model of our agreements all over the world. just last month, last month in

october, bill received the mexican order of the aztec eagle, highest honor that can be given to a nonsiten for appreciation of his work. in 2000, he received the order of the rising sun, gold and silver star from the emperor of japan to advance trade. he deserves america's highest honors as well. he worked across the aisle, because he understood that relationships matter and make a big difference like budget reform, tax reform, welfare reform and trade agreements. and after retiring from congress in 1991, he became a guest scholar in economic studies at the brookings institution and remained active in public policy and was on panels appointed by presidents on both sides of the

aisle. president obama re-appointed him. that's a position he was first apointed to by george w. bush in year 2002. he also co-chaired the committee for responsible federal budget, a bipartisan organization dedicated to educating the public about the impact of fiscal policies and i would just tell you personally, mr. will miss myers, i conversations with bill frenzel and he would share his years of wisdom and his experiences and insights that he gained in his ten your in public service. he was a good friend and metropolitan oy. however, there is no temptation for any of us to do an imtation because there will be not another like him. for me, bill inspires me to be the best that i can be and help the greatest number of people. his er my condolences to

familiar youly and his wife and three daughters and want to give 3rd s to minnesota's congressional district and giving me an amazing set of shoulders to stand upon as well as my thanks to god for the life and service and example of congressman bill frenzel. i would like to yield time to the congressman from the 8th congressional district. congressman nolan, served with him both in congress and in the state legislature and i would say as two public servants both in and out of office, their paths crossed many times and their friendship exemplifies bill's friendly nature to get things done for the country and i yield to the gentleman.

mr. nolan: thank you, representative paulsen and this was a truly great native son of minnesota who made us all so proud in so many ways that are, as you said, it is hard to enumerate all of them. when it came to public service, when it came to governance, when it came to bipartisan. en it came to todayling -- made willing, when it came us proud. i want to recognize other friends of the frenzel family who are here. bill and ruthey were inseparable. they were clearly a team and that can be so valuable and so important, the success of a

legislationor and bill was so proud of his family. and i want to thank the family r being there for bill and helping giving him the strength to carry on and do all the great things he did. we served together in the state house of representatives. bill had been there before me. i followed him to the congress. again he was there before me, but he was a good friend, offering all kinds of guidance nd negotiating the ways of the state house and the ways of the u.s. house and the ways of the government here, just a wonderfully good friend and a good mentor that i shall always be forever grateful for for his mentoring and his guidance.

and that was something he did for anyone who had the good judgment to take advantage of it. he was always open and always available and always there for you. and he was always so incredibly well prepared. but the thing i always like most about bill, he was so respectful of everyone else and their ideas and you knew if you had an idea, whether it was a good one or bad one, you were going to get a hearing with bill frenzel and if it was a bad idea, he would tell you why. and more often than not, he was right. and that was such an important lesson that he gave to all of us and inspired us all. hen it came to things like the budget, most members maybe reads a summary.

bill read that thing in its enentirety and knew where every nickel and dime was going and he understood the consequences of it. when it came to trade policy, same thing, he knew of all of its implications and understood international trade. he was an inspiration for me outside of politics as well and no mall measure to the benefits that he articulated to trade. because when i left congress some 34 years ago, i went into export trading because i heard the frenzel talk about incredible opportunity we had to produce food and good consumer goods, our ability to produce things that improved the lives of people all over the world and why not get out there and

aggressively export those goods and services, which is what i ended up doing before 34 years before i came back to thr institution. so for built frenzel, i'm much better prepared than when i served some years ago. and when it came to the rules of the house, bill understood the importance of the integrity of this institution as well better than anyone and i suspect bill would be on the floor here today from time to time calling for the re-establishment of regular order. because bill was never afraid of anyone else's idea. in fact, he welcomed them. nd bill and i and others, we served in a time where if anyone had a good idea, they could

offer it to the chamber in the form of an amendment and we could debate it and argue it and we did it in conference committee. and bill understood that that was the foundation. that was the foundation of bipartisanship. that was the foundation of a congress that was effectively governing and getting things done. and that was perhaps his greatest contribution to all of us, because only through that process do we get to know one another. and build respect for one another and learn where those areas of common agreement and xing things and we have bill frenzel to thank for that. and i would be remiss if we didn't talk about his doodling. you would be in a hearing and he would be busy, you think he

wasn't paying any attention at all. and suddenly, he would rise and he would have a question. it was like the best question that anybody asked. he had a tw-track brain. one hand was doodling. that was bill. and they are treasures. to have a bill today will, that , the -- doodle creativity of them, it's just amazing. and how he could do that was amazing as well. and he was a great minnesota sports fan. one of the stars on the republican baseball team and of course, he loved minnesota sports, the vickings, the twins, the north stars, you name it and

always showed up with his minnesota twins' jersey on. they used to win a lot of games back in there. and marty came along and started managing the democrats and things turned on him. bill was a great ball player. he loved minnesota and minnesota sports, and just a good friend. whether it was governing, it was baseball, doodling, whether it was family, whether it was bipartisanship, advising presidents, welcoming new members, advising and helping others, there was just know greater mentor, no greater public servant that minnesota er had in the wonderful bill frenzel and his life is an inspiration for us going forward and our nation is a better place

because of bill and his inspiration will enable us to continue that great tradition forward and for us to make this great nation of ours a better place to live. thank you, mr. speaker and fellow members, for the opportunity to stand here and pay whomage to a great citizen of minnesota. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman for sharing his stories. next, i would like to yield to the gentleman from maryland, the minority whip, who served with a decade with bill, until bill retired in 1991 and that relationship continued after his retirement as both had a passion for working on the federal budget and bridging the gap between republicans and mocrats when it comes to our country's tax spending and tax

policies. and they found common ground. i'm happy to yield. . mr. hoyer: i came here, mr. speaker, in 1981. bill frenzel was a member of congress at that point in time. as congressman paulsen pointed out, we served together for the following 10 years. but as he also pointed out, we continued to work thereafter because of joint interests that we had. i think congressman nolan caught the essence of bill frenzel very well. i would associate myself with his remarks, but i would also add that the american people want us to work together. what i have said since the election is, look, all 435 of us share two things in common. one, we are all americans. secondly, our people all sent us here to make america better. those two things we share in

common, and we share the expectations of the american people that we will do that which we can agree on together. and not allow that on which we o not agree to undermine our ability to work with which we do agree. bill frenzel got that message. bill frenzel lived that kind of life. bill frenzel was that kind of member of congress. bill frenzel could be pretty sharp. i don't mean bright. i mean sharp tongue if he thought you were going off, as congressman nolan said, in the wrong direction. i'm happy to say i was never the object of that, but bill enzel wanted you to, a, be candid, be straightforward, be

intellectually honest and not play games. nd he was -- in fact did the same. bill frenzel in his private life, working with brookings, continued his public life's commitment to rational, responsible governance. as congressman paulsen pointed out, i am a very big advocate it ixing our debt, fixing in many ways through the kind of policies that bill frenzel recommended. policies which say to both sides, look, we both have interests, we got to accommodate those interests but we got to accommodate a bottom line. be real, in other words. bill frenzel was a republican. i'm a democrat, but we were first americans, and i felt it a great honor to learn from

bill frenzel, to respect his intellect and his insights, to respect the quality of his service and his willingness to work with others to do what the marn people expect all of us to do, make their country better. so i rise to join mr. paulsen, i ask to revise and extend my remarks -- rise with mr. paulsen to honor an american who served his country well, an american of whom we can all be proud of which his family clearly is proud and rightfully so. but his colleagues were proud of him on both sides of the aisle. i want to say to his wife, ruth, we send our sympathies, but we share with you that pride in bill frenzel's contribution to his country, to

this institution and to each of us. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman for offering his perspective as well and those unique stories and reflections from a bipartisan basis on a truly great american, as mr. hoyer had mentioned. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to my colleague and gentleman from texas, good friend, kevin brady, who is a very distinguished member of the house ways and means committee. he's also the former chairman and member of the subcommittee on trade. congressman brady is another member of congress that benefited greatly from the wealth and wisdom that bill frenzel imparted on important issues like trade and the federal budget. i know i can speak for many members of the ways and means committee the work that bill did at the brookings institution as well as the committee of budget has been beneficial to all of us. brayden murdoch congressman paulsen, i thank you -- mr. brady: congressman paulsen,

i thank you. bill frenzel served the constituents for over 20 years and i would say served his country for a lifetime. you can tell from my accent i'm not from minnesota. i am from texas, and i had a chance to meet bill when i started on the ways and means committee where i now serve with mr. paulsen who's one of our frankly most respected members and his predecessor all following in the bill frenzel mold. when i started on the ways and means committee -- i just came quickly to appreciate his willingness to share his vast wealth of knowledge on trade issues, big and small. don't even know he was no longer an elected official, i was always struck by bill's willingness to give of himself, of finding ways to advance the cause of free trade and economic freedom throughout the world. i think it's important to note that historically in congress trade has always been a bipartisan issue, republicans and democrats working together and throughout his career,

bill's constructive work across the aisle exemplified the best of this idea. everyone knew he was open to new ideas, was a straight shooter, respected others and worked hard to get people to come and arrive at a consensus. quite simply, bill was elected to a job and he just wanted to get things done and, boy, did he get things done in the trade world. normal king on gas to trading relations with china, nafta, helping set the foundation for the world trade organization, bill was at the center of the trade world, as a respected member of congress and as a thought leader on international trade when he retired from public life. the truth is, bill frenzel believed in economic freedom. he believed in our right to buy and sell and compete around the world with as little government interference as possible. he believed families should have choices. but no government anywhere

shall decide what's on that grocery shelf and the price you pay. that was your economic freedom. he knew that while america was if he would see so -- tore them down and gave our minnesota businesses and workers a chance to compete we would not only grow customers around the world, we'd grow jobs here at home. and so his leadership on trade, his fingerprint on all things trade can be found not only here in the united states but in foreign capitals around the world where his counsel was sought by many and he was respected by all. bill's contributions to our nation, to this body will always be remembered, and he leaves a towering trade legacy on which we can all build economic prosperity for generations to come. i hope his family understands how special he is, that so many of us -- you may not have known before, but we all consider ourselves bill's fans and

friends. with that i yield back my time. mr. paulsen: well, i thank the gentleman. as he mentioned the members of the ways and means committee absolutely do like at bill frenzel as an important role model and inspiration as we tackle continued problems and opportunities down the road. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to my colleague from minnesota, mr. ellison, another member, like bill, who is committed to serving the people of minnesota in the fifth congressional district, his constituents. bill frenzel was someone who was always willing to work across the aisle to get things done and accomplish things in washington. i think all of us in the minnesota delegation are thankful for the example that bill set for working together. we see that example still today. i know i worked with congressman ellison on similar issues for our constituents back home. i think we can thank bill frenzel for setting that spirit of cooperation that preceded us both. with that i yield to the gentleman. mr. ellison: i do thank the gentleman for yielding, congressman paulsen, i appreciate you holding down this special order tonight, and i think it's absolutely true.

all of us owe a debt of gratitude to people who walked before us, even if we never had the pleasure of knowing them and meeting them. and i am one who believes i owe bill frenzel even though i never had the opportunity to get to know him. but it doesn't matter because bill frenzel served the people of the state of minnesota. he got up every day, he did his best by them. he has a reputation for reading the bills, understanding the issues, arguing with passion for values that he held in the best interests of the people who he represented. and for that i always had to take my hat off to a man such as bill frenzel. bill frenzel made a good reputation for members of congress who would come to minnesota before i ever got here, before i ever got here, people like bill frenzel made

t so that our colleagues respected us and be hard working like he was because he laid down that path before we ever got here. so i have had the pleasure of ading about bill frenzel since he left us for his reward, and i knew well of him before that but i will simply say that there are many people in this world who we owe a debt great of -- great debt of gratitude, who paved the way and carved a path for us who we never had a chance to thank personally. as a man who believes in reality beyond this one, i just hope that bill frenzel knows that i'm grateful to him and i thank him for his great service while here. i yield back. mr. paulsen: well, i thank the gentleman, because those words he mentioned about being hardworking and thoughtful certainly reflect bill frenzel's spirit, which we need to continue to embody on the

house floor. next, i'd like to yield to the congresswoman, my good friend from minnesota's sixth congressional district, michele bachmann, somebody who like me served after bill frenzel's congressional career came to a conclusion but has benefited also, i think, from bill's service. as we know she will also be leaving our delegation and retiring from congress and we're thankful for her service to minnesota. i know she will look to the example made by bill frenzel and will stay active and policy issues that face our country even after her house tenure comes to an end soon. with that i yield to the gentlewoman. mrs. bachmann: i want to say thank you to our wonderful colleague erik paulsen, who has -- it really is because our former colleague, bill frenzel, set a standard. we'd like to think in minnesota that we're a trend setter and that we've often called ourselves the brainpower state. could the brainpower state have

ever been better exemplified than by a man like bill frenzel? he really was a thinking man's person. he also was an individual who was completely willing to open himself to new ideas from other members. i think it's very evident from the members that we heard from this evening on both sides of the aisle, that this was a complete unfettered outpouring of not just admiration but love , love and appreciation for what this man did. as representative paulsen had just said, i will, too, soon be leaving this house floor. this will be one of the last speeches that i ever give from this privileged well. there is no greater baskin of a few square yards of freedom than this area. we're allowed to do this. i'm allowed to speak here tonight because i was privileged to give -- be given an election certificate, just like bill frenzel. he earned the trust and he

earned the admiration and bill earned the respect of the people in the third district. and one thing i can tell you, bill frenzel never disappointed. he kept faith with those who gave him that election certificate. i know when i first ran for congress, it was in 2006. i began the journey a little bit before then, and as i was in minnesota, usually all of us made our way over to the third congressional district because in the third congressional district resided a lot of the people who paid for the campaigns in the state of minnesota. and everyone knew bill frenzel and so i would have lunch and breakfast and dinner and lunch and breakfast and dinner and coffees and coffees with people in the third congressional district. when it came to finding those who wanted to get behind efforts in minnesota, in running for campaigns on either side of the aisle, it was usually out of the third

congressional district. and this is what i want the family who this evening, for those who are watching across the nation on c-span, it's important to know that bill was so highly loved, his family is here this evening. they are joined here in the gallery, and they're able to hear what every family needs to hear. memories that we admired with, those that we served with and those that we loved. it helps deepen in our memory book the importance of what this life meant. bill meant something. bill contributed. bill was a positive force for good, not just for the 3rd district, not just for minnesota, but for the nation. and it was his character, first of all. that's what i want the family to

know. when i sat down with him coffee after coffee breakfast after reakfast, bill's name came up. people would say, michelle, you know him, don't you? bill is a friend of mine. i heard that over and over and over. bill is a friend of mine. he was a respected colleague and what a people's friend. barthe terms of raising the and setting a standard. and i hope that i was able to live up to that standard from a bill frenzel. i give bill a lot of credit. he served for eight years in the minnesota house of representatives and 20 years here. think of that. 28 years of public service. that's amazing.

i was able to put eight years. think of 20 years here pouring out his life on behalf of this nation. it really is an an accomplishment and during all of those years, it wasn't that he had one or two good years, he had 20 great fabulous years that not only can the family be proud of, but our nation and as a fellow citizen of minnesota, i'm proud of. i want to mention, one thing that bill also did for his nation is he was willing to lay down his life when he served our country in the navy. he was a veteran and i'm thankful for what he did. the holy scriptures say no greater love than no man has this. he put himself on the line so he could do that, thank goodness

his life wasn't required and he came back to serve in this distinguished body and as a distinguished man, he singularly served this body. and so with great humility, to ruthey and the three girls and the grandchildren, be so proud frenzel.gendary bill his name won't be forgotten or his work won't be forgotten and as one who is about to depart, you think about that, did what i did here, did it matter? the speeches i gave, the work i did, the late nights, the early mornings, the weekends, the sacrifices that he made and you as a family made. bill would have said i couldn't have done this without my wife or the girls. he would be the one to say that. i thank you to the family.

mr. speaker, who is in the gallery, what you did to support this legendary man. he made a great contribution and couldn't have done it without you making that sack cry ties. i thank god our country is a better place because of bill frenzel, and i yield back to the colleague from the 3rd district. mr. paulsen: opening himself to new ideas and offering new ideas. and there is sadness but great joy as we reflect on the opportunities. so i thank the gentlelady for her comments. mr. ser, i want to know several members were unable to attend and weren't on the floor tonight but will be submitting statements for the record. congressman paul ryan from wisconsin. he is an ex-chairman of the ways and means committee. i know that congressman ryan

valued his friendship with bill frenzel and sought his counsel on trade and other matters while he was learning his ropes. would often reflect and ask questions. congressman dave camp. may offer some comments and reflektflected on the contributions that our former colleague had made to the institution on the ways and means committee. mr. speaker, on monday, we lost a true leader, a true role model hop represented the absolutely very best in public service. he was a statesman and was an inspiration in many ways to the folks on this house floor and all of us who continue to be focused on tax reform, welfare reform, budget reform and ave.cing a trade aagenda

giving the greatest good to the greatest number of people. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind members that the rules do not permit references to those in the galer cry. under the speaker's announced policy of january , 2013, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, is recognized for 30 minutes. you, mr. thank speaker. mr. speaker, i come to the floor tonight, because i know that in short period of time, it appears that the president of the united states will issue an executive

order related to immigration that could very well be outside the constitutional limits of his authority. and i believe that's going to create a great reaction in this country, mr. speaker. and as important as it may be, it's also going to could inside coincide with the date of the interim agreement with iran will expire, and either renewed or some type of agreement will be reached. and i'm deeply concerned that the importance of this event uld be obscured by the media frenzy that potentially will follow this president's executive order on immigration. i come to the floor tonight to speak to that issue, mr. speaker, because the pursuit of

nuclear weapons by the nation of iran is an issue of the most profound significance to the country and peace and security entire world and seems very important to me that we do not let that issue be obscured by others as important as they may be. mr. speaker, those of us in this body are all too familiar with the endless parade of terror on to the have come world stage in recent years. but if we are startled by the rapid rise of isis and its march across the middle east, during which it has beheaded, raped, crucified and sold into sex slavery, men, women and children alike, if we are concerned about the crushing video of the innocent woman whose hands and feet were tied

to two cars that were drove in opposite directions and ripped her in half or the christians who were beheaded and whose heads were used as soccer balls, if we are outraged at the activities of boko haram against doesn't stand along side its inhuman ideology and its raids and bombings across nigeria, its abduction of young school girls as young as 12, who are said to be raped every day in their months in captivity, if we are shocked at the activities of the attacks who have killed hundreds upon hundreds of civilians and teenaged girls lined up before firing squads as well as the numerous suicide bombings and other such horrific methods, if

we recoil at the groups at houghts of the taliban whose roadside bombings and suicide attacks mark so much of the united states' early struggle in afghanistan, if we recall as so precisely where we were when we learned of al qaeda's attack op september 11, hat claimed thousands of american lives, just one of those senseless attacks by that group, mr. speaker, if we are stunned and outraged at this rise of militant islamic world, then, sir, how will we feel if we allow president obama to stand idly by and watch the ofld's largest state sponsor

terrorism lay hold upon nuclear weapons? mr. speaker, shortly before the midterm elections earlier this month, president obama pened a so-called letter of collaboration to iran's supreme khomeini who a few days ago revealed his nine-step plan on how to wipe israel off of the map. his naive attempt at collaboration with the man whose rmons included lines such as zionist cancer is in the lives. this is one of the recent,

telling glimpse of how out of touch with reality this president truly is as iran continues its sprint towards a nuclear capability. the state department was confronted by the somehow shocking revelation that iran was now defying the agreement by i.r.-5,uranium into the the centrifuge currently available in the world. administration responded that has become characteristic of president obama. we raised that issue with iran as soon as the international atomic energy responded it. they will not continue that activity as cited in the iaea

support. to rephrase that upon learning that the largest state upon sore of terrorism defied an agreement and that iran was conducting activities that could help and obtain nuclear weapons in which to carry its threats against the united states, the obama administration, so sophisticated is their quote, so understanding what is a misunderstood iranian regime, was assured by a promise that the iranians won't do it again. mr. speaker, it would be heartwarming on an elementary hool playground but on the age, it becomes a very grave thing indeed. mr. speaker, this

administration's attempted punitive measures have been so half hearted and ineffective that they have at times actually benefited the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. last week, the organization, united against a nuclear iran, released its updated analysis of the joint plan of action, the plan agreed upon by this administration in the iran regime and the iranian government reported a 6.4 increase in their gross domestic product in the current calendar year compared to that same period last year. according to the central bank of iran, this is the first time that the iranian economy has experienced positive growth in more than two years. iran's inflation is down 24% since july, 2013, from an at the d 45% to 21.1%

end of september. in fact, mr. speaker, the entire iranian stock exchange has seen a 57% increase since roughly this time last year. mr. speaker, how bitterly ironic that this president has done more to benefit the tehran stock exchange than he's done to benefit the new york stock exchange. these statistics directly controwvert assertions made by controwvert assertions made by administration officials, iran would still find itself even deeper in the economic hole. that's what they told us, mr. speaker. and yet let us not forget that iran's economic bounce, which is occurring in the midst of what we're supposedly sanctions

de-- were supposedly sanctions designed to punish its economy, defines an agreement to which neither party can agree upon, the iranian regime has publicly stated its belief that agreement, which specifically references and, quote, inalienable right to use nuclear energy, guarantees iran's right to continue enriching uranium. that's contrary to all of the u.n. council resolutions saying that they had to dismantle such capability. the white house, meanwhile, has stated that it doesn't understand the agreement to mean that. so from iran's perspective, mr. speaker, they have signed on to an agreement that gives them a guaranteed right to ongoing uranium enrichment, giving them a breakout capability that for a nuclear weapons capability, not within years but rather within months.

and then as a reward for signing that agreement which gives them nearly everything they ever wanted, the obama administration has also agreed to lift sanctions, providing a further boom to the iranian economy. mr. speaker, what part of this approach is supposed to jihadist iranian leadership that they should reconsider their current course? is it our concession to their nuclear rights? is it our help in facilitating an economic wind fall for them? -- windfall for them? just last week an "wall street journal" op-ed said it would give them counterparts ranging from law offices, telecom operations, business consultansies, and even art auction houses to explore how capital might be moved into iran as the country transition noose a, quote, postsanctions

environment -- transitions into a, quote, postsanctions environment. this is hardly an iran that fears the effect mr. obama's sanctions have on a very lucrative future. mr. speaker, perhaps we could see some method to this madness if, for example, the president had managed to secure other ncessions from the iranian government, a commitment, perhaps, to address its atrocious human rights record. nstead, the election of hassan raoux juany, a -- hassan raoux annie,, what has transpired has been described by some as an ge, with nearly two executions occurring every day, often performed as a

public spectacle, for such crimes as refusing to convert to islam. in fact, since rouhani's lection last year, over -- lots of crimes have taken place. an american pastor, a citizen of the united states of america remains in prison in iran where he has been tortured for his christian faith. mr. speaker, no matter how may to try, how one may try give this president the benefit of the doubt, there is simply no way to make the obama make any reasonable sense. if the goal has been to keep iran from being able to obtain a nuclear weapon, then mr.

obama has failed. if the goal has been to punish the iranian economy for the regime's radical pursuit of nuclear weapons, then mr. obama has failed. if the goal has been to have an impact on iran's human rights record, then mr. obama has failed. the e goal was to reduce chances of the world's children stepping into the shadow of nuclear terrorism, then mr. obama has failed. this president's only conceivable victory lies in his hope that like a would-be modern richard nixon opening the doors to china, the history will somehow consider mr. obama a hero for blazing new trails into iran and for his mindless refusal to take the iranian regime at its word no matter how many times they have expressed that their real goal is the destruction of america and israel.

mr. speaker, very simply, the bama foreign policy is a gutless political correctness on the global stage. it is the cynical pursuit of legacy without regard for the cause of human freedom. it is the belief that tepid appeals to some hollow concept of tolerance are all that are necessary to tame the most savage of beasts. the entire obama legacy, mr. speaker, rests on the desperate hope that history will hand out an award for blind trust in the promises of jihadists. mr. speaker, former ambassador to the united nations, john bolton, once said, quote, diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance u.s. interests. this president's take on that principle seems to be, quote, u.s. interests be damned as long as everyone else considers

me diplomatic, unquote. it is for all of the above reasons that i am pleased to join my colleague in the senate, senator ted cruz, in introducing h.r. 5709, the sanction iran safeguard america act of 2014. the bill would eliminate many of mr. obama's waiver authorities over sanctions and would impose severe sanctions on iran once again. included in the legislation are sanctions on iranian crude oil, oil transportation, financial institutions, petroleum, including sanctions on the purchase acquisition, sale, transport and marketing of petroleum products and the iranian automotive sector, among others. it includes a prohibition on funding for any additional negotiations with iran until a joint resolution of approval by congress is passed. certifying that all

iranian-held american prisoners are released, the iaea says they dismantled the nuclear programs, ceased activities and released stockpiles of enriched ukraine yam. the central bank is no longer considered a money laundering concern. and they have renounced their state sponsorship of terrorism designation by admitting to participation in terrorist acts . mr. speaker, i would say to this body that we must legislatively fill in so far as possible this vacuum of leadership left by a president who is asleep at the wheel while radical terrorists move toward placing their fingers on the nuclear trigger under his paralyzed stare. and with that, mr. speaker, i ould yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: we got word earlier this afternoon that president obama intends to

issue an oral decree followed good tten decree as any monarch would indicating that he's decided to change the law regarding immigration. article here from "the discusses -- t" has a quote from secretary jay johnson, the secretary of homeland security, which he says, quote, legislative action is always prefemble, unquote, johnson said but, quote, we have waited for congress to act and the congress has not acted, the president has waited, end quote. and that's what leaders in places like venezuela, other -- many places historically where that statement's been made.

e waited for parliament, legislature, congress to change the law. they didn't do as we dictated to congress they had to do and therefore we decided to change the law. this president is creating a constitutional crisis, and it happens when a president is allowed to continue pushing the envelope and pushing the envelope and exceeding the velope and you have an incourt and juryible opinion incorrigible e -- written by the supreme court on obamacare which is the height of hypocrisy, how the supreme court majority could say on age 14 and 15 that the

mandated penalty in obamacare was not a tax, the supreme court said if it were a tax, of course, under the indian junction statute many decades old we would not have jurisdiction, plaintiffs wouldn't have standing. but since clearly the penalty is just that it's a penalty, then it's not a tax because if it were a tax we wouldn't have jurisdiction, plaintiffs wouldn't have standing and we would all be out of luck and we wouldn't be able to issue an opinion. but since it's not a tax, a penalty, then we'll go forward and be able to issue an opinion and then you get over about 40 pages and the opinion says, since it is a tax, after all, even though 40 pages or so ago it wasn't, now we found that it is and therefore it's constitutional.

so we have had all three branches help create a constitutional crisis. the president on one hand, by png -- continuing to overstep the boundaries of the constitution as he usurps more and more power, the supreme court, by issuing decisions that are nonsensical and and we if we don't continue to not use the powers of the purse to stop the lawlessness by this administration. the supreme court's had opportunities to stop it. they've stopped it on many occasions. et a record for numbers of supreme court opinions ruling against the administration

anonymously so the president does have that part of his egacy going. t apparently the legacy is continues to be stretched to the bounds of absurdity. "washington post" says -- this was from today -- president obama will announce thursday that he will use his executive authority to expand temporary protections to millions of undocumented immigrants, according to several individuals who have been briefed on the decision. obama will travel to las vegas on the heels of that announcement to rally support for his initiative on friday. shouldn't be a surprise. hile the president slept in -- four heroes, including one ambassador in benghazi was

killed, he got up and got to las vegas. now he's going to announce this constitutional crisis he's creating by deciding to egislate and then take off for las vegas again. gambling with the jobs of americans as he goes. according to a senior democratic official, even before final confirmation of the president's plans, advocates are readying events to promote the immigration policy. quote, we hear there will be a prime time thursday evening announcement to preview a full unveiling in vegas, unquote.

there was an email sent to reporters on wednesday morning. quote, can folks begin to work and plan, watch parties for thursday and friday, unclear whether thursday night content will be celebratory but friday is where we need a lot of energy guaranteed. and that is while the president is in las vegas gambling away america's jobs. obama launched his push for reform in january, 2013, outlining a plan that will allow many of the nation's 11 million to gain citizen ship. the article goes on to to say, johnson, said the administration has concluded it has wide

latitude to take action, quote, it can't be that we aren't allowed to fix our broken immigration system, unquote. quote, and we will, unquote. you see, that's what creates the constitutional crisis, mr. speaker. jefferson once recommended that we shouldn't bring up a bill for a vote until it's had a year on file for people to review. that would relimb nature all hese legislating by crises situations. we have seen crises generated. we know the former chief of staff for the president of the quiped, you once don't want to let a good emergency go to waste. this is the time to u

surp ngressional -- you congressional authority. now, the sad thing is, the crisis is not as bad right now as it has been in the past. any time the president talked about amnesty or legal status, border patrolmen have said, but the pointed out any time president, talks br amnesty or legal status, the numbers of people coming in illegally, the number of people dying, people dying trying to get in increases. the numbers of people wishing to get lost in the masses from central america and mexico coming in from countries where

radical islamists' activities abound, they are coming in in greater numbers. so interestingly, the white has the shown it ability to foment a crisis unilaterally and then by fomenting the crisis unilaterally, jiff the crisis authority and no one else in the constitution. there's an article from my dear , iend, senator ted cruz constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation and executive amnesty for

illegal immigrants unilaterally did he creed by the white house would undermine the rule of law. there are dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch. congress should heed those words as the president threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally. to be clear, the dispute over executive amnesty is not between president obama and republicans in congress. it is a dispute between president obama and the american people. the democrats suffered historic losses in the mid-term elections largely over the prospect of the president's executive amnesty. president obama was correct. his policies were on the ballot across the nation in 2014. the elections were a referendum on amnesty and the voters

soundly rejected it. there was no ambiguity. undeterred, president obama appears to be going forward. it is lawless and unconstitutional and defiant and angry at the american people. if he acts by executive dictate, president obama will be -- will not be acting as a president but as a monarch. thankfully the founders of our constitution gave the congress tools to reign in tools of power. he cannot act alone, he must work with congress. he may not get everything he wants, but the constitution constitution. and a monarch decrees, dictates fiat power, ough

which as ted cruz points out. when the president embraces the tactics of a monarch, it is incumbent upon congress to stop it. and he goes on to make good points. but it is important that someone eak for the tens of millions of american citizens who had a dream, who hoped to are work, who would love to provide for their families, who hoped to have enough to pay back student loans, who hoped to buy their children bicycles for christmas, but they are out of work, they lost work. oh, i know, the books vr gotten cooked and we're told that the

unemployment rate is dramatically better, but the reason, a big reason that the american voters did not indicate that at the polls is they don't feel it. and the reason they don't feel that the employment numbers are better is because they personally know they are not. they are not better. is n fact, this article from september, september 5, om cns news, a record 92 oldern -- 92,269,, 16 and did not participate in the labor force in august. as the labor force participation rate matched a 36-rate low of --

according to the bureau of labor and statistics. the labor force participation rate has been as low as 62.8% in six of the last 12 months. but prior to last october, had not fallen that low since 1978, , hypothetically was during the august, i say sarcasticically for those on the left who don't know sarcasm, days august days of the during president carter's glorious years as president. the article goes on, b.l.s. employment statistics are based on the civilian non-institutional population, which consists of all people 16

or older who are not in the military or an institution, such as a prison, hospital or nursing home. in august, the non-institutional population was 248,229,according to the bureau of labor and tatistics. 155,955,000 participate in the labor force, being they either had a job or had actively sought one in the past four weeks. the 92 million who did not participate in the labor force or those in the civilian noninstitutional population who did not have a job and did not

actively seek one in the last four weeks, because they did not seek a job, then the administration did not count them as unemployed. mr. speaker, as the president intends to announce tomorrow and party in las vegas going into more detail about how many americans are going to be displaced from their jobs by people the president is going to provide amnesty to, somebody needs to be speaking up for that union member that would love to pay union dues if he just had a job, or for the single moms that have approached me in tears saying they got forced into part-time work because of obamacare and the change in the

law that was entailed in the there are people hurting across america that are american citizens that once had a dream. maybe we should label the president's unconstitutional actions as the american citizen any typeler instead of of dreamer act. we've seen statistics that indicate that possibly less than 10% of people who have come into this country illegally are actually working. provides sident

amnesty for millions of people who are illegally here. i hope that he will also provide an apology to the hispanics, people from different places around the world that my office visas,ng to help achieve achieve citizenship legally, some taking years. and i'm sure the president is not going to feel like apologizing. apparently, the indication is he wants to celebrate the unconstitutional actions he will take in las vegas. but someone in the government needs to apologize to the american people that 92 million-plus americans aren't looking for a job anymore when

they are eligible for a job, they could have jobs. most of them would like to have jobs but they have given up. they have lost their dreams, under this administration. and as the president announces making millions of more people who have come illegally eligible to take american citizens' jobs in the next two days, i hope that our congress on both sides of the aisle will do what's right and say wait a minute, secure the border, mr. esident, that is what is exclusively is within your control. the supreme court has said, states' local authorities, they can't secure the board. it is up to the administration and the mere fact that this administration has turned their back on protecting americans

from the illegal aliens that have come in and raped americans, thank god, most of them don't do those things, but for the millions of people who have been the victims of crimes by people who have come in illegally, those crimes would never have occurred if we had had an administration that secured the border so people who came across with criminal records in their past in -- and the countries they came from, would not be allowed in here. and those crimes they committed here in america would not have committed and those that have been deported and came back after they committed crimes here and commit more crimes, as i personally saw as a judge, happened in smith county, texas, those wouldn't be happening if we had an administration that

would properly secure the border. clinton administration didn't do it. the bush administration didn't do it. and now this administration has set records for how poorly they have prevented people from oming in illegally, the damage that's been done to american citizens, crushing dreams, taking dreams. . i hope and pray the president will remember his oath, that this precursor that was released today about the damage the president wants to do to american citizens who are trying to find jobs, that he'll have second thoughts and not do it. mr. speaker, i hope the american people who spoke very loudly and clearly when they let the to vote will

president know in person, through email, through phone calls, that american citizens still need jobs. why don't you help the economy get going stronger so that we need more people to come in and have those jobs? our oath is to the american people. and when you have nearly 1/3 of the united states or getting close to 1/2 of people eligible to work that have even completely given up on looking for jobs, the economy is not , d, americans are suffering and now the president wants to bring in -- just provide amnesty to people who will then be able to compete and put american citizens out of work.

it really is heartbreaking. now, if you stay aboard say an air force one and you only go to rallies or golf courses where everybody's doing great, wealthy, you only talk to high-tech industry people that are just knocking down billions of dollars, it's easy to start feeling like things are going great. st. augustine, texas, shelby county, texas, nacagdoches y, , greg harrison county county, smith county, wood unty, those are counties all

within my district, and in some of those counties people are really getting desperate. they don't need to compete with five million more people for jobs. they just would like a job themselves. if the obama administration will take the foot off of the throat of this economy, will help us roll back and repeal obamacare, got notice again of another hospital in my district this week, they're in gilmer where my nephew was born, gilmer hospital, where my nephew was born, is now going o be closed. they're not going to be able to handle the continued cuts that obamacare has created. there are numerous reasons.

but that is a death nail. hospitals are closing, people are hurting. so for the between 92 million and 93 million people that have , how sad. pe because the obama administration will not secure our borders. i want immigrants coming in. i love the fact that we allow more legal immigrants in than anybody. i love that. that is wonderful. but when you don't have secure borders and millions come in, millions upon millions, then you're moving toward a day when nobody's going to want to come in because you didn't have a logical immigration process.

they overwhelm the system, they broke the system and now that shining light on a hill has gone out. we're moving in that direction. military becoming too small to adequately protect us. people around the world in hostile environments deciding that america can be pushed around. radical islamists deciding this is the time to move. that they ng out have an administration that can be duped over and over again until they have the atomic weapons and the ability to carry them, which they already got. they can do it with ships. enough to take out the great satan, which is the united states, according to them, and the little satan, israel. and this president is going to have a good time out in las vegas.

ou know, las vegas can be fun. but not when the president says . 's going to sign a law wouldn't it be ironic if he decided to sign it at cesar's palace? because the real cesar's palace used to see that kind of thing on a regular basis. you know, a dictator, a cesar, just signed a law as he saw fit. but in this case, you would think a cesar would not sign a law that would provide the ability displace millions of americans who have jobs, and force them into eventuality where 92 millions are, they've given up hope, they've given up

on their dreams. if you believe the bible as i do, it makes clear, you know, that the government is here to protect people. to protect against evil. to encourage good conduct. hat means following the law. you provide a protected environment in which people can be peace makers and be meek and loving and kind and turn the other cheek, but that is not for the government. the government's role is to force the law as it is and may god plant the seeds of wisdom in the right people in this administration. so they'll quit harming americans who just want a job. with that, mr. speaker, i yield ack.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. gohmert: at this time i would adjourn that we do hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house s

>> this is actually has british lynn yanl. it comes from parliament hundreds of years ago. if you've ever seen the proceedings of the house of commons they say something similar, the right honorable gentleman. which has a similar meaning.

it's a thinly veiled approach to try to be plight to somebody that you don't -- polite to somebody that you don't really care for. at least in the house of representatives where there are 435 members, a lot of these men and women don't even know who each other are, when they're saying my good friend, it's kind of disingenuous. i would say in the senate, the case of the senate, there's only 100. they probably know each other, they might not like each other anymore. but at least there's a better chance of them being at least acquaintances, if not actually good friends. >> journalist david mark on the world of political terminology, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> earlier today at the white house, president obama signed the child care and development block grants act. that measure was recently approved by the house and senate and aims to help low income families pay for child care. here's a quick look at the bill signing. >> one of my top priorities is making sure that we've got

affordable, high-equality child care and early childhood education for our young people cross the country. today i am pleased to sign a bill into law that is going to bring us closer to that goal. that's the re-authorization of the child care and development block grant program. i want to thank the bipartisan members of congress who are here today. this law's going to do several important things. it's going to improve the quality of child care by requiring more training for caregivers. and more enrichment for children. it's going to improve child safety by instituting background checks for staff and better inspection of facilities. it's going to give working parents a little more peace of mind. if you receive subsidies to pay for your child care, you know that if you get a raise on your job or you find a job, your kids aren't automatically losing their care because of your status change midstream. i first proposed legislation

that accomplished some of these goals back in 2010, when we couldn't get it through congress. we began a rulemaking process to try to do this through executive efforts and the h.h.s. secretary is here because the legislation is now passed. we are actually ending the rulemaking process because we've now got a law and we're going to be able to focus on implementing the law. and i want to thank all the legislators here. it's a good step forward, it shows that democrats and republicans, when it comes to making sure our kids are getting the best possible education, are united and that's good for our kids and that's good for our country. with that i'm going to make sure that i sign this properly using all these pens.

>> i love signing bills. i like doing it more often. what do you think, guys? yeah, good. >> i would note for the record that this is the 21st bill from the committee that lamar and i chair and are ranking member. 21st bill that's signed into law in the last 22 years. >> that's because you and lamar are some pretty productive legislators who actually focus on getting stuff done and we're very proud of you and we're proud of all the legislators who are here today. congratulations, everybody. [applause] thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> tomorrow on "washington journal," daniel newhowser of the national journal d looks at the house republican leadership that was announced earlier this week. as well as incoming committee chairman for the 114th congress

. after that, retired colonel cedric laden discusses efforts to change how the national security agency collects and keeps phone records. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live thursday and every day at 7:00 .m. eastern on c-span. >> and now more from the white house with press secretary josh earnest at today's briefing. he talked about a range of issues, including president obama's address to the nation tomorrow night on immigration. he also talked about the keystone x.l. pipeline and the ongoing dangers of isis and ebola. >> as you saw earlier, there's a video on the white house facebook page where the president announced that he is going to deliver an address to the nation tomorrow night, where he will be laying out the details of his executive action

to repair our broken immigration system. i'm sorry? >> [inaudible] >> was that a thank you to zuckerburg? >> this is not the time for us to reach hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in under an hour. it will reach more than 1.2 million users on facebook, 227,000 people have viewed it, another 12,000 people had shared it. it's a pretty effective way of the president communicating with the american public about his intention to try to take the steps that he believes necessary to fix as much of the broken immigration system as is possible. the president also mentioned in plans to travel to las vegas, nevada, on friday. he'll be speaking at a high school in las vegas. many of you have been there because you covered a speech that the president gave there back in january of 2013. where he laid out the principles that he believes should be incorporated into any sort of bipartisan compromise, commonsense immigration reform proposal. you'll also recall the united states senate passed such a proposal in bipartisan fashion

in the summer of 2013 and we've been waiting ever since for house republicans to block their opposition and allow that piece of legislation to come up for a vote in the house. one last thing i'll mention before i get to your questions. prior to delivering this speech tomorrow night, the president will be hosting a dinner tonight at the white house for some democrats from the house and senate to talk through this immigration executive action that he's preparing to take as well as a couple of other priorities that he sees on the horizon. with all that, we have a lot to talk about. darlene, i'll let you begin the conversation. > thank you. >> i think he stole a little bit of my thunder. >> good. >> can you explain a little bit about why the president is going to announce immigration? >> the president's interested in including as many people across the country in this broader debate about fixing our

broken immigration system. as i mentioned before, there is a bipartisan proposal. that already passed through the senate. that we've been waiting for more than a year for house republicans to allow to come up for a vote. we're confident that if that legislation were voted on in the house of representatives, it would pass with bipartisan support. so now that republicans in the house have indicated an unwillingness to drop their opposition, and they've also indicated or refused to indicate any sort of willing tons bring up immigration reform legislation in the next congress, the president decided it's time to move forward and the president wants to talk to as many americans as possible about how he intends to move forward. 8:00 p.m. on a thursday evening is an opportunity for people who are sitting in front of their televisions or sitting in front of their tablets or in front of their smartphones to hear directly from the president about what he's decided and how and why he wants to move forward. that explains the reasoning for tomorrow's time frame.

>> do you have any of the names of the lawmakers who have been invited to dinner, who's dumbing? >> about 18 members from the house and the senate, we'll get that you full list. >> [inaudible] >> democrats. that's what i said at the beginning of the briefing. >> yesterday you said that legal opinions for justifying what the president's going to do, that that was talked about. will that be released? >> there will be material related to the legal justification for the president's executive action that will be released tomorrow and will have -- we'll have able opportunity to discuss that. what i'm point out and maybe we'll have the opportunity to talk about this more in the briefing, i think you'll find that it's consistent with actions taken by presidents of both parties to deal with the immigration system, presidents from eisenhower, kennedy, nixon, reagan, both bushes, took executive action to deal with the -- with what they are

characterized as problems with the broken immigration system and they took steps unilaterally using their -- the authority of the executive branch to solve those problems. what you'll see in terms of the president's announcement will be generally consistent with that exercise of executive authority. >> so the speech tomorrow night, then he goes to the high school on friday. will there be more stops by the president next week? is thursday and friday the extent of it or will there be more stops with the president talking about this? >> i do anticipate that we'll be having a number of -- a rather lengthy discussion about this, about this decision. and the president is looking forward to this debate. the president feels very confident both in the steps that he's taken. he also feels very confident in knowing that these steps are going to be good for the country. that despite some of the concerns that have been raised by republicans, we know that

these steps are going to strengthen national security, they're going to strengthen security at the border, they are going to strengthen our economy and they will do something to address a lingering problem which is the millions of people who currently live in this country who can come out of the shadows, can get right with the law, they can pay their taxes, they can go back to the line, go to the back of the line, but also become fully contributing members of communities larn and small all across the country. this is an important step that will have a pretty profound impact on the lives of millions of people who live here. and we'll have an opportunity over the course of the next couple of days obviously to detail. t this in more but i would certainly not rule out that in the coming weeks that the president would take additional trips or host other events to continue talking about these very important issues. roberta.

>> once the president launches comprehensive reform which requires bipartisan action on the hill, why wouldn't he invite some republicans and talk to them about it too? >> sadly if it were only dinner that was required to get republicans to act in bipartisan fashion, then we'd have passed bipartisan compromise immigration reform legislation quite some time ago. you'll recall that the president convened a lunch just two weeks ago where he invited democratic and republican leaders of the house and senate to come and talk to him about a range of priorities including immigration reform. so tonight's dinner will be another opportunity to talk about immigration reform, certainly not the first opportunity and it won't be the last. >> is he worried about some democrats being nervous about this move and siding with republicans on whatever republicans decide to do to try to stop it? >> the short answer to your question he is no. er answer to your

question is, i do think that there is, again, once we have an opportunity to talk about some of the details related to the executive action that the president has chosen to take, it will become clear that there's a solid legal foundation for the president taking those actions. and, again, we do anticipate that there will be republican opposition to what the president announces. but the president, it was pretty clear when he talked about this, as he mentioned at the news conference that he hosted in burma, he noted that we shouldn't allow disagreement over a single issue to become a deal breaker over every issue. and i think this is a pretty good example. we shouldn't allow a disagreement over immigration to prevent us from finding common ground where it may exist on other issues. and i think the fact that the president signed a bipartisan child care bill in the oval it was attended by democrats and republicans, is an indication that there's common ground, we should act on it. >> is he worried about a

shutdown or defunding actions? >> week of seen pretty definitive statements from republican leaders indicating they would not shut down the government and i take them at their word. >> i heard it said that the president will go as far as he can under the law. obviously we don't know exactly what's going to be in this. but would you stand by that and has the president decided to go as far as he can under the law? >> we will have an opportunity to talk about that a little bit more. i think it is fair to say that what the president asked the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security to do is to examine what was in the law and to compile or at least formulate a strategy for maximizing the authority that's vested in the executive branch, to try to address as many of these problems as possible. there may be some people who, based on their own reading of the law, believe that the president could have done more. that's why i hesitate to sort of use the formulation that you repeated there. but i do think that by any measure, upon reviewing the

actions that the president has chosen to take, and in -- an impartial observer would conclude that the president has sought to maximize the use of his authority to try to solve these problems. and frankly i think it's what the american people expect the president of the united states to do. to use every element of authority that's available to solve problems. >> you mentioned sort of the way i originally said the question he was kind of broad. here's something more specific. if the president had wanted or does want to expand this to parents of dreamers, from the review that was done, and you know the results of that large scale review, does that fit under the law? we're not talking about what the president is going to do, but does that one element fit within his balance under the law? >> i do want to reserve comment on any of these sort of proposals that have been floated so far until the president's had the opportunity to make his announcement and then we can spend some more time delving into what the president chose to do and what was the legal justification for

doing so and whether or not the legal justification may have existed for him to take other steps. we can talk about that a little bit more easily once the full compliment of the president's proposal has been laid out. >> got it. what the president will announce tomorrow night, will that be able to survive members of -- attempts from members of congress to defund certain elements? do you think it's defunds-proof in any way or is it going to be susceptible to those kind of actions from congress? >> we'll have to see what republicans choose to do. i do, however, feel confident that there is strong support on capitol hill for addressing many of the problems that the president hopes to solve by using executive authority. we certainly anticipate that we'll have a robust debate about these issues and i don't anticipate, again, based on the public comments of senator mcconnell and others, that there's going to be a government shutdown that results from this. >> lastly, already, again, we

know that it hasn't been announced and you can't go into details but already groups are coming out and saying it doesn't go far enough. so how do you respond to that? ahead of it even being announced. >> i'm sure that you can comb through your inbox and find white ring -- right wing groups saying that the president has already gone too far. there are equal offenders on each side of the aisle here who are commentsing on a proposal that none of them have seen. we'll have plenty of opportunity to debate these issues once the president's made an announcement. alexis. >> can you tell us what would the implementation attached to the president's action? >> we'll have more details on the implementation once it's been roll out. >> can you talk about the president's efforts to implement this through d.h.s. and how long it will take for -- daca took about two months, i think, roughly, to implement. how long will this implementation be needed? >> once we can look at the

proposals that the president has laid out, we can talk about the implementation. >> what kind of briefing does the white house have for lawmakers and maybe the business community that would be very interested in their ability to hire or to employ? >> as many of you know, we've been covering this closely, the white house has been engaged in a wide range of conversations as the president's been considering what steps to take. those conversations have been rooted in primarily helping to understand or helping the white house to have a clear understanding of how specific decisions might have an impact on specific communities or in some cases even specific businesses. so, there is a desire to have that kind of understanding and as a result there have been a number of conversations that have been convened by members of the president's staff to discuss some of these issues. there are a number of conversations that are ongoing today and will continue tomorrow related to communicating to lawmakers and other interested parties in washington, d.c., about what the president's decided. but the one place where people can expect to get a detailed

rundown on the president's proposal will be in the context of the speech that the president will deliver tomorrow. >> when we get briefed or information, will there be budgetary numbers attached to it? will we be able to understand tomorrow what the projected cost or budgetary affect will be? >> i don't know if those numbers will be produced but you certainly are welcome to ask about them. we'll see what we can.net you tomorrow. -- what we can get you tomorrow. >> would the president veto a government funding bill that included provisions to prevent him from taking this action? >> it certainly would not be a proposal that the president would support, obviously. but i think we would evaluate, you know, these individual proposals on the merits before we made a final decision. we'll see. i think it will also depend a little bit on what republicans would choose to do in that situation as well. >> so there's been a lot of

talk ofs saying they would fund the -- of republicans saying they would fund the government but not allow this to go forward. using that as the leverage. you don't rule out the president signing into law something that would undo the very thing he's going to announce tomorrow night? >> i think that seems -- i think we'll have to sorts of evaluate for ourselves what sort of proposals republicans put forward. i wouldn't want to hazard a guess at this point. it won't surprise you to hear that the proposals that are floated like that are not the kind of proposals he would we would support. >> senator ted cruz has already reacted to this. >> let me guess. >> he said that the republican senate that will be sworn in in january should not confirm a single nominee, executive or judicial, outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists. what would be your reaction to

senator cruz? >> i think what i would merely say is that the president talked a lot over the last couple of weeks about the lesson that he drew from the last midterm election. it was the president's view that the american people were interested in their s in washington, d.c., making progress on behalf of the american people. and that doesn't mean folding on principle. but it does mean trying to find common ground and putting the interests of the nation ahead of partisan political ambition or political interests. and that certainly is a message that the president has taken to heart and we hope that democrats and republicans will do the same. >> so, again, i know that this has been addressed here, but given exactly what you said there, about the message that votes are sending in the election, doesn't it send the wrong message to have the president bring only democrats here tonight to talk about what he's going to do? i mean, you said this action would not -- will close the

possibility of congress acting to do something more broadly on a bipartisan fashion, so why not start here? bring republicans in and say, doing, here 'm are the details and i know you don't approve of how i'm doing it, but let's start to work together on something else? > i certainly would rule out those kind of conversations occurring. but we've had any number of countless conversations with republicans, both -- mostly in the house, but also in the senate prior to the passage of the senate bill. trying to find areas where democrats and republicans could find common ground to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform. the senate succeeded in that effort. and there were 14 senate republicans who joined just about every, if not every, democratic senator to support a commonsense proposal. we would like to see the house operate in similar fashion. they've had almost a year and a half now to do exactly that. and they would if that bill were allowed to come up for a vote. but the house republican leadership has concluded that

they don't want that bill to come up for a vote. probably because they oppose it and fear it would pass if the house did vote on it. you can describe the people who are having dinner with the president as democrats, that would be true. you can also describe them as people who are genuine supporters of commonsense immigration reform, that would also be true and that will be the principle topic of discussion at dinner. we should not, however, allow disagreement over this issue to be a deal breaker over all of the others, including the appointment of highly qualified professionals to serve an important role in government. >> john boehner said publicly many times that the president taking this action would poison the well not only in terms of imdwration reform in this next congress -- immigration reform in this next congress but a whole range of other issues. it would make cooperation with the white house very difficult on issues far beyond immigration. i'm told he also said that message directly to the president when they had lunch here. did the president take john boehner at his word when he

said that the president taking this action will poy poison the well on a whole range of issues? >> i think you highlight what i think is a pretty stark difference in approach between the house republican leadership at least and those of us who work here for the democratic president. you know, we've seen house republicans pass, what, 40, 50, 60 different measures to defund or repeal obamacare as they call it. and the fact is, it would be easy for the president after maybe even the fourth or fifth time to say, well, look, if you guys are just going to be so focused on defunding obamacare, then that knows reason that we can cooperate or compromise or get anything done for the american people. there is no suggestion by me or anybody else who worked at the white house that repeated efforts by republicans to repeal the president's signature initiative was somehow poisoning the well. we just chopped it -- chalked it up to a mere difference of opinion. that difference of opinion happens to rest on a piece of legislation that's ensured that

millions of people have gotten health care, that we've slowed the growth in health care costs and a bunch of patient protections that are popular with the american public. so we can have legitimate differences of opinion, and i'm not disagreing with those differences of opinion existing, they obviously do, the question is, what are you going to do in reaction to them? the reaction here is, would err not going to allow those differences -- we're not going to allow those differences of opinion to interfere with us trying to find common ground. >> did the president believe john boehner when he said that if you go forward and take this executive action, we will not be able to work with you, not just on immigration, but on a whole range of other issues, and it will poison the well, does he believe the speaker when he said that? >> i think that the president always takes the speaker at his word. but i think the president also is willing to allow the speaker to change his mind. >> following up on that. let's say speaker boehner doesn't change his mind and says that this is a deal breaker for a host of other issues, i realize that's the

wrong approach that you feel to take, but if that is the case, this immigration reform that the president is so intent on doing tomorrow, is it worth it, is it a big enough issue as far as legacy, as far as all of the goals of this administration, is it worth that gamble, is it worth that risk? >> this is something that i've said before. let me pose it to you again. this is the way that the president sees it. that sitting before him right now is a pretty fundamental question. right now we've got bipartisan legislation that passed through the senate. we have house republicans who have blocked it for more than a year and a half, who have indicated that they're going to block it through the rest of the year and have also indicated in answering a question he from one of your colleagues that they're not really willing to commit to bringing it up next year. so the president sits at his desk wondering, should i wait for republicans to take an action that they say they oppose, or should i use all of the authority that the american people have elected me to exercise to make progress for

the american people? in a way that would be good for our national security, in a way that would be good for strengthening scurets at the border, in a way that would be good for job creation, would be good for economic growth and good for middle class families, in a way that would be consistent with our values as a nation of immigrants, when you sort of snack up -- stack up all the profes and cons there, -- the pros and cons there, the president often says that only tough decisions actually reach his desk. this might be the one exception. >> isn't one of the cons at least the threat of serious inaction when it comes to nominations, when it comes to a budget, when it comes to a host of other issues that certainly are important to both republicans and the president? >> i guess that is predicated on at least a premise that republicans have been exceedingly cooperative with the administration when it comes to the budget and nominations and other things too. it may just be a difference in degree here, not in substance.

>> did you do some kind of analysis on how many illegal immigrants you thought would come out of the shadows to take advantage of this temporary relief? >> what i anticipate we'll be able to do once you see the proposals tomorrow is to talk you to a little bit about the number of people who could be or would be affected by this. >> i'm asking a slightly different question. not how many could be, how many are willing to do something, in other words, identify themselves as illegal, which is what coming out of the shadows is, knowing that the next president could take this temp rary deportation relief away from them and deport them. i'm just saying it's a risk. i wonder if you considered that. >> it certainly is something that was considered when the president made his announcement about daca, about deferred action for childhood arrivals. this is analysis that was done about the population of people who would be affected by this -- by that decision, there was a discussion about the number i eople who were likely --

think they call it a take-up rate, the number of people who would make themselves available this decision. and i would expect that a similar analysis would be conducted in this instance as well. but we'll have more to say about this tomorrow. >> i have a question completely unrelated. what is the administration's position on lifting the 40-year-old ban on exporting u.s. crude oil. there's a ban on it since the 197s to. i seriously don't know. >> just to make sure that i get it right, why don't we get back to you. >> that would be great. >> mike. >> i was really stressed by your first answer to jonathan's first question. it sounded like when you were saying, john was asking you, well, hey, if there's legislation to defund this, would you veto he it and you were saying, we'll see how it's written.

it sounds to me like what you're saying is this is the order but we'd be willing to negotiate with republicans over the scale and scope of this order short of them passing new immigration legislation. am i fairly interpreting your response? otherwise why would you say we'll wait and see in >> mostly because i didn't want to comment on a hypothetical. i didn't want to rule anything out. obviously we would take a very dim view of any efforts by republicans to try to curtail the president's executive authority using a rider on a budget proposal. >> is there room here afterwards, after the republicans scream and cry about this, for them to come back and say, well, we're not going to pass legislation brought, we might do this for you if you would scale back this a little bit in this way or that way or add this or add that? >> i think the president is

always not just open but interested in conversations with republicans who have a genuine interest in trying to make progress in the kinds of priorities that the president has tieded -- identified and that the american people support. it's certainly open to conversations. i can't imagine a scenario where the president would be interested in curtailing his own authority in a way that didn't have the kinds of positive -- >> it would be curtailing your use of your authority. >> that's true. this is a difficult one principally because it's a hypothetical situation. so let me just say, i think the one thing that i can say that's rooted in fact and will continue to be true is that we're always going to be open to conversations with republicans who have a genuine interest in trying to strengthen or improve on policy priorities that the president has identified and the american people support. >> following up on that last

question. just so i understand what the priorities are, because yes it's a hypothetical in a general sense but it may actually not be that hypothetical. if republicans put a rider on a resolution in which a lot of other very important funding mechanisms of the government, ebola, isis, everything else, are there, and this action is the one item that jeopardizes all the rest, which is the president's more preferred priority? >> if something like that occurs, we'll have ample opportunity to examine it and debate it and discuss it. if that happens i'm sure we will. i'm not going to weigh he in on it from here. >> by the president's own timing, he intended to do this, made a public promise to do this in september and then delayed it. signaling to everyone that the timing of this is completely fluid. it is discretionary. it's at the president's discretion. >> that's right. so in that sense, putting it up

against a continuing resolution and a government shutdown scenario is also a discretionary decision of the president's. it seems like he's intentionally putting it right next to these other things so i'm just wondering if that's a signal he's trying to send that this is more important than anything else that has to get done before the president and congress wrap up this legislative agenda. >> that's not the intent. the fact of the matter is we'd be happy if the congress would pass a budget last year when they were supposed to as opposed to just moving forward with this continuing resolution, that they kicked the can to the middle of december. so, again, this is not an effort to provoke a standoff here. in fact, the fact that republicans have refused to act on immigration reform is why we are where we are anyway. >> if he had done it in september, then you had a c.r. in late september. they are mostly aligned with one another, these two things now, by the president's own

choice. >> again, it was congress' choice to pass a c.r. that only extended the budget through december 11. are both parties responsible for these things are happening in relative close proximity? probably. regardless of when the president had decided to move forward with this action, i'm confident that there were plenty of senators who would have found a way to raise a are you cuss about this using legislative process. i'm sure that will occur this time too. i think that would have happened regardless of which season of the year that this decision had been announced. >> in that context, this authority is negotiable within a conversation about keeping the government open, is that fair? >> i don't want to leave you that impression. that's a hypothetical scenario about would the president negotiate. that would, a, assume that republicans are willing to negotiate after we spent a lot of time talking about they won't be because the president took this action. i don't want to go too far down this hypothetical road.

i will just say, as a practical matter a couple of things. one is that the president is always open to conversations with republicans. and two, he's always open to those conversations when they are in pursuit of strengthening policies that he thinks are good for the country and that the american people support. >> very simple mo block-headed question. is there something the president signed, is this a new order, does it have a number attached to it, or is it something in which he merely communicates to his bureaucracy a set of guidelines that implement authorities in a different way? >> we'll have more to explain about this tomorrow. >> can you even -- it's a legitimate question to ask. >> but once the president has made these decisions, we can talk more. let me clarify. e want to announce these decisions and then talk about how they are effectively implemented. >> you can't even explain the mechanics of it. >> i can once the proposal's

been laid out. i want people to read into the description of the mechanics and assume that they know something about what the president's decided. >> i believe you suggested a couple of times now that one of the goals of the president is to encourage people to come out the shadows with this executive order. it was my understanding that the way to do that was to pass a citizenship that republicans to. amnesty and object so given that i think the president's made clear that he cannot offer people that, do you really expect this order to encourage people to come out of the shadows? >> again, once the president has ruled out exactly what he proposes to do, then we can have a discussion about what that intended affect would be. >> the let me ask you this. to t possible that the path

citizenship mr. obama insisted be part of a comprehensive immigration reform is not necessary to lure people out of the shadows? >> again, we'll have an opportunity to discuss this once the president's made clear what exactly he intends to do. ok? >> so if he's meeting tonight with the democrats, do we assume that this is a done deal, the decision has been made, and it's not likely to change between now and when he speaks to the american people tomorrow night? >> it's my understanding that there continue to be a couple of lingering policy decisions that have to get lock down. but for all intents and purposes, the president will be ready to move forward when he gets his address tomorrow. >> are those related to legal questions or is he waiting to hear what the democrats' reaction to it is tonight? >> i see he what you're asking now. i think i may have misunderstood your first question. i would anticipate over the course of the dinner the

president will have a robust opportunity to speak to them about the decisions that he's made and to communicate to them what impact he hopes that those decisions will have. i would not anticipate that there's going to be a lot of horse trading or negotiationing or back and forth -- negotiating or back and forth. the vast majority of these decisions have been made. there are still details to be locked down but there is more of an opportunity for the president to share his thinking with those who share his values on these issues. not really a negotiating session. >> can you give us a sense of his thinking in terms of the sell he has to make? a poll shows that 48% of people disapprove of executive action on immigration, only 38% approve. now, there is a pretty wide disparity in terms of republicans versus democrats, but clearly almost half the people don't think he ought to do this. so can you tell us a little bit about the formulation of the case that he's going to make

and how high the hill is that he has to climb? >> i'll say a couple of things about that. i think the first is that i didn't see the exact wording that was included in the poll, but if the wording was something along the lines of do you believe that this is a policy problem that should be fixed with legislation rather than executive action, that it sounds like he may have called the presidential cell phone because he is -- he would probably answer that poll in the way many americans did, is that the president believes that congress should step forward and take the steps that are necessary to fix our broken immigration system but they haven't. and so that is -- >> do you approve or disapprove of the president taking executive action on immigration or do you not know enough to have an opinion at this time? >> the president clearly has an opinion. > i don't think he got called. >> i think the point is, the

case the president will make is that we have seen that congress has not acted and so the question is, should the president use the authority that's vested with the constitution and the presidency to try to address some of these problems? and the president i think pretty unequivocally believes that the answer to that question is that he should take the steps that are necessary to try to solve some of these problems. >> he also thinks he needs to make the case to the american people. >> to question he needs to explain that to the american public and some of that needs to involve what are the consequences for the actions he'll be announcing? are there benefits associated with our national security and border security and our economy and job creation. the president will and all of us will be spending quite a bit of time talking about that, not just tomorrow night, but for the days and weeks ahead. >> because he knows that he has a tough job to make his case? >> i think because he feels like he has an obligation as the president of the united states to explain to the people who elected him precisely why he's taking the actions that he is taking. >> is there some political

mischief part of thecallation here? in other words, -- calculation here? in other words, will the base of the republican party become so intense that they'll just drive the wagon train off the cliff with impeachment and shutting down the government. is that part of the calculation here and the timing? >> are you suggesting this would be the first time they'd do that? i think what the intended audience for this message is being the american people. and the president is hopeful that the american people will carefully consider exactly the steps that he has announced that he's going to take. he's hoping the american people will carefullyy evaluate for the consequences for the steps that he's going to take. i think if people do that, the vast majority of americans will share his view that these are steps that he should take, that these are steps that are on par -- that on par are good for the country and that these are

steps that if congress were to take them and essentially make them permanent, that they should supersede any sort of executive action that the president's taken. we look forward to having this conversation and it's important. >> [inaudible] >> i'd like to come back to this. on a number of occasions the president said he could not legally without congress, notably last year in a san francisco speech where he was heckled, said he couldn't violate the law, he had to work with congress. how do you explain that? >> i think as it relates to the hecklers, they were suggestsing that the president should stop all deportations and that was sort of the thrust of the president suggesting he needs to follow the law. that's true and that's why the white house feels an obligation to fulfill your desire to understand the legal foundation that the white house will be using as the president moves forward with these executive actions. >> in the context of daca, why couldn't he do the same thing

that he did for daca for others, to correct or to somehow lessen the spike in deportations? >> in terms of the steps the president may take, we'll have an opportunity to evaluate those tomorrow. >> alexis asked this. i'd just like to press down labor. e you considering an implementation date sometime after the presidents -- republican the take control of congress in order to give them a chance to perhaps move legislation. >> we'll have an opportunity to discuss what this process of implementation looks like once we have the proposals in front of us tomorrow. >> is there anything search? >> we'll have more on this -- certain. >> we'll have more on this tomorrow. >> a question for you in the address. it's clear he's not going to be

able to cover or protect 11 . llion undounlted will he have a message for those who will be left out? what is the next step for them? >> i think there are a couple of things. again, i don't want to rejudge what the president may have -- prejudge what the president may have decided here. i think the president does want to send a pretty forceful case that's rooted in our nation's values. that the strength of this country comes from our diversity and that diversity largely comes from the decision that people made generations ago to come to this country and to bring their talents and skills to building this country. and creating a place where their family and their community cannot just survive but actually thrive. and talking about those values will be an important part of the speech and i think that is that hearing the american president talk about those values in such personal terms i think will be part of the message that the president hopes everyone will receive.

that will certainly be part of it. again, after you've seen the speech or at least the text of the speech, you'll be able to evaluate for yuff self which part of it would resonate with people who would not be directly affected by these actions. >> also, speaker boehner put out a statement saying that if he does go ahead with executive -- n, he will have to [inaudible] however others have said it isn't necessarily for the president to take this action, maybe to force congress to go ahead and approve some type of immigration reform. is that the purpose of him -- part of taking this step and taking executive action and trying to protect or fix what he says is wrong with the immigration system? >> i'll say a couple things about the quote. i happened to see that too. there are a couple things that stuck out to me. the first is, again, we'll have an ample opportunity to discuss the legal basis for the president's executive -- executive actions once he's

announced them. we've heard this kind of rhetoric about lawlessness from house republicans for some time. i know that their most recent statement referred to emperorer obama. the fact of the matter is, the president is somebody who is willing to examine the law, review the law and use every element of that law to make progress for the american people and if that is something that republicans are critical of, that's maybe a criticism that the president wears with a badge of honor, i think. as it relates to the other part of the quote that i know, that the president take this action would ruin congressional action on this, what ruins it is the speaker of the house who is unwilling to bring up a bipartisan proposal to take a vote. frankly, that doesn't have a lot to do with the president. that's a responsibility that lies squarely on the desk of the speaker of the house. > couple days ago, there was a conference call and he said

that he didn't think there was any way house republicans were going to be able to stop this. can you make sort of a statement about the immigration actions that you don't see the white house is confident, the president is confident republicans in congress are not going to be able stop this? >> well, i -- not many -- not many people are able to exude the confidence of the senior administration official to which he referred but let me say i do retain complete plenty of confidence that the executive actions that the president will announce omorrow will have the positive intended affect that we intend. which is to say that we're confident that there is a strong legal foundation for the president taking these actions and we're confident that even though republicans object to it, these are steps that will be fully implemented and will

strengthen the economy, create jobs, strengthen our border security, strengthen our national security and do the other kinds of things that the president believes are in the best interest of the country. >> and they won't be able to stop it? > we'll see what republicans try. there's a lot of confidence in these proposals by those of us working here at the white house. >> talking about las vegas, it's senator reid's home state. there are reports he'll be attended alongside the president. i'm wondering if -- [inaudible] >> i think that you asked me a couple times about. i guess you work at the hill. you're contractly obligated to care about these issues. let me just say that the president continues to value the strong working relationship that he has with senator reid.

in previous questions about litany of a successful -- the litany of legislation that was passed successfully through the united states senate because of the stewardship, the leadership of senator reid. that's been the view of everybody here at the white house up to and including the president and that continues to be the view here. so the president's looking forward to going to leader reid's home state and i haven't actually heard whether or not leader reid will be able to attend. i haven't gotten the update on his schedule. if he does, we certainly would be pleased to have him there. >> i wanted to ask about this. in terms of a lot of actions or announcements from the white house in the last week or so, of een the climate deal this -- or excuse me, -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, exactly. all which have wrapped up the

president's sort of democratic days, liberal days. i know that the president spoke after the elections about how he was going to try to change things, work out compromise more, so i'm wondering how you kind of square i am wondering how you spare a lot of announcements that wrapped up democrats with that kind of new approach that you guys kind of said you were going to undertake but haven't. >> this goes back to a question -- back to his philosophy that we can't allow disagreement over a single issue to become a dealbreaker for every other one. at the same time, the president was in the oval office a couple hours ago signing a peace

legislation in strong support of republicans. i would note that within the context of that signing that bill, hef signing that signed an executive order that would have taken steps that were already included in that legislation. it is evidence of the president's willingness to allow a legislation to supersede any executive action. i was true of the health care bill and would be true of any immigration reform that would make its way to the congress. the president also did a couple things that republicans would support. the president also spend a lot of time in asia focused on trying to open up overseas markets for american goods and services. that is something the president believes is good for the country and american businesses and workers. he convened a meeting at the u.s. embassy in beijing with the leaders of countries that presumably would sign on to a trade agreement.

this is something that some democrats support. we have seen a pretty enthusiastic receptions and republicans. -- from republicans. that could be a common ground that could be found, that highlights how the president's policy priorities do at least in some areas identify -- >> tonight on c-span, the issue of immigration. obama.andident senators dick durbin , harry reid, and mitch mcconnell. that immigration and border security. the white house posted a short video of the president on their facebook page promoting his primetime address on immigration. here's that video. >> hi everybody. tomorrow night i and going to be announcing here from the white and steps i can take to

start fixing our broken immigration system. on friday i am going to be traveling to las vegas, where two years ago i laid out the principles for comprehensive immigration reform. everybody agrees that our immigration system is broken. unfortunately, washington has allowed the program to fester for too long. what i will be laying out is that things that i can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system work better, even as i continue to work with congress and encourage them to get a bipartisan, copperheads of bill that can solve the entire problem. tune in tomorrow night at 8:00 here from the white house where i will be making this announcement. i will see one friday. thanks. you can watch the president's primetime address on immigration here on c-span stop it is at 8:00 p.m. eastern. a reporter at o'keefe noted that the president's address will

happen in the middle of the latin grammy awards. the spanish language univision will be cutting into the broadcast. coincidental -- for more, we talked with a white house reporter. >> jennifer epstein has been following today possibly immigration developments. she is a white house reporter for politico. this down. what specifically will the president announced? >> the white house has naturally said that the president will announce to the press, that they have begun the process of briefing -- of advocates who work with the administration on immigration over the last couple of years, that the big piece of it will be that he is showing as many as 5 million on document -- undocumented immigrants from deportation. that is what has been out there

recently, and it is indeed what the white house intends to do. 4 millions undocumented immigrants. another million who will get it through other means. >> this is generating a lot of congressional reaction. cruz said that he would be acting like a monarch. speaker boehner is calling him emperor obama. past presidents have used executive orders along these same lines. >> that is the argument that the white house and people aligned with the white house have been making. we know from some of the talking points that have been leaked that the white house wanted to -- it is pointing to the executive actions that ronald reagan and the bushes took on.

the white house argued we are in but with the presidents, are things that were done i republicans,- by and now we have the republicans saying president obama is reaching too far. that is the argument that is coming from the white house on this. at the same time what we are seeing from republicans on the directionvery clear that they are going in which is this overreach, this king obama, the chairman of the republican national committee called it emperor obama. cruz writing in "politico" that he is being a monarch, been suggesting how the republicans should respond and one thing he would like to see is for mitch mcconnell, when he takes the

helm as senate majority leader come january, to announce that the senate will not be confirming any of the president's nominees needed to place for -- in critical security functions until the president reverses course on these executive actions. ted cruz also suggests that congress, which will be fully in republican hands, to pass funding bills for the government, department by and attach riders that make it so that the administration can't enforce the orders of the president puts their. it is very much about trying to restrict the president, financially, and then to also try to hurt him somewhere else with the various nominations. >> this came up in today's daily

briefing with the press secretary. is the white house worried that on any poison the well congressional action dealing with any congressional action? >> the white house has been very reluctant to agree with that poison the well argument. thatpoint to the fact there hasn't been any progress on immigration coming from house republicans in more than a year since the senate passed its comprehensive reform bill. saying, wech more are attempting to help in a different way. >> what about the mechanics? we had a facebook posting -- what can we expect tomorrow and friday? >> the white house decided to roll with that through facebook and through a blog post. the next piece of it will be the president speaking at 8:00 p.m.

it will not be on the major tv networks, it will be on telemundo and univision. it will also be streaming online, very aggressively live tweeted by washington political journalists, available through other means. that is the white house's argument in general. it is more about the targeted outreach and spanish-language get out to the president's strongest supporters. >> jennifer epstein is the white house reporter for "politico." >> thanks for having me. >> members of the senate spoke about the immigration issue today and the possibility of presidential executive orders on the treatment of undocumented immigrants. we will hear first from dick john cornyn, then

harry reid, then mitch mcconnell. this is 45 minutes. >> there was a moment in the civil war when president abraham lincoln sent a message to general mcclellan. general mcclellan was in charge of the union troops but he wouldn't use them. preparing for battle and never went forward. lincoln, in his frustration, ,nderstood that as he waited the federate -- the confederate forces were getting stronger and the opportunities were slipping away. so lincoln sent a message to general mcclellan and his message was this -- "if you're not going to use your army would you send it my way so i can use it?" when iinded of the story dress this issue on the floor of the senate this morning. the issue i am going to address is the issue of immigration. withe to this issue

personal and family experience, as so many members of congress do. in this circumstance, my mother was an immigrant. she was brought here at the age of two from lithuania. somehow, my grandmother and my aunt and uncle made it across the ocean to baltimore, landing then catching a train heading for the land of opportunity, east st. louis, illinois. that is where many lithuanian families gathered and where our grandfather was waiting. that was the city of my birth. my mother grew up there, speaking lithuanian and english, an immigrant family that works hard, struggled, and i know they had little to nothing in their but the hope that the next generation, their children, would have a better life.

that is my story, my family's story, but that is america's story, too. if you chart immigration as an issue, you will find something interesting. that becomerties anti-immigrant parties eventually wither into disappear. why? because they are denying the fundamentals of america. they are saying that we are going to close the doors and pull up the ladder and we don't need any more of those people. we do need more of those people. those immigrant families who come to this country bring more than just determination and strength and a work ethic. courageng a level of which many families can't muster. these are families in different parts of the world who said we are going to america. we may not stay for language, we may not even know what will happen to us when we arrive, the we are going to america, and they do.

stayast majority of them and make a difference. they sacrifice, work night and day, and when their moment comes, they become part of america, proud of where they ofe from but even more proud the fact that they are part of the united states of america. when any political party in history decides to make anti-immigration their standard and their value, they have withered and disappeared, as they should. they are ignoring and turning their back on who we are, what america is all about. i was part of a group two years ago. we sat down for democratic senators and four republican senators and we worked for months to write a comprehensive immigration reform bill. i will tell you the names of the senators so you know there was no secret deal. john mccain led the republicans.

former republican candidate for president. lindsey graham, republican from south carolina. not exactly viewed as a liberal state. marco rubio of florida, whose father and mother were immigrants to this country, refugees from cuba. arizona, a of conservative republican by every measure. that was the team on the republican side. on our side of the table, we were led by chuck schumer, chairman of the immigration subcommittee judiciary. i joined him as a member of the judiciary committee that has been involved in some of these issues for a long time. bob menendez, ahead of the democratic hispanic caucus. himself the son of cuban

refugees who came to the united states. michael bennet, of colorado. we sat down for months, literally four months, hours at a time, sometimes angry and ready to walk out, other times cooperative, and we wrote the bill. a 200 page bill to rewrite the immigration laws of america, fix the broken immigration system. then we took it to committee and hadchairman, patrick leahy, open hearings and allowed any amendment to be offered. then we brought it to the floor after it was reported from the had anee, and we opportunity for amendments to be offered. significant amendments were offered. toator corcoran offered strengthen what was already a very strong border security section. the net result of that of course was rebutted to a vote. it was anl you,

incredible day, because on june we pass on the floor of the united states senate comprehensive immigration reform by a vote of 68-32. 14 republicans joined the democrats in a bipartisan effort to fix our broken immigration system. it was a proud moment. we had the support of the chamber of commerce, we had the support of organized labor, we had every major religious group in america supporting our efforts, we had the ultraconservative grover norquist supporting this, and liberals as well came together and said, finally, we are going to do something about a broken immigration system. but under the law of the land, passing it in the senate is not enough. the measure was then sent over to the house of representatives. june 27, 2013.

today, november 19, 2014. the republican-led house of representatives has not only failed to have a hearing on this bill, it has refused to bring this bill to the floor, has refused to bring any immigration bill to the floor. they refuse to address the obvious. we have a broken immigration system. we need to come up with a fair solution to it, and they refused to act. it is within their power to call that bill today and it has been every day since june 20 7, 2013. thefor a year and a half, house republican leadership has refused. us, tempted us, they teased time and again to thinking about it.

we are going to put out a list of principles that we republicans believe in and the house of representatives. thate going to tell you maybe we would support something like the dream act, maybe. we want strong border enforcement which this bill already has. they sat all these things and have done nothing. i am reminded of president lincoln saying to general mcclellan, if you are not going to use your? army, may i borrow our army, may i borrow it? they did call one immigration measure to the floor. it was one of the most hateful pieces of legislation i have seen and here is what it that -- what it said. adjourned, the republicans of the house of representatives passed a measure with only four of their members refusing to vote and here's what it said. opportunityated an

for 2 million children brought to this country, who have lived good lives, finished school, have no problems with the law, and want to become part of america. the president has created the executive order giving these children a chance to come or word, register with the government, pay their filing fee, and not be deported." 600 thousands of them have taken advantage of that. dac.called it gives them a chance to live in america, to go to school in america, to get a job in america, to make this a better nation. 600,000 have done it. 1.4 million more are eligible but have not signed up. the republican house of representatives in august, before they adjourned, passed the measure which said that the remaining 1.6 million who may be

eligible for this protection cannot be allowed to be part of the program. these 1.6 million young people should be subject to deportation. deportation! think about that for a moment. brought here at the age of two or three, living in the united states their entire lives, standing up in the classrooms across america every morning and pledging allegiance to the only flag they have ever known, and the republicans voted with overwhelming majority to deport them. to deport them. madam president, that is not bad enough the overwhelming vote they cast, that hateful vote they cast. they were so proud of themselves after voting that they stood up and applauded themselves. what a great moment in their minds for the house of representatives.

>> the time is expired. >> consented to speak for an additional five minutes. >> without objection. wha at terrible moment in the history of this nation. now the president, having waited for a year and a half, having heard all the promises of the house republicans that they would move forward and finally call this bill, having been promised privately and publicly by many of these republicans that they were going to do something. now the president has said i want to use my authority under the law to try and fix at least some part of this broken immigration system. now forxpecting any day the president to announce his executive order. he will not be the first president to do this. past administrations, democratic and republican, have stopped the deportation of low priority

cases. of the unitedt states, that a president, every president of the united states since dwight david eisenhower has used his executive authority to improve our immigration system. every single one. bush issued age h policy. promisee -- it is clear the authority to do this. and yet they're republicans in the senate and house have threatened this president -- if you use your executive already, as every president since president eisenhower has done, we are going to hold it against you and you are going to pay a price. president hayes little or no attention to that kind of threat. what is at stake here is the future of millions of family members who are now subject to

deportation. what is at stake here is whether or not the republican party will come into the 21st century in this land of immigrants and join us in a bipartisan effort to fix this broken immigration system. what is at stake here are literally the futures of millions of families who just want a chance, that is all they are asking for, to earn their way to legal status. president, it is almost -- ent, it has been 13 years since i enacted the dream act. young people brought to the united states at an early age who had no voice and what their family would do, to come to this country and to eventually find their way to a legal status. at one point even the republicans supported this dream act. again we have faced filibusters stopping the dream act from passing, but it was a point of copperheads of

immigration reform. this all started with two li.ntly -- with teresa family and in a poor had amazing musical talent. she was accepted at the school ofjuilliard music and because she was undocumented, had no place to go. her mother called our office, who worked night and day in a dry cleaning establishment, and said what can we do? the law had no answer other than to say to this 18-year-old girl, go back to where you came from and try to come here legally. after the dream act we have seen a growth of support because it was only fair. not, hold, should children responsible for the decisions and wrongdoing of their parents.

these kids deserve a chance. that is what the president's executive action is about. that is why this action is so reprehensible. madei she wentt. . tersa to the manhattan conservatory of music. she played in carnegie hall. she is now an american citizen. american,d this young and they are living in new york and recently had a baby. i couldn't be prouder of theresa and what she has done. there she is with a picture of her mom and dad. his dad -- her dad passed away. had a serious medical illness and doesn't qualify for any kind of government health insurance. story is one that is

buyers us to come to this floor and remind our colleagues on both sides of the aisle that these are real human beings. these are not political ponds. -- pawns. these are young people who deserve to have a chance to become a part of america. someday soon, the president is going to announce his executive order. he is going to say that as he he is going to give more undocumented in this country a chance. it will be a narrow category, not as broad as we would like, but it will be consistent with what every president in the united states has done since president eisenhower. it is fair, it is just, it recognizes our birthright as americans in a nation of immigrants. it says we are willing to stand up and fight for fairness. i would hope that a few republicans will stand up and acknowledge this. of them will join

us in bipartisan recognition that our broken immigration system cannot be fixed if the congress of the united states, particularly the republican house, refuses to even call the bill for a year and a half. the president is using his authority and doing the best he can to make this nation of immigrants proud again that we are welcoming a new generation of people who will make us even stronger in the future. that a president, i yield the floor -- madam president, i yield the floor. i ask that consent be agreed to and put on the record. >> without objection. >> i ask that the following nominations be added. >> is there objection? without objection. we republican whip.

>> i have consented to speak for up to 15 minutes. glad iresident, i am got to listen to my friends the senator from illinois. his remarks remind me of his great passion and commitment to of dreamers and to the cause preparing our broken immigration system and while he and i differ on the details into the feasibility of passing comprehensive immigration reform, we have been trying to do this for at least the 10 or 11 years i have been here and we have been unsuccessful. what does that tell you? it tells you we need to try something different. we need to break this down into smaller pieces. the house, speaker boehner i know has made this pledge to the president and others. i know senator maccallum --

cconnel has said we ought to make progress but the president has sent a message that he is giving up. i had to listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support this unprecedented executive action by the president that is going to be announced. they have given up. they have given up. what the senator from illinois didn't say was that even under the president's deferred action order involving these young people, and by the way, i support providing them an opportunity to become american citizens and productive members of society, i think we are all better off if these young people who are not culpable, to didn't commit any offense or crime, they came with their parents. we are much better off, they are much better off, their families are much better off. our country

is better off if we find a solution, which i'm confident we can do, if the message is that the messages we give up. we are not going to do our jobs, we are going to let the president with the stroke of a pan provide in amnesty to millions of people. create an awful lot of harm in the process. the tragedy of this is we are a nation of immigrants. proud of it. wouldch, diverse heritage not have been the same without the contribution of immigrants that have come from around the world. contributions have become a part of the very fabric of our lives and our society. millions of foreign-born immigrants who have come to the united states legally have

become successful, patriotic citizens of the united states, and we have been the beneficiary. because of the opportunities that our nation provides that nowhere else on earth provides -- the opportunity to pursue the american dream. part of w what makes the americn dream possible is the rule of law. it is our constitution. presidents getting frustrated with congress and issuing an executive order, defying the constitution, ignoring his oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. that undermines the american dream. i listened to my colleague and friend from illinois saying that this is somehow about our

immigrants -- our immigrants good for america or not. i stipulate that they are good for america. my ancestors weren't born here. we all came from somewhere else. really about when the president put his hand on the bible and took a sacred oath to uphold and defend the constitution and the rules of the united states, whether he really meant it, or whether he had his fingers crossed behind his back. like many of my colleagues i have had the privilege of participating in the naturalization ceremonies all across the state. individuals from vietnam, from india, from mexico, from countries all around the world, taking the oath of allegiance to the united states of america. inspiring and

heartwarming occasion. of course, many of them have taken that both by wearing the uniform of the united states military, where they have served with honor and dignity as they await their approval of their citizenship. one of the first bills i passed when i came to the senate was with freddy kennedy, the liberal. what we did was we passed a simple piece of legislation that expedited the process whereby immigrants who served in the military can become american citizens. that was one of the first bills that i was a part of that passed when i came to the senate. of course, these naturalization ceremonies represent a proud day not just for these new americans but for all americans. what we welcome -- new citizens country, arms, to this

to find a better life for themselves and for their family and in the process for all of us. but the president has now threatened, and he is the one who has made the threat, he said if you don't do it on my timetable according to the terms i prefer, i'm going to do it myself. he said that time and time again and there is no president who has abused the authority to issue executive orders more than the current occupant of the white house. all presidents have issued executive orders and since george washington, but no one has held congress and the constitution in such contempt that they feel like congress is irrelevant, except when i need them to appropriate money or help them to serve my purposes. the president is going to take

steps in the coming days that would send men and women like those i have mentioned, who have,, playing by the rules, pursuing legal immigration to be united days -- he is going to basically tell those folks get to the back of the line. we are the most generous country in the world when it comes to naturalization. almost one million people a year. but the president is going to tell the people who have been waiting patiently in line, playing by the rules, get in the back of the line, i'm going to put millions of people ahead of you who have not played by the rules. a sure way to send a message to the rest of the world that our country does not enforce its own laws, which is an essential part of who we are. we are everybody, from the humblest to the most exalted in our country, they are all bound by the same laws, whether you

are president of the united oftes or whether you are one these new americans who take an oath to uphold and defend the laws and the constitution of the united states. because itell you come from a big state that sees disproportionate negative consequences to be legal immigration -- this is a criminalto reward organizations that get rich on the status quo. the 60,000 unaccompanied children that came from central america part of this humanitarian crisis -- well, they continue to come, and the criminal organizations continue to profit from this moneymaking operation. they are continuing to get rich. to take ages children perilous journey, many of whom it ends in kidnapping, sexual th to get todea

the u.s. border. worst part of this is we just had a national election. election.retty good i have been here when we lost, like in 2008. but that doesn't mean we can't give up on our job, which is to legislate. one of the saddest part about what the president is going to do is he will poison the well and make it much, much harder, if not impossible, for us to do the sorts of things that a bipartisan, bicameral commitment exists to do, which is to make serious progress on our broken immigration system. i and not sure whether we will be able to do as much as i would like or as much as the senator from illinois would like to do. but we all know the status quote is unacceptable, it is unacceptable.

onthe president seems intent provoking a constitutional crisis by adopting policies that he previously said were illegal. he said he didn't have the authority to do it. time and time and time again. and now he has done a flip-flop hundred 80 degrees, saying -- 180 degrees, saying he was wrong. he seems intent on exacerbating weakeningolarization, democratic accountability. we are the ones who are responsible for making these decisions and we are accountable to our electorate, to our voters. toortunately it is going make it much harder for us to make necessary progress on a number of different matters next year. well, the president says we haven't acted on his timetable soa way that he prefers,

he's going to go it alone. think for a moment about the larger implications of that argument. every president in history's clash of congress -- that is what we do. that is what the separation of powers is all about. it forces us to build consensus as opposed to pursuing our own agendas. that is important. that is essential. way in to get your congress doesn't mean the president can simply override the congress with the stroke of his pen. there is broad support for passing a series of immigration reform bills. i know this because has said that, publicly, the majority leader in the house, congressman mccarthy believes that, i certainly do, and the incoming majority leader has told me he does, as well. but what there is no support for, other than purely partisan

support, is what the president is proposing to do. so in other words, if the president were willing to negotiate in good faith, and, proposal isur everything or nothing, you frequently get nothing. you always get nothing. because no one gets everything they want. it requires genuine compromise. it requires hard work. nothing sustainable or meaningful will ever be done in this place without bipartisan support. we have learned that lesson time and time again. but the president seems toolutely allergic, allergic good-faith negotiating and genuine compromise. in fact, i am not even sure he he ran so hard to get elected to. that is part of his job, to work with congress in a

bipartisan way to achieve genuine consensus and compromise where possible. well, he is claiming now, apparently, on friday, and las -- a right that no other president has claimed. have,self said he did not time and time and time again. i know the white house counsel's office is preparing a convoluted legal case to justify the president's actions. most americans will correctly view this as an abuse of power. and abuse of power -- and abuse power. earlier i asked the president to think about the human costs of encouraging another massive wave of illegal immigration. my state is disproportionately affected, given our 1200 mile common border with texaco. --

with mexico. i urged him to think about all of the men and women and children from guatemala, from honduras, from el salvador, have suffered terrible violence and some death during their long journey through mexico from central america. i urged him to think, again, about whether what he is doing helpsrtently rewards and fund the criminal organizations that are creating such havoc in mexico and in parts of central america. i can only hope the president will reconsider. certainly i am not optimistic. now the white house was leaking press reports about this announcement on friday. i believe his unilateral action, which is unconstitutional and illegal, will deeply harm our prospects for immigration

reform. that will be deeply harmful to our nation's of the rule of law and deeply harmful to the future of our democracy. believe, as i do, that this is a mistake. the president should heed their advice, stop making threats, and respect the constitution. that a president, i yield the floor. >> on this issue, this is really hard to comprehend. every president since president eisenhower have done executive orders as it relates to immigration. every president. 39 different times. bush, they have done it, and we didn't hear a single word come from republicans that they didn't like that. so why now is this suddenly an issue?

understand the fairness of it all. -- it will lead to many, many families whose families are being torn apart by , and rememberstem for my republican friends, who are always concerned with money -- if the republicans in the house would allow a vote on the bill we passed here, those many save ando, it would produce $1 trillion in relief. $1 trillion. so executive action is not a

substitute for congressional action, i understand stop he is doing what he can within his authority, and it will be up to congress to finish this. the first thing we have to do is fix our borders -- we have to would have a we border that would be so secure, billions of dollars in that legislation. that what the president decides to do, he should go bake. as big as he can. going backecedent to the eisenhower administration. the fact that he wants to do something on immigration and is being forced to do something on immigration should not stop us from doing our job, running government. >> if the president does with thinked flag, what do you

the best way for republicans to retaliate would be? now? >> iyou are don't words -- >> i don't like words like retaliate. we have a divided government for the last two years and what we have had for the last four. i think all this inflammatory language is not helpful. we want to make progress for the american people. a congresslief that entirely controlled by republicans is more likely to remake -- to make progress than the one we have had. >> how do you fix it? to make changes to the executive order? >> for over 200 years, congressmen have gone back and forth over the funding process. this is not unusual. we have different priorities from what we have and at the end of the day we have to work some ring out -- work something out.

>> [indiscernible] >> it is always appropriate to use the power, but it is appropriate to remember that the president has an important trump card -- a veto. there will be ongoing negotiations and the efforts to fund the government, this year and next year, about priorities. this is not unusual. priorities,ifferent and somehow we are going to have to work things out and make progress. i will say again, just because the american people elected a divided government doesn't mean they expect us not to do anything. we are not going to the able to get everything exactly the way we wanted and he is not going to get everything the way he wants it. that is why we have compromised. we are going to do the best began to try and change the direction of the country. we think the last six years have not been good for america. two we have is the

power of the purse. we will have lots of discussions this next year about our priorities and his. thanks a lot. >> the president addresses the topic of immigration. he will outline his plan executive action. live coverage from the white house at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. homeland security secretary jeh johnson talked about immigration and border security at the national press club. he comments on the presidents expected action on immigration. event was funded by the new democrat network. >> good morning, everybody.

>> good morning. here,nks for being everyone. ndn.imon rosenberg from we are excited today to welcome back the secretary of homeland security. not this particular one, but this is the second time we have been able to host the secretary of homeland security on immigration and success in recent years. we have been blessed to have many of the folks on the frontlines of these tough issues dhs address our 21st century border initiative over the last three years. in part today representing this project that we began four years ago that was thatout of a basic sense

the conversation happening in the media and policy circles and easy about what was -- in bc did not reflect the true reality of what was happening. i am lucky enough to be married to a wonderful woman who grew up in new mexico, i spent a lot of time in the southwestern part of the united states, and is somebody who has been part of this immigration debate from the very beginning, i really felt there was a need to try to bring truth to anck, and important part of this conversation about how we were going to fix a broken immigration system. i am proud -- we have released many reports and written op-ed's. we have conducted many events here in town. we have brought dozens of leaders from border communities on both the u.s. and mexico sides to washington for dialogues with policymakers. we have been directly involved in some of the more important

advances we have seen in the u.s.-mexico relationship over the last few years, including the important administration decision about tourism that was done back in 2011-2012. we were instrumental in helping to create the u.s.-mexico dialogue to start the border caucus in the house in 2013, which is providing a far more amplified voice for those who represent the border region in the current debate. i will be proud to say we let the effort strip the border surge out of the senate bill when it moved over to the house, which is something that i thought was an enlightened moment of the house democrats who have improved what was a very good bill. we are also involved in efforts, which is not well reported, to increase -- we saw an increase in funding for customs agents,

which is something we have fought for, the first time we had had an increase of ages on the borders without an increase in border patrol in recent years. that was another sign of how important the trade aspect of this relationship is. who of it -- those of you know me and of heard me talk about this before -- i want to reflect upon the five things that we often talk the most about. -- when i got say into this i didn't really understand the in normandie of the challenge of keeping our borders safe and our immigration system, given the size of the undocumented population, with so many people moving around and moving in and out. this is an extraordinary undertaking. if you look at the border between u.s. and mexico, 2000 miles long, the busiest crossing in the world.

over $1 billion of trade every day. i often say in english we caught a border but in spanish it is ntera, which i think is a far more accurate term. it is not the edge of our relationship, it is the center of it. certainly, the 2000 mile portion we have may be the single most valuable piece of infrastructure that the united states has today and i hope it can be seen that way in the years to come. that we are going to discuss today is a few highlights and they want to reflect upon why i think that we will, in future years, look back at this e been theird management of the border and also immigration enforcement. all along the u.s.

side of the u.s.-mexico border. the two largest cities on the border are the two safest cities in all of the united states. net flow of undocumented immigrants to the united states is down. net migration into the u.s. is zero. are undocumented population increased from the early 90's from 3 million up to 12 million just a few years ago. during the entire obama presidency there has been no increase in the undocumented population. it stands at 11.2 million. something that will become a major part of the debate going forward if the president takes executive action is that starting in 2011, this administration began to prioritize and a very savvy and smart way its enforcement

resources in the immigration system, has led to a far more humane system. families no longer have the same degree of threat of deportation, and we are freeing up resources to create a more powerful -- while all those have been made, we have also seen an extraordinary increase in trade. we have seen the doubling of trade with mexico since the beginning of the obama administration despite the slow economy here. it has been an extraordinary economic story, one that has been the bulk of the work we have been trying to do. today, mexico stands as our third largest trading partner in the world and a second largest export market for american goods. mexico buys twice as much from ina united states as ch does with 1/15 of the population.

we will hear this from the secretary, the management of the migrant crisis, while it was tough and it has been an and norma say difficult policy challenge, i think we will come to see this as a success of this entire approach and not something other than that. the secretary will be giving into that, but certainly crises happen. --en -- one speaker i think we will market down as one of the national times of our ability to manage the border and work cooperatively with our neighbors. the basic premise of the work we have been doing is that we have made tremendous progress. this is a tough issue.

long, hundreds of thousands of people involved on both sides of the u.s.-mexico border every day, managing this in terms of enabling trade flows and keeping the levels of security that both countries require, the politics of this have been as prolific on in washington, and despite all of this we have seen tremendous progress. certainly, helping tell that wery in the coming months, are about to have a big debate about immigration and our border system, is going to be a critical part and a roll we will try to play to make sure this is being told right. so, to reflect on all this, we have a very special guest. jeh johnson doesn't really need a major introduction. all of you know that he has already made his mark as a forceful and thought and very able secretary of the department

of homeland security. -- the one thing people don't understand in this town is that this may be the hardest job in washington. the scale of what they deal with every day from counterterrorism to cyber security to emergency response to all the issues we are going to be discussing today -- it is an incredible portfolio of really tough issues that are super important for the country. presidentky that the was able to persuade jeh johnson to take this incredibly important mission on. please join me in welcoming the secretary of homeland security, jeh johnson. [applause] >> thank you very much, simon. thank you for that nice introduction. people in thishe town willing to say nice things about me is getting smaller.

i just want to speak very briefly, and then i will be happy to take some questions. let me offer a couple thoughts. to thepeople often refer incredible portfolio that we have in the department of homeland security, a diverse range of missions from counterterrorism to hurricanes and aviation security. was it ale even ask, mistake to create such a large department? isn't too big to manage? my answer to that is you have to look at where all these medicines -- these missions and components were before 9/11. agenciesross dozens of