currently. if they go into the fund, they get cut by two-thirds to 1,000 bucks. that's a big deal. so, you are giving them the ability to control their own destiny. we need to start having those same frank discussions as it relates to all entitlements. when you start talking about, you know, two-thirds on auto pilot, that creates a problem for us, sooner or later. we can ignore it at our peril, but the retirees peril. that's not where we want to go. i hope we find more courage like mr. miller and mr. klein to move forward on other tough topics. i just want to, in this season, this christmas season, is to thank you for doing the tough work and not just letting it. you could easily walk away mr.

miller. you are retiring. you could say it's not my fight, but you care. you can tell in the passion of your words that you care about the american worker. thank god for people that do. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> chairman yields back his time. chairman from orlando, florida, is recognized. >> thank you. i have one thing to say. flawed 01:38:01 unidentified process produces a flawed product every single time. i'm sad we are here, where we are. it is what it is. >> chairman yields back his time. i did not get a chance, i will waive my right to -- i want to say thank you. thank you to each of you, mr.

miller. chairman klein thank you for much. chairman rogers, i hope our paths cross again, god speed. we are going to recess. call to chair at the end of the last -- >> thank you mr. chairman. >> come to order. thank you very much. distinguished panel that is here. i will go to to where the light comes on. you will recognized. >> thank you. i appreciate

declining to intervene in the district of columbia on two matters. the other is new. it prohibits the district from acting --unds on an law.ing a marijuana i want to put on record the alternative view to the republican appropriation view.

their view is that -- their version blocks the marijuana legalizes very small amounts of marijuana for personal usage the way other states to. i wanted to come here and put on the record that there is another is notd that the view the view of the entire house. in order to preserve the view of and the effect on the city, in case my amendment is not adopted, my amendment is bill on a reading of the of the ordinary principles statutory interpretation. the original amendment contains

language that is not in the bill. it was taken out of the bill. and has to do with carrying out marijuana policy. was enacted and and does nototers oruire enactment of any kind any new rules for implementation. i want to say that i do not know what motivated the jurisdictions that legalize marijuana. it is a special reason. there are independent studies that show that blacks and whites throughout the nation use marijuana at the same rate. 80% of those who get convictions in the district are african-americans. youngularly african-american men with drug

convictions on their record are ruled out of society. they had to go ahead and take away the stigma. i want to stress that i am not for smoking anything. the last thing the district has done is encourage smoking marijuana. a race justice reason for passing these laws. any that would have gone into and well has been spent think our interpretation is the best interpretation and we would ask that you adopt the interpretation. myould simply leave my testimony -- i would leave my testimony and not proceed further. >> does anybody have a question?

is there anyone on the democratic side? .> i am a supporter >> the joe manchin colorado is recognized. >> i want to recognize how important this is and my state was one of the first, along with washington, to legalize and marijuanahe sale of and congress and the executive branch have decided not to interfere. we had no appropriations bill enforce voted to not federal marijuana laws. i would hope washington dc would be afforded the same discretion. there are arguments on all sides of the issue. we have had the legalization decrease the marijuana usage 5%. by minors by

that is a goal. i hope that washington accomplishes a similar decrease .nd people pass the initiative we should treat washington, d.c. like colorado and washington. more states. are happy to join the amendment. occluded -- included in the bill. >> i have a question. years ago -- years ago, the moneytage of funding and allocated for health care and the district of columbia, and asked her novel clement of that was for drug overdoses. do you have any idea where the percentage is? >> i do not.

drug use was cocaine and crack cocaine. it has gone down. is last thing i want to see marijuana to become a get wage rub. peoplealcohol, where tend to start using it for the rest of their lives, it turns and they young people tend to outgrow it. one were to use , even if one gets a marijuana,for normally, kids to go to college

do not have the conviction chased them for the rest of their lives. -- we don'tffects know. >> i think we do. >> we know the affects of smoking and now there are reports of brain interference. the last thing we want to see it is anyone smoking marijuana. worse than that is having a conviction the keep you from ever getting a job because you possessed small amounts of no one. >> thank you very much. >> i said strike the amendment. it in writing. that would be great. thank you very much. >> thank you for taking time. you are here a longtime and i'm trying to respect that.

>> thank you. grateful for your summarize.and i will i appreciate the chance to take a few minutes to consider an amendment that is simple and straightforward. and givinging a bill the department of homeland security with a long-term continuing resolution. the end of the continuing adjustmentsontains to bring the bill total amount in the billmbers provide prepared and the department with sufficient

flexibility. words, a full-year continuing resolution to address the needs of the department as the certainty. it would give the secretary the ability to protect me country in ways that he needs to. he continues to recapitalize the coast guard. this is not the best course of action and it is not my first choice. the homeland security bill has been completed in both chambers in a bipartisan way and was .ritten in a bipartisan way

it is ready to go. i have not heard a coherent line suggestning that would less than an acting the full bill. in the underlying agreement is a bad idea and it will limit the ability to aggressively move ahead with the campaign and create uncertainty in the capacity to detain and import dangerous criminals. it would delay needed it would delay prevent upgrades to fence jumping intrusions. intentze the tactical and i know what has been in the press about the desire to keep

the administration on a shortly so that, early next year, there can be a pressure exerted to deal with the executive order and, perhaps, reverse it. playing out inis a way that is positive for the homeland security function. there may be an attachment to the renewal of the funding in february and you could have a senate filibuster with a veto. shutdown of the homeland security department. i do not see how that is an outcome that meets anyone possibly a. this is what i am suggesting and i have the minority members of the homeland security appropriations committee. our preference is for a full funding bill to be part of the package. that was negotiated in good

faith on a bipartisan basis. short of that, i urge the committee to permit consideration of the amendment so that we can have a year-long cr. submit my statement for the record and i appreciate the chance to submit this idea. >> i like to go to the committee and see if they have questions for you. we told you we would get you in and get you out. are there questions? >> is there any republican that has a question? i appreciate that. you mentioned that you did not see how this would play out in a positive way and i do not dispute that at all. is it a surprise to you what the

president did in the complete absence of any kind of legislative action? do you see this playing out any other way? uncertainty and i feel playing defense to stop the .ncertainty activate the executive order and that is not what you're asking me to do. i will not do that. i'm telling you that i'm surprised other tactic. i think there are many ways that people who disagree with the executive order and the policy will have many ways to address that and deal with it. it seems like an odd mood to me -- move to me. monthsding for several was limited as a way of doing this. if this is about border security

, why would you have hundreds of millions of dollars cut. it defies logic. i think it is a surprising tactic. >> i would vote to explore with you would some of the tools might be going forward. is a tiresome tactic to come back to the appropriations committee as the thankine of defense and i the gentleman for being here. >> are there further questions from the committee? question, whatur i am trying to do -- i am not really concerned about the money. i am concerned about the policy.

witholicy has a lot to do the ability to control through monday. what we are trying to do on this side is say that we are going to fund and have a discussion to figure out the right policy. we are not trying to stop anything at the border. protecting the border. terrorists. special interests. a threat.his as this it is not money. it is policy. > danger of the swinging a policy and hitting another. >> the gentleman makes a great point and i believe the speaker has taken time to speak to the chairman of the homeland security about these type of

activities in the discussion that we are having. you are going to hear me say that we are going to quickly take these actions up in the new congress. i appreciate you being here. i know you have been here a long time. i appreciate the gentleman. >> ok. we are now going to have what i would have a panel. -- what i would call a panel. >> i would note that there are -- anybodyof members that chooses to -- if you want to pull up a chair, i am delighted that you are here. i'm delighted that you are doing this.

time for a statement. would like to make one thing very perfectly clear today as you join us. that is that i want to let you know that i am firmly opposed to the president. is it exactlyan that and i do not support it. i believe we should do something about it. let me repeat that the proposal is unwise and unlawful. i do not support them, despite in blogs.ay read i have not changed my position that i have held over a number of years.

i have openly talked and defended my party. the party of lincoln, roosevelt, and reagan. when people show up at this committee, it is my responsibility and duty to protect the conference as people come here. there are some who would like to take my comments out of context. i don't like that. you would not like that. i don't intend to do it to you. as we go through this process, it requires everybody. everybody's ideas. some i agree with. some i disagree with. i believe that those who are here illegally pose a threat to the country. they pose a threat because we do not know who they are and they do not follow the law. some are like what we had in

boston. they are the special interest aliens. the rule of law must be upheld and applied. there is a process. sometimes we know it and sometimes we do not. , welieve that what we do must you lawfully. that was a question asked by jeff sessions, my dear friend from alabama. fromked for the opinion the congressional research service. and itthe report here very clearly lays out that congress can do something about the actions that the president fund.even if it is a

i do not believe that they gave enough of an answer to where we all completely understood the answer. received a and letter that each of you have .eceived a copy of 200 of us were there. i asked to have the process further explained. according to the information in writing, to defund the , thedent's actions underlying wall in question needs to be changed. that means that, as we have done omnibus.st, it is we changed programs with senate and it the

would be required under these actions. change.plan and it can we can make it and be responsible for it. the house, thee senate, and the president agreeing to that. there is the problem. that you make sure would understand that i have the same concerns and every member of our committee does. every member of the committee has spoken about the disdain for what the president has done. examiner, theyon weighed in on the issue and took the jeff sessions question and answer and the pete sessions

question and answer. the white house would have to agree to it by tomorrow night. --t would put it in the bill if we put it in the bill, it would be a weapons -- it would be a weapon against us. andlike to thank each everyone of you for coming up and spending a full hour with me today and for you to offer an .xplanation and dialogue not a frustrations. of expectations. each of you expressed to me things i agree with. that thell you tonight difference i believe i have is not the policy or the amendment.

we have an amendment that works perfectly well. done andf this gets it i pleased to tell you that i will guarantee you that the rules committee, and the new before we go to our conference sessions where we go , wecampus and develop plans are going to have a rules committee meeting, bring back the amendment that i completely use theth and sustaining new members of the senate to where they can do just canleep -- where they judiciously get this. weaponcan be used as a

against anything opposed to shutting down the government. i appreciate you and want to express that to a person. we found common ground. and a lot of it. i want you to know the testimony -- you are standing up for what you believe. it is important to myself and .hese committee members i'm delighted you are here. i want to know that, regardless of your argument, we accept the amendment by the second week of january and we will come back here. i hope you do well enough to get invited back. your testimony tonight means a lot to the members of the committee and we will include new members of congress who have been elected and they will of a

chance to come fight this battle. that is what people have asked for. i assure you that you will have a chance with him was committee chairman and the committee that strenuously believes that next year is the time to do this. i hope this helps you as you must you yourself together. i do not think that you need a lot of help. i will tell you that you have got it down. we would love to see. , without objection, what i spoke about. including the articles that appeared today in the examiner and i will put them in the record. i am delighted that you are here and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> we appreciate the

conversation you had during the day today. it is good to talk the things through and a reasonable fashion. i would like to introduce the funds -- dhat the efunds the executive amnesty. amendmentraft of the -- we only draft of the amendment yesterday. ishave cosponsors and it broad from the republican party. there is a great deal of interest in it in our party. so, with that, i will defer to one of the co-authors and take it down the line.

>> thank you very much. i want to tell you how much i appreciate the leadership on the issues in this country and i appreciate your leadership. i want to do a little bit of an analogy. was a president of the party who was the president of the united states and he did something through executive order that i really like, like taking the corporate tax rate do --o 25%, which i would which i would walk through broken glass to have done -- if he did that, i would fight tooth and nail.

it is not about what is done. it is about how it is done.

fixes. and the minority leader john both republicans that went to because aid it's wrong they defended the institution. up and d be standing defending the institution itself and the separation of powers and i have a tution and real problem voting to enable that i believe, i unconstitutional even for 24 hours. you.k

i'll keep the record open until to get you to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the dialogue you've initiated on this. the peoplepoint that spoke loudly and clearly in the onetion on november 4th and of the most remarkable ehrebsz in recent history. u.s. senate seats shifted to the republicans. undisputed will of the american people. seated in will be three weeks.

this issue into the freshly elected senate where the people can actually be expressed on all spending of ures over the remainder this fiscal year. and ould not have the old repudiated senate guiding this next tenfor the months. what this congress must do to restore that separation of the very t is foundation of the american constitution. as an our responsibility institution to restore. the he amendment restores

purse. the >> thank you very much. >> you have a few minutes mr. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> let me start off by saying exemplary leadership and i appreciate was do for this body. i thought a lot about this and here on a spending bill when the issue of the day the constitution. the men of 17-87 could have set different governments and anointed a king. really ashington was popular and vested power within themselves a small group of men oligarchy. they didn't. instead they set up a government ith clearly defined separation of powers. they set up the republic if you

to ben it according franklin. a government that's lasted of er than any other form government in the history of mankind. think about that. issue before us is less about immigration and perceived or what the memo says or the doesn't say. the crossing of say rid line a that separate power in three branches of government. this document that kay require in my pocket spells that out. judicial say rid line branch that we wer in three have. and that's the power to make law. the ledge latelyive branch creates law and not the branch and i feel like branch that we breached with

this memo. you can't cross that line. you don't have the power to do that. your 're going to get attention because we control the power of the purse. analogy that he the gentleman from arizona had. fight in do have the january, mr. chairman. i believe we will because i've ot your word on it and i'm ready for that fight. i personally think we ought to have it today. i think it's that important. because our constitution and the separation of powers continue to erode. and as a river erodes that bank in.s this constitution and this

government lasted longer than others. i don't want to see it go away. i believe in it that much. this institution, the legislative branch in i ran.s when i appreciate you giving me time. many would say we're waeufgt the time of the rules committee by being here an amendment and wasting time but no we're not because it's that important. t's that important to set the stage for future fights or have the fight, but the fight is coming. gentleman ciate the and i appreciate the gentleman mull outh carolina, mr. vein 90 who showed leadership on this issue. i hope the rose committee will that important with i constituent.

around the viewed world as the greatest example of democracy ever insrebtd and ever created and follow. here we are at the center of democracy in a place that's house.as the people's place for democracy ught to reign supreme is right in this chamber here not just in in. committee but on the floor

there is nothing wrong with and ving a chance to say give our voice to the people and what he here. he's done here is offer up an amendment and what we're asking democracy to prevail and encourage you and your committee it not fear it.

funds a bad war that we shouldn't be in. and the third thing i don't like about it is that it doesn't amendment it for an executive decree that i think is unfair to so many of our workers food chain.m of the and so i would ask that we amendment and take he can have that we better consideration of the bill and more consideration of the that's impacted by this decree.

support the i amendment. you. >> gentleman from kansas is recognized. i enjoyed every minute of it. is recognized. >> i appreciate the opportunity i know here today and there's been a lot of discussion about various points. couple ofo touch on a points that have not been made. first of all just a personal know. and i don't i'm not aware of any other colleagues but i've had the working ty of immigration system. i have two adopted system that we adopted from haiti. you, i really believe it's unfair the president used amnesty for those that have and followed ules the system. we're talking about millions of americans and not just adopted dads and moms but they follow the rules. executive amnesty, those still waiting in line are

all bypassed. and i think that's unfair and i to the 's also unfair 22.7 million americans looking for a full-time job. gives social security numbers and we understand that if it's permitted to go forward to up to more americans and again, i think that's unfair to them. to talk about t strategy. y the >> it's a promise. to take this up in january. what worries me is that the they'll be ate that funded through is february 27th. amnesty, the fuse, the timeline for the portion of that is february 18th. will be implemented. they'll be moving forward as before the order february 27th. in january, might sending that to the president not have to sign.

ebruary 18th versus february 27th, i do not know and 've visited with quite a few folks. so i appreciate the promise. pick.your february 18th is certainly before february 27th. of seen n i think many g folks at the agency have begun the process. to fund that ability to implement this executive amnesty. that will be too late. by next year but i appreciate the promise. but the issue is in fairness i constituent is all i can speak for, would like a vote on this. our leadership said tooth and ail we'll fight this executive

amnesty. lose or draw i'll take the results. there is no possibility to comprehend what we're putting in ere. we reward a senate that who has taken up no appropriation bills. sad. is

also a demands me to come forward to hold an executive accountable ident for the disdain action in which he took with a homeland security secretary despite looking violate y at trying to the constitution to bypass it and here's a gentleman who is is supposedly a constitutional cholar who pits us one against the another instead of joining us together. how absolutely sad. forward without asking we have a chance to vote indication.red some people may say he has the power to not prosecute. way.n this mass, no possible.t

i rise in support of nick's i want us to have the kour rapbl to put it in order and take your vote. stand within the constitution. which and everyone of us. time's up. we've been doing this way too long. i thank the gentleman for giving me the time. >> i thank the gentleman. >> thank you, chairman. for the opportunity dozen the y constitution. which and everyone of us. time's or so colleagues and thanks the 67 colleagues who co-sponsor this very short period of time. i'll close by saying this, and i to say something to my democrat colleagues. attacked for be attacking the substance. assure you men and woman who disagree about different pieces of immigration. can i tell you i've had con stations and he and i have

isagreement disagreements. there is a large spectrum of amendment who have very different ideas about ow we should fix our immigration. this is not about immigration. and i bout the process hope that we could all agree on bipartisan basis that government by executive fiat is not a good thing for any of us. it is a red herring or a hyper pwolic example. template is now that in the future a president, perry is facedck with a division between the house and senate that cannot get along and cannot work and stands up on television and says, since cannot act d senate will. upset s, you would be as about that as i am about this. i support that policy.

if that were to happen would i still be here? here again making the same amendment because property es is wrong and the process is flawed. everybody agrees that it is not either party or the country to have that type of government. i hear the chairman and i chairman and accept the arguments regarding having his fight in three weeks or in three weeks or three months. and i appreciate the political that we face not having control of the senate on the first ntil after of the year. but if we do not take a stand doesn't if we lose, our argument in three weeks or hree months or three years get weaker? h

things to fferent different people. i tell was the message was not. not my goodness we need government by executive authority. what i want folks to know and ha i think everybody who has and gned on this amendment i think what people need to know folks back home that the message was not we need more executive authority and we that and we are as angry as they are and that's why we offer that's why we nd come here today and sat here for the last 3.5 hours to make this argument. we hope we have that chance to ake that stand as early as possible and as aggressively as possible and we hope you see fit to give us that opportunity tomorrow. if not we'll take it in january when we come back.

you, mr. chairman. >> he's come in here. if the gentleman would wish to be a gentleman t of the encouraged. t was always a straight up deal. and mr. sal mondays acknowledging that because this is true. i'd like to just without asking you questions, because i don't think that's what i'm trying to acome preurb. i'd like for to you remember that the american people did new senators and a bunch of new house republicans.

the take office january fifth. that's the process -- january might be early. i'm so fired up about this, i before and i a day thank the gentleman for reminding me. that.red up about but that's the process whether we like it or not. knew before the election it would be some time in january happened. when it forndly, it would be unfair anyone to characterize your vote regardless of how you voted but that if you voted yes for this ere voting amnesty program because in facts the house, the senate and to an sident all come agreement, the government could and that wn tomorrow would continue. impacted in ven

here. i'd love to encourage you know no matter what happens you're not voting for that even if you vote for the bill. number three, i respect a group new membersncluding and perhaps a member that that i not be coming back but still who is fired up, michele bachmann, believes is her duty all the way to the end to ome and petition the rules committee. any member could come up herement only thing i ask is respect us all. we'll respect you but i'd like respect us. but i want you to know that this is a difficult position because and that's what the chairman of the rules and that's what mrs. slaughter was when she was looks at all he the legislation and not just one

piece. pieces of nd huge this have been handled by the rules committee and voted on the floor. so, there may be some bit of pages that have not been vetted, would be unfair to say the whole bill we didn't have a orange are ok at it understand. of it we believe a lot have. and the last part is whether we a time table. on and i work for a big company a lot of years and there were time you could sometimes slip them and sometimes you can't. the law. and we're given until tomorrow night and the united states to te couldn't even begin turn around our understanding of what we're asking us to do if if we do something that is exstrain process that's been agreed to.

you can vote the way you want. not going to try to talk you it. we got a of time table. i have l make sure and talked to the gentleman, the majority leader mr. mc carthy. earlierup to the office rules e looked at the committee and we knows the all in.m we're we all support the amendment. has uccess of a rain dance a lot to do with timing and we're after this being after fighting the fight that we'll say later, oy, we can't go back to that and if the government -- if something happened where the government got shut down as a of this because it was never going to be successful back to ight not come it. and we might not be able to prevail on theish other you the time before we should have learned our lesson.

hands like putting your on a hot stove. i believe what the president did there is a process to go through and the way you done, just in my opinion, i expressed to you is to follow you stand a re better chance of making it happen. and that will be a chance that new xt year when nine senators and a bunch of our colleagues are here. so this is where i am. nd the committee is looking to your viewpoint here and my viewpoint because they're going to have to make a vote here too. i have looked at the ommittee and told them that i forthrightly listened to you and tried to do the things and i've about i talk what believe are common sense principals and that is if we i will s to happen, guarantee a vote this next year we're first two weeks back. we can follow a process and the

-- stand a be better chance and i'd like to you and i'd like for you not to accuse me of anything not being fair but that's my viewpoint. the gentlewoman for any comments she would make or any questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. have done an presenting to f the position that in and s committee are hat i think is a way to move forward successfully. and i appreciate your taking the that.to do i appreciate all my colleagues. i agree with the chairman. not in favor of what the president's done.

've spoken against it. i've written against it. i agree completely with the concerns that you have. but i do believe that there are through thatcan go will make us successful and there are processes we can go we will fail. of i'm much more in favor success than i am in failing. to go n i see a way forward successfully and then i process.use that so i appreciate all of you being here. and i want to say i look in this have success effort. i carry a copy of the with me, too, everywhere i go. as much as anybody going to and i am not do anything i believe that is

the role of nish that document in our country and in our lives. you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentleman. associate myself i do want to say -- it should come as no surprise that i come -- you could have passed a bill, whatever it was. putting that aside, reviewing the substance, i don't disagree with you on the process. this should never be acceptable under any circumstance, the matter who is running the house of representatives. every minute i find out a new tidbit. that i not a process

think anybody should want to endorse. i think it is important, as we one of talking about -- the responsibilities that we have with the issue of war. we are at war again and we have not authorized, an aumf to go to war. i have tried on numerous occasions to allow there to be votes on house floors so we can all vote whether to authorize this action or not through our constitutional responsibilities. we have been routinely shut out. what frustrates me about this conversation is that all of you voted for those roles. -- those rules. this is a place where important issues are to be debated, even

those i disagree with, but i think we ought to be consistent. to be a move as we move to the next congress to appreciate that sometimes you toe to support amendments express a point of view that you may disagree with. i agree with the president. if you want to debated, that is fine with me. but i am wary that we are going on recess with 3000 troops deployed in iraq, and every utterance i hear is getting closer to a combat mission and we are going home. let this moment pass without making that observation. morenk we ought to have a open process, and as the end the session, this is the most closed rules of the histories of congress. that is the distinction.

it is not something i want to repeat in the next congress. i yield back. >> i appreciate the gentleman for his comments. the gentleman from utah's recognized. the gentleman does not seek recognition. the gentlewoman from new york does not seek recognition. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> i want to make two points. we agree that this is not a good process. this is not where we want to be. because theere united states senate, under democratic control, did not pass a single appropriations bill this year, not one. we cannot conference, we cannot do things if they don't do their job. we gave them seven different chances to pick up a bill that this body had passed, often and bipartisan fashion, and they didn't do it. that is why we are here. >> i yield to my friend.

>> you give us a week to read it. is my friend needs more time i more than happy to give it to him. a lot of this is not new. a lot of it was in the bill. let's recognize why we are here. the other body didn't do their job. ontried to again and again, a bipartisan basis. this is not a democratic failure in the house. this is a leadership failure in the united states senate. that is probably creating a lot of consternation. i think i know the just of the testimony. i am going to recall a number of incidents in my misspent youth. i learned the hard way.

make sure you have as many of your friends in the bar at the same time as possible. we have a lot of friends in this fight love the same point of view and same concerns. i think the fact that we are having this discussion is helpful. the fact that people have different opinions and express them is fine. we will see what we do but at the end of the day, i know one thing -- as a republican, who has the same concerns about presidential overreach, it has got a lot more help in january. i yield back. >> the chairman yields back. my take away from this is

that we should have been a fly on the wall. it seems that there has been an active discussion, which i appreciate. i would like to suggest to correct the record. when you begin your remarks, you commented that all of the members of the rules committee had spoken with you about the that you claim is what the president has done. i just wanted to make it clear that i think you were talking about -- >> about the amendment. you are correct. i have spoken a number of times, and i was not -- that would be the republican members, and the gentleman is correct. >> i yield. one point it want to make is

that we can blame the said it all we want but the senate has nothing to do whether we in this congress have a vote to authorize a war or not. i thank the gentleman for his comments. the gentleman from georgia seeks recognition. >> many of my favorite people in the congress testified here today and i think this is the beginning of something very congress for us as a and for us -- i think it bodes well. for your commitment, to make this happen. not to enlist counsel, but to get it done next year. i am grateful to you for that. theuld like to ask gentlemen -- i am hearing from a lot of constituents and talking to a lot of folks. the tool we have had in our toolbox for the last few years has been to defund something.

when we don't like it we cut off the funding for it. that is what it has come to mean. if we shut down the department of homeland security tomorrow, do you think that will prevent the president from doing what he is doing? >> no. in fact i am fairly certain that it will. -- it won't. >> i share that concern. something powerful coming-out of what you are doing, i think folks are having that conversation, at least back home in georgia. turnught they could just off this big it, but when you have a president who was relying on these and doesn't let care what congress says he is going to find it -- you have to do more than turn off the state it. -- the spigot. when a government shutdown

accomplish anything that you would like to accomplish -- the answer is no. i think if you wanted to get the tactics, the argument would be that this is a must pass piece of legislation, for better or for worse. oftenthat vehicle is so used to pass things that conservatives don't like it would be nice to use it to's pass something the conservatives like, such as defining executive amnesty. recognize the political realities of not being in control of both houses and the white house. i believee point, there is value in having a fight for the sake of having a fight. that may not be this time, but i do agree with that principle in general. >> that is the other thing that comes out of this conversation. the chairman knows we are in conversation with people who don't want to take a tough vote. what this group is saying is

sometimes what democracy demands is a vote. thatin that vote or lose vote, that is up to the people who were advocating it to round those votes up. losinging the debate and it is not losing it is a victory for democracy, it is a loss for whatever the bill was. victory, that the process has worked. >> many of us have taken the position that we would be more than happy to vote for things that are less than perfect as long as we can participate in the process. i can't imagine a single member in this room of either party who ran for office under the mantra please vote for me so i don't have to take any hard votes. >> you may have heard the general from -- the gentleman from florida say a broken process will create a broken product. yes, a flawed process and a

flawed product. -- nots opportunity here to do thatere, differently. what i saw happen here that wouldn't have happened without folks willing to say i am going to do it, it wouldn't have happened without your leadership. it is different from what i have seen. having a process that lets you get from here to there isn't something -- it is absolutely everything. having a boat and an opportunity that's isn't something everything. i think about when we got here january,i think it was

the first time the president said i don't much care what the constitution has to say, i want to put my appointees to the board anyway. we had conversations amongst ourselves. how it is we are supposed to stop that. 26 months later, we haven't been able to do a thing -- we couldn't even get a defund bill across the floor. we couldn't get that down amongst ourselves. it took the supreme court to step in and solve that problem for us. and shame on us that it takes the courts to do it, that we didn't stand up. as he wrote for the majority, he

said the appointments clause was not designed to overcome friction or the branches. consequenceevitable of our constitutional structure. folks are taking the shortcuts that you road that friction -- that you wrote that friction, they are not solving the problem. i am grateful to the members were doing everything they can. i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> thank you. we had some of this debate last week with regards to the executive actions. at that point i submitted to the that the president asked whether this was legal and determined it was. hundreds of legal scholars --

again, this was not the preferred approach of the president, the democratic party, of the republican party either, the preferred approach was a legislative one. can is the only one that provide a pathway of citizenship for people who have been here illegally. the president has specific statutory authority to engage in prosecutorial discretion. is forcing the administration to engage in prosecutorial discretion. congress hasn't given law enforcement the ability to enforce the law, so the president has to use enforcement resources, to either determine field offices and ad hoc manner, determined by some reasonable scheme that focuses on criminals, which seems to be a reasonable way to prioritize,

but it is not anything anybody wanted to do, and it really will be up to the republican majority of the house and senate to ask our immigration problem. as long as there are 11 million people here illegally, and in my state there are 450 pence per detention -- beds per detention. alternativeother but to prioritize these prosecutorial discretions. the said it did pass a bill. the house, unfortunately, did not pass a single immigration bill. that will be the real opportunity in the next congress -- to address this issue stop in the meantime any president is going to do the best they can under impossible circumstances, and that is exactly what the president did here. i sure hope the discussion is what can we do to address our broken immigration system, restore the rule of law, and i hope the conclusion is similar

to the senate immigration bill, which i will be offering one amendment hr-15, and to the appropriations bill. i will be speaking to that later. i wanted to say that that is the real answer and i yield back. >> i'm not trying to take the gentleman on it all but we did pass a border bill that dealt with immigration before we left in august. regards -- is that the >> we did, yes. >> a very minor piece. >> i just want to suggest that we did take the issue up. the gentleman from florida is recognized . gentleman. -- i

think the gentleman. every time you cite legal counsel at the white house as being a good and rational reason for why this president is doing what he is doing i'm going to remind you that it was the same office of legal counsel that told him unquestionably he could make those recess appointments anytime he wanted. know, if you don't have a lawyer tell you what you want to do, you fire that lawyer, you get another one who will tell you -- it is not the president's responsibility to sort out constitutional questions. it is not the supreme court's responsibility to sort that out, though they do it in the failure of us. nots our responsibility, the majority, not the minority, but our responsibility. ofis precisely that kind

cavalier conversation about what happens at the white house that brings out the kind of passion that you are seeing here. it doesn't look like we are on the precipice of solving this issue, and looks like the divide is getting further and further. if i can get what i want, i will just count on the president to do it alone. i think that is dangerous. >> i thank you. things -- i so many want to go back to what the because wentioned -- believe that the president has overstepped his bounds on numerous occasions, and so has the rest of the executive branch. that is why we held lois lerner in contempt. i brought those pieces of legislation through the rules process, but also in regards to litigating against prisons -- i brought those to the floor. about an things are

overreach of the executive branch, and we have had that and i invite my democratic colleagues to say it is not just about a democrat president, it is about any president or administration that overstepped their bounds. the constitution is pretty clear in regards to separation of powers. i try to reach out and say, it could be a republican president next time, and what are we going to do? just because past presidents have been able to use executive orders to really circumvent this body, when you say enough is enough? i think that is what we have been saying all along, and now i think we are going to get the help that we so desperately need in the senate to do a lot of things that we should have gotten done with the help of the seven. -- the senate. all of us on this side of the aisle are pretty upset with the

executive overreach of this president in the executive branch, and we are going to continue to do the right thing as we move forward. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and those that are here today. >> thank you. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't know exactly what to that -- i hope we are not overpromising feel like weause i have failed in the past and we will fail again. but this is a body that i believe should operate independent from other bodies, including the senate. we should do what we believe to be is right. whatever happens, happens. it disturbs me that when we thwart the process we have here because -- we are sent here to file bills and alter amendments

and make speeches and so forth -- and we do it within the context of this particular body. we take those and some of them are tossed, but we came here to vote. got -- we have cards with signatures, in the only thing that all of us have is a vote, that is it. i would suspect that mr. hastings remembers that the longtime chairman here, if i can remember his name, from new york, -- yeah. anyway, there was a great speech given about -- what have you got in your hand? that was a vote, that is it. i am disturbed that we can't always exercise that vote. it does bother me a lot. i don't know what to do about

it. i don't want to be a pessimist, i am a very optimistic person, but i would say that i am not so sure that any of that is going to change. but -- just as this bachmann offered an amendment on the bill in the first week's session after we gained a majority, we were told we can't do it then. are you back for the same one? i don't know. we still haven't done it. i hope that is not the case here. we can actually take our cards out and use them every chance we get for as many amendments as we offer. --ave said over and over let's start at 8:00 in the morning and work to 6:00 every night, and take up every one of

these issues every time we get a chance, and don't leave the most important issues to the end. i remember one time i learned my lesson about how legislative bodies work. when the state of florida, the first bill they took up was the e.ming of the state ti there is an important issue. after midnight on the last day of session, they passed the budget. they passed the rewrite of the welfare law. we dismantled the department of commerce and created a department of health, all after midnight with two minutes of debate. but we did name the state pie. it was key lime. -- he that we are headed was right, we have a group here that has made a point and i hope that point sticks, i do.

i hope that it is a change in the future that these type get a, when they come up, full opportunity not only to debate and discuss that but pass them. promised, and i appreciate that -- i think it is a very important issue and i think we should discuss it before we ever get into anything else. i am hoping it will change. i am optimistic that it will. but we will have to prove because history tells you it is not going to change. so like i said before, power in principle cannot coexist. we either operate off principle or we operate off power. the question is which is a going to be. i yield back. >> to thank the gentleman for his comments. i won't take long.

i want to associate myself with mr. wester's remarks. i would have gone different on the choice of pie. it has been frustrating these past two years -- it feels like we debate with ourselves until we decide what would be acceptable to the other body and i hope that a new day is dawning. i am looking forward to see if i'm still on the rules committee -- i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. heard from you and it sounds like you have heard from us. each of you for taking the time to come by. i know you spent a lot of your day being here. i pray for your success and want to thank you for taking time to do it the way you have done it. i think you brought credit on not only each other upon this body and the idea that you were

trying to get it done. i thank each of you very much. we will call the next panel. mr. king, mrs. bachman, and judge gilbert. quicklyo if i can very -- we may have to clean some of those glasses off. i don't know if we need any more water. if we do a sure you will notify me. we are still operating by the same rules that we always have. i welcome you to the rules committee for your thoughts and ideas, the reason why you are here. i would also save you have anything in writing, it will be entered into the record. we go straight to mr. deutsch. thank you. i know you have been here a long time. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you.

thanks for the opportunity to testify. i stand before you as part of my amendment that i introduced. it is a straight division from this omnibus spending bill. that would allow the wealthiest donors in america to contribute $648,000 to the national political partie every years. this measure invites a tiny sliver of the american population to donate an additional $1.5 million per two-year federal election cycle. that is the amount per person at this will would allow the wealthiest americans to inject into our political system. this revision increases the amount individuals can give by

million, and outrages and exponential increase. thecenterpiece of campaign-finance reform laws in 2002 address the widespread perception of corruption in our political party system. i believe that most americans will find it downright appalling that congressional negotiators saw fit to chip away at the landmark reforms in the middle of the night without debate and without fair warning. from many have heard of my colleagues who were disappointed at how we arrived at this bill. regardless of your views on the policy of these writers -- these riders, it was struck without hearings or a markup. what explanation provided by some of these colleagues, is

that the bill is not perfect but it is compromise, that is just the way we need to work together to get things done. i respectfully and deeply disagree with the suggestion that this is just a compromise. it is not a compromise. the congress was not engaged in a debate over campaign finance issues that could potentially lead to a compromise. simply, a sneak attack on our campaign-finance system. that was a sneak attack on the polls showople when that our constituents are losing faith in washington possibility to put their needs ahead of special interest. if this house everyone's hosted reforms on which of the to toss out, which donation limits for millionaires and billionaires should be lifted? which money should be disclosed to the public -- i would have been there. jim mcgovern would have been there. who hasmber of congress

worked to restore faith in our democracy in the aftermath of the citizens united case would have been there. the american people deserve such a debate. the argument that i have heard earlier is that these changes to our campaign finance laws, d of these limitations and increasing the arent can be contributed, necessary because presidential election campaign funds have been diverted to pay for pediatric cancer research. those arguments are disingenuous and defensive. if the majority would like to restore public funding for conventions then we should consider that legislation. we have got the time. the next convention will be held for 18 months. if funding is a priority for the majority, then bring it to the floor in january. let's figure out how to do it. the american people already feel excluded from the process.

the integrity of our election is already suffering enormously, when the supreme court ruled that wealthy individuals have a constitutional right to observe more influence over elected officials and the people who elected them. we are witnessing an all-out assault on what was a bipartisan system of ruleso reduce corruption and ensure that big money was not able to dominate our democratic institutions. when we arrive at campaign rules in secret bargains, it not only contributes to more dominance, but it proves our point. earlier thatsaid because of the timing, we can't do things that are extraneous in this bill. i would submit that this entire process shows us that the system is broken, and i think the people should vote on whether they want to make it worse. i yield back. >>.i thank the gentleman for his

time . is there anyone on the democrat side -- >> i don't have any questions, but i am a cosponsor of the measure, and he has spoken for me. the republicanf side? your time was well spent. >> it took us a long time to go through this today. the time you spent with us was -- please make sure you leave whatever you have in writing and i will enter into the record. you can spend the night here and do whatever you want but we are going to move on. if the gentleman chooses to excuse himself -- >> mr. chairman, members? mrs. bachman, welcome to the committee. we are delighted that you are here at with us tonight, please make sure that green light is on for you and the gentlewoman is

recognized. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, and the members of the committee. it has been absolutely a pleasure to be here tonight and to listen to the thoughtful discussion regarding amendments, as well as your timely remarks. it is very clear to me that this committee is highly concerned with upholding the constitution of our country, as well as making sure that every member is heard. i appreciate that. i appreciate that message. i am here tonight for one simple reason, and it is because, as i iote a few notes down -- think it is very clear that in this committee, this is what are the most important committees we have in the congress. everyone,pply to including the president of the united states. it is my opinion that the president will hurt the american people.

it is unconstitutional granting of work permits, and i think the president recognizes that. timing is everything. the time i believed to stop the president is now, which is why i am urging this committee to allow the vote on the amendments -- these are all good amendments. i think the president, himself, demonstrated that he understands the importance of timing. i think we saw that this fall. he cynically waited until after the election to announce his work permit order, after the election results were in. he knew the american people were not in support of his actions, and that is why he chose that timing. timing is everything. the president also chose not to deport lawbreakers. he has chosen to release criminal aliens on american streets. and now he will not only give away coveted, valuable work

permits, but we understand that he is also opening access to our financially vulnerable social security system to illegal aliens. timing does matter. we talked about the vote. if there is a vote in january on either the gomer or the king with the mulvaney amendment, it illegal work permits -- will it also include resending all the work permits that the president will have already granted? and pullo backward those work permits into the net? that is why we are here, again, because of timing. why not publicly state down what will be our intent going forward in january? guaranteeing a republican form of government, the public must have ruled by law, not ruled by whim. i believe the rule of law

matters. but it also matters today, in december. that matters today because mr. king and mr. gomer and mr. mulvaney need to prevent the unlawful distribution of unconstitutionally granted work permits. why? because the common man in this country and the common woman in this country, the american worker, will be the ones who are hurt by this granting of 5 million+ work permits. i want to thank you for doing what you are doing tonight. the president's actions were not a surprise to anyone in this room. we have no known for months that the president planned to audaciously take action to authorize these 5 million work permits without the legal process. again, i urge this committee to take under advisement the issue of timing.

iftever this committee does, the committee chooses to go forward and wait until january for a vote, i urge this committee to make sure that they also pull in the illegal work permits that will be granted by this administration before we are able to get around to preventing that action. i thank you for your attention. >>. thank you very much. mr. king? >>. thank you, mr. chairman. i know the public appreciates it. i bring an amendment here to the appropriations bill. some of the things it does -- and recognizes that i supported this date as the deadline for the cr, because the president was promising he was going to will call them

lawless edex -- that expand executive amnesty -- he promised he was going to do it, and it was one of the promises he capped. i argued sometimes against my conservative colleagues who wanted to do a cr lasting until march. you end up with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. of people. another car that says they can work in america -- this day, i thought, was a wise day, and i supported it for that reason and i am here to follow through on the intent that i believe -- my amendment does this. it says the president has said to us, go win an election, and we did that. we had a wave election in 2010 and 2014. 15 new seats are here. the people have spoken.

but they didn't say to us, take another time to fight. ien this happens, this cr have is only until january 30 of next year. to holdto be able funding back for who knows what else he is going to do. has demonstrated clearly that he is not restrained by his oath. if we haveht you do an omnibus bill that funds everything else with the exception of department of homeland security? and the president has an open book for finding all the way to september 30 and you can pick another fight after that. we didn't get to take our time for this fight. he made the decision when he made the decision. 30.r goes to january it does something else that is important in addition to the it does notment --

address the morton memos. asamendment goes as far back march 2, 2011, and shows that morton memos. some of us raise an issue to that, but then the memo came out. some of us raised an issue another said we will fight later. with somed meetings of the smartest constitutional mines that i could pull together. we did it at the heritage foundation. -- and outs at nice of it came a lawsuit. i have been defending a constitutional long the way, whether the country knew it or not. i think my record is clear stop but this -- is clear. it shuts off the funding to the

morton memos. and passed the house of representatives with a vote of 220 42 whatever it was. 224 to whatever it was. this congress has voted twice to defund daca. that is still not enough. the listing for the president's is listed in my amendment and it is listed also in the mulvaney amendment. but the mulvaney amendment is devoid of the broader, catchall the president has essentially saying -- essentially changed law. we don't know what all he might have done, we don't know what he might do, so i wrote broader,

catchall language so we can at least defend the constitution with regard to immigration and covered all. again, we didn't pick this time. . the president take this time. the gentleman from oklahoma mentioned a bar fight. while that is going on, they are hiring people today to accelerate the distribution of these permits that are created out of thin air by a president that knows very well he is violating the constitution. -- it hasy amendment the support of mr. mcclintock, mr. labrador, others who would i haven't had a chance to talk to mr. gomer yet. that is where we are. i just wanted the profound constitutional arguments i have feare -- i have heard here.

i would hear them at the supreme court level. they were not as stimulating as the things i have heard from the members on this panel. a time has come to stand on principle, to shut this funding off now, to give us an opportunity for the new congress to be seated so they can weigh in on the 2015 the school both the 2016 fiscal year. -- we took annd oath of office, each one of us. the fervor with which i have heard the conviction of this panel and some of the witnesses, in particular jeff duncan, if i can associate myself with his words and his passion, that is our own. we take it seriously. when the president gets his oval office which is specified in the

constitution to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united s, and he is required to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed and he lectures us on that -- he knows that he is wrong. when the president doesn't abide by his oath of office, we have an ever more powerful command that we abide by hours. it doesn't say wait until it is convenient. way to it doesn't make you uncomfortable. you taken up -- you take a note of all the constitution and you do so. senate,as in the state we had a governor that believed to can legislate by executive order. i was the only one who believed he was wrong. he issued an executive order that i believe rewrote the civil rights section of the iowa code, and my smarter outlook lawyers said you don't understand -- this is very nuanced.

what i understand is i take the language, i injected into the has amended the civil rights action of the code. i did it the right way. i brought a bill to nullify the executive order. he vetoed it before we ever had the final vote. we failed in the veto override attempt. i reached into my kid's inheritance to hire the attorneys to go to court, to nullify that executive order, because i believed so strongly in the separation of powers. it succeeded -- anyone can look it up. 10 years later, they reverse that i statue. -- it was the executive order of the governor 10 years earlier in the code of iowa. i disagree with the policy but you never hear a word about me because it was the voice of a people stop we cannot have a president who thinks he is emperor.

we have got to stand by this constitution. he has spent the time for the fights, we need to do it now, this amendment lets us do so. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman is recognized. my dear friend, michele bachmann, is much more gracious than i am. she enjoyed sitting through this hearing and i am not quite to that point yet. my amendment is one page. i think we are better off with an amendment that is all inclusive, and would eliminate unlawful acts that have been done by the president by like theg money 80's.ss did in the

and just generally cuts off all funding for any type of executive order, memorandum, design, create, or implement the executive branch. it relates to immigration .aturalization impression i got the that the inclination is to have a closed rule and not allow the amendment -- let me tell you, there are employers out there that made the vote on this under the law as it exists. we know the president is saying, we are going to issue permits, to hire,kes it a crime recruit, or refer for fee anyone that is an unauthorized alien. there is a real legal issue

there. give youthe president a perfect, but is he going to sign a permit for you if you hire people illegally? folks need to know, and i think we can clarify that pretty quickly with a vote. if youink it is better get specific. i know mr. mcgovern has indicated that this is such a recall that the record was set for closed rules, and i am hoping that as this congress goes out we are not going to follow suit, the most closed rules that have ever been in that congress. >> you beat it already? >> we really have. i hope we don't add to it tonight.

i think one of our problems has been, as was said earlier, what of my friends on the committee -- we have not forced the senate to take the top votes that they should have to take on. i think that gives a better 's fortion to voters who what in the senate. i checked with crs before i came in for the hearing -- it is possible for this committee to vote for a rule that would allow an amendment here to be included. and if it passes, becomes part of the bill, goes down to the senate, this committee has the power, according to crs, to say, as part of the rule that the

senate has the power to vote this particular provision out, but you will have to take the hard vote and voted out, and if you do that, then the cr can still go to the president without our language that we passed in the house. we have voted in the rule to allow that to happen. it is time suggest to quit trying to pass what we think the senate might pass, negotiating with ourselves, with what we believe in, force them to take a vote on those things. and forces shutdown, the senate to vote against the things they don't believe -- and i think the process is much better for that.

the reason we would be willing a do that is if we have short-term cr so we get into next year on everything, and then, with a republican senate, we have got easier. negotiate with. -- easier folks to negotiate with. and still notthat have any threat of a shutdown. senate -- i the would hate to think how many seeds we might have one if we didn't have a shutdown. sarcasm, sorry. but i offer that for your consideration and hope one or all of these will have a chance to go forward. >> thank you very much. who says they're going to do anything with what we did? if we send a short-term cr

down to the senate that funds everything, everything, but has this provision -- a thing that says, we are not funding the presence -- the president possibly no actions. there doesn't have to be a shutdown, you don't even have to agree. >> what happens if they don't decide to do anything? >> even the most liberal, mainstream media would have a hard time pinning that on republicans in the house, because we gave them everything they wanted -- everything would be covered in the spending in the short term, and if they don't like that one addition they can voted out. it ought to be pretty clear who shut down the government if it gets shut down.

it would be the senate that not everything they wanted. they could strip out the one thing they don't and it goes to the president. i think it would be incredible. if they would like to lose more seats in the senate that would be a great position to take. if we sent back down there and they did that, it would be democrats who would not be back again in two years. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate our colleagues being here today and i have no questions. >> i have no questions. merry christmas, everybody. >> merry christmas. >> does any member of the panel -- happy hanukkah, happy holidays. the gentleman from george is recognized. >> i'm sorry, tom.

often overlooked by texas. [laughter] iowa -- thererom is nobody i hold in high regard in my friend and classmate -- on my with card for a decade. eloquently and appropriately about your sense the oath you took to defend the constitution. i am assuming, and i am sure i am right, that you are not suggesting to any of us on either side of the aisle, even when we disagree, take our oath any less seriously about protecting and defending the constitution of the united states.

we may disagree about policy, you may disagree about a tactic, but i know my friend would not suggest to any of us on this panel on either side of the aisle, don't regard that all of as the most could -- that will support and commitment. >> to journalism oklahoma -- i thank you the opportunity. the depth i expressed and constitutional conviction that i recognize was for that reason. you all understand that and i think the debate has been better than many. implyi wouldn't think to that you don't take that oath seriously. i would suggest that we each have to interpret the constitution -- we don't rely upon the supreme court to tell us what the constitution says, we rely upon our conscience to determine how to deeply --

>> i respect my friend for saying that and i know he believes that. i just want to reiterate, if we come to a disagreement, and the people on this panel and a congress know how seriously think about what i would regard -- youtitutional of, should swear allegiance to indian sovereignty whether you know it or not. i have many people on both sides of the isle of this congress that disagree with me on native american issues. i don't regard that they are knowingly or deliberately breaking their oath to the constitution when we have a disagreement. the gentleman states his case very well. that out foro lay the record because i know you are not doing that. we have a disagreement. it is not because anybody up level ofa different

commitment to their oath of office. they may see the issue differently but they are all, democrat or republican, absolutely determined to defend, protect the constitution of the united states, because they take that oath every two years and they take it -- in the media from the bottom of their hard. i just wanted to give my friend the opportunity to clarify that. >> to the gentleman from oklahoma and the rest of the panel, i do plead guilty to occasionally using superlatives and hyperbole to make my point. all with the emphasis on the effort of persuasion to bring people around to my way of thinking. that is what we should all do in whatever capacity with the gifts we have. i thank the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i yield back. class of 2010 arrived we thought we were the calvary coming to save the day.

it would have been these three faces that folks in that class looks to to try and figure out how to be a productive source of friction within the institution in order to make a difference here. that one ofst on me those three faces is not going to be with us any longer next year. for is a tremendous loss, us as a conference anybody. i am glad the way it turned out. i love the three of you are here. i hope you know that because of theervatism -- it will be lesser for not having you here to advocate next year. we will have to find a suitable third medical -- suitable third member of this panel. i think all three of you -- i thank all three of you.

heis very difficult issues take on and occasionally not particularly popular, but i would say that generally they are the issues that need to be taken up the most. i love the class of 2010. could you please refer to yourself as room meet -- referred to yourself as marines rather than calvary? [laughter] >> i was thinking of patent's armored calvary. i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida. >> i have no questions but i want to echo mr. woodall's comments as the class of 2010. the marines came to help. in deference. as a rose sits between the -- missi will tell you

pocket, we are going to miss you. we are going to miss what you bring in regards to a thoughtful process. yeare two thorns next we do appreciate that. and to the two thorns next to you, we have -- no, no, you know, we go back. and we have a lot of meetings on the side, and we really do appreciate it from the prayer breakfast to the opportunity breakfast and stuff. so i really do appreciate all three of you. thank you very much. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from lewisville, texas. >> i realize that i'm sort of the last man standing here on this panel. these are threee i hold in very high regard.