the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 177.

the nays are 240. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? ms. degette: on that i request a recorded vow. -- vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requeste the favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote i ordere members will record their votes by electrodic 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 t ys e 2nd the nays are 179. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsiders idn e

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlem from myld ekecnion?

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak of order for one minute forhe purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker and i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. mccarthy of california. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding and mr. speaker, the house is not in order. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will ben de the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mchyt u,r spe mr. speaker on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on wednesday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week -- votes of the week are expected around noon. on thursday and friday, no votes are expected.

mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bipartisan suspensions next week to combat human trafficking, a complete list will be announced at the close of business today. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 351, authored by representative bill johnson. this bipartisan bill will expedite leck which find natural gas to our will be liquefied natural gas to our allies. we must clear the backlog of applications currently pending at the department of energy and i thank the gentleman from ohio for sponsoring this important bill. finally, mr. speaker, the house will consider the secure our borders first act authored by chairman mccaul, which requires the department of homeland security to achieve operaal control of our border. the bill also ensures that we are using the latest technologies to assist with border enforcement and takes the commonsense step of allowing greater access to the

border region. specifically, federal lands to customs and border patrol officers and i thank the gentleman and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. the last bill of course, he says will be on the floor i presume will be on the floor wednesday is that accurate? mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman yields, yes, that's accurate. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. as the gentleman knows, in the last congress the committee passed out of the homeland security committee chaired by mr. mccaul a bipartisan bill that was supported -- as a matter of fact, i think it was reported out by voice vote and was supported by mr. thompson, the ranking member, as well as mr. mccaul and as well as republicans and democrats from the committee. as you know, so far this month in january, we spent time frankly recycling what we perceive to be partisan bills

from the last congress. unfortunately, it appears that we're going to do the same thing next week. and i tell the majority leader -- i ask the majority leader, mr. speaker, we have a bipartisan bill that just months ago was supported by democrats and republicans, reported out of committee not brought to the floor unfortunately, but reported out of committee, i think unanimously or at least without voiced opposition and now instead of taking that bill up which we know has bipartisan -- broad bipartisan support, we have a bill that's now going to be reported to the floor without going to committee, without being marked up -- was it marked up? mr. mccarthy: last night. mr. hoyer: excuse me. it was marked up yesterday. i'm corrected. it was as a matter of fact filed and marked up within

hours of one another. no considered judgment, no hearings -- may have been marked up but no hearings no notice to the public that the bill was pending, no opportunity for the public or members to look at it. as i understand it, the committee was organized yesterday at 10:00, and this bill was considered at 2:00 or some time in that time frame. but my concern, mr. leader -- i tell the speaker -- is that we continue to go down the path of having had bipartisan agreements worked out in committee and now at the beginning of this congress we are simply seeing partisan bill after partisan bill. now i understand that your side had a victory in the election and expanded your membership. however, the president of course, is still as he pointed out, in office and in order to get something done we're all

for border security. that's why the committee reported out the bill in the last congress. we had agreement on it. and i'll lament the fact that we didn't bring the bipartisan bill which would have gotten overwhelming support, in my opinion and substituting that on wednesday we're going to come in at 9:00 go out at 12:00. we'll have a rule perhaps on that. maybe a rule perhaps the day before. very short time to consider this. we'll bring up a partisan bill, which will engender -- i tell the majority leader, a lot of opposition on our side. going to be opposed by mr. thompson. it's so unfortunate, mr. speaker, that having achieved bipartisan agreement on a priority item, that is border security, that within frankly hours yesterday, we turned that into a partisan bill on which there is neither

consensus nor widespread agreement. i'm sure the gentleman had the opportunity to hear a quote about the first three weeks of this session from one of his republican members, mr. dent. talked about week one being -- of course, the speakership election. and then week two we got into a big fight over deporting children under dreamers which i thought we had a consensus on but we got into a big fight on that on. week three, we talked about rape and incest. frankly, a partisan bill on a very, very important subject which did not have significant consideration. and was substituted at 9:00 p.m. last night. no committee hearing. no committee input. no testimony available for that bill. and i would say to my -- mr.

speaker, we understand there are going to be differences between the republican side and the democratic side on issues, but repeatedly, mr. speaker, i hear the speaker, the majority leader and others talk about a transparent congress. i hear them talk about regular order and how they're going to return to that and how they're going to have consideration of bills. the majority leader himself was quoted a number of times saying we're going to have 72 hours. the bill that we just considered on this floor had less frankly, than 12 hours before it was brought to this floor out of the rules committee and i would hope mr. leader that if you're going to go through with this border security bill, we'll have an argument about it. it will largely be a partisan vote on it. that's unfortunate because we ought to be coming together, working together creating

consensus on making sure our borders are secure, as happened in the last congress but is not repeated here. so i'll be glad to yield to my friend, but i don't know whether it's going to be a closed rule or not. if i were betting, based on the first three weeks of this session, i would bet it's going to be a closed rule or a structured rule with very, very few amendments, given the time frame available to us. i would say that we are very concerned on this side of the aisle, mr. leader, i'll tell the speaker, that we're concerned about the closed processes that are going through partisan processes that we're going through and the lack of transparency and consideration that is being given to the bills that are coming to this floor and i yield to my friend. . mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. i listened very closely to you. i think we have two different experiences. i watched on the day of

swearing-in we had hire more heroes. every single member on both sides of the aisle voted for it. that was bipartisan. i watched, mr. speaker, bringing up a bill where we had a bipartisan vote just a few months before. the reason we brought it back committees weren't organized, we gracked a bipartisan bill. many members on the other side of the aisle, we had it on suspension, changed their vote the month before. but we were able to pass that again bipartisan. earlier in asking me what would come to the floor next week, you heard me say, 12 bipartisan bills on suspension to deal with human trafficking. you bring up the border bill. it's been noticed for a week. remember we have been here for two weeks. it's been marked up in committee where both sides late into the night got to debate where members on both sides of the aisle got to express their opinions and their amendments the way the system should work.

we've noticed today more than 72 hours, both sides have their retreats. we already had ours. we left that wednesday. yours going there. there's been more notice. there's been clear debate. there's been bipartisan bills here. i have no problem or qualm with a difference of philosophical opinion. the problem i have when we misstate what history has shown. you ask me about the rule. bringing up the bill, i will leave the type of the rule that will accompany the bill up to the rules committee and the chairman session. i do expect though, robust debate and look forward to consideration, participation both sides of the aisle. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i'm sorry. mr. speaker, i'm not sure i heard -- did you think it was going to come up on a closed rule or structured rule? did you mention that?

mr. mccarthy: if the gentleman yields. i expect the type of rule, i leave that up to the rules committee and chairman sessions. i do expect to have debate on both sides of the aisle. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker i would find it shocking if a bill ever came to this floor that precluded all debate. the gentleman is telling me it's going to come up and there will be time for debate. i don't know that i have ever been here where a bill came up that had no time for debate. i assume that, mr. speaker, to be the case. the question is, will there be an opportunity for members to offer amendments so that perhaps we could get back to the bipartisan bill that was reported out of the committee and leave the partisan parts of that bill for further discussion debate and amendment.

we would like to have the opportunity to vote on such an amendment. so i ask my friend again there's no doubt, mr. speaker that i believe there will be time for debate. it won't be very much time. i presume. but i presume there will be time for debate. but will there be time to offer alternative views and provisions to that bill as it is debated? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as the gentleman knows committee has jurisdiction. the rules committee is where you decide what rule comes forward. chairman sessions and those in the rules committee will take that up as soon as a decision is made. we'll notify every member of the house. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i don't know the answer but i thank the gentleman for his observation. i would observe, though, he mentioned heroes bill. that was obviously

overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. if you didn't hear me complain about that or anyone else. mr. mccarthy: i didn't even hear you bring it up. mr. hoyer: the keystone bill however, which i think is a very important issue, was made partisan. the 30 to 40-hour workweek was made partisan. the regulatory accountability act, as the gentleman mentioned -- excuse me, financial services, that bill was changed. it was changed without a hearing. it was changed without public testimony. i had a personal discussion, mr. speaker, with the majority leader about the change that occurred from the house bill that was passed. so that that bill was made, again partisan piece of legislation unfortunately. could have passed on suspension, i think, as it did the year before had it not been changed. on the pipelining permitting

legislation, again, not a bipartisan bill. this bill that we just considered, obviously very partisan. but no hearings. and closed rule. again, very important issues brought up in, i would suggest the gentleman, nontransparent. he mentioned the bill today -- excuse me, he mentioned the bill that was filed last friday, border security bill, which is coming up wednesday, committee organized at 10:00. this bill was passed sometime shortly after 2:00 or thereafter debate started at 2:00. when we talk about transparency when we talk about regular order, very frankly on pieces of substantive legislation regular order, i would suggest, mr. speaker, to the majority leader, is not introducing a bill then

we're off for three days, coming back, and the day after organized in the committee without hearings without any testimony, then passing the bill and bringing it to the floor when clearly there's partisan difference. we will move on, mr. leader. i know you're happy about that. as the gentleman knows after next week we have two four-day weeks scheduled in february prior to the presidents' day recess. can the gentleman give me a sense of what legislation will be on the floor on february? again, mr. leader, mr. speaker, so that members can have some knowledge of what might be brought to the floor so that they can prepare, and the public knows what legislation is going to be considered. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have made no decisions on february yet and notification. as soon as we do, we'll give

ample time for all. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. again would emphasize the majority leader, mr. speaker, has made it clear in his statements, both in a book that he and two others co-authored prior to their taking the majority, but he has said numerous times since then about his commitment to transparency openness, 72-hour rule, which has been -- three day rule, used to be 72 hours. now three days. three days i suggest mr. speaker, can be 26 hours. the last hour of the third day and the first hour of the third day. i understand that. that's not regular order. and we have all breached that. we all understand that. but having said that, this congress has started with closed

rules, no hearings, and anything but regular order. i would urge, mr. speaker, that the majority leader try to adhere to that and as he has observed in the past if we do that, i think we'll have better legislation, greater participation by members, and reflect better the voice of the american people. unless the majority leader has something further to say, i yield back. if he wants me to yield, i would be glad to yield. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if you quoted my book, hope you bought it. i thank you for that. proceeds went to help the veterans. i listened to what the gentleman said. as the gentleman knows any new congress when you start committees are just beginning to organize. that's why when we look to legislation, we look to those that the american public wanted. you had brought up keystone. 28 members on your side of the aisle voted for it. i consider that bipartisan. you have a large majority of americans who want it and waited five years.

i know you bring we had a debate on the border where we just now organized, we were just now sworn in. but they have been debating this issue for quite some time. it is our intention to run this house in a very open manner. i have been here when it has not been. just as we said in our book i think the american public win when is we go through regular order. we have greater transparency. i look forward to working with the gentleman as we progress throughout the term. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i don't want to be very cynical, but talk is fine. performance as ronald reagan said, trust but verify. we could read the talk. we can read the assertions. we can read the promises. but if it is not carried out, the american people are going to be -- continue to be as they were when the gentleman appealed to them in his book, they are going to be cynical about our actions.

i think mr. dent observed it correctly. for the first three weeks we have gone through a partisan practice. hopefully we can, mr. speaker skew that in the future. give notice. make sure everybody has the opportunity to participate. make sure that we have the ideas from both parties and the american people. given opportunity to be expressed, and yes, to be included. next week we'll bring to the floor, as we have in the past, a bill that abandons bipartisanship which was achieved in the last congress through the same committee for a partisan bill on which there will not be agreement. that's unfortunate for the security of our country. it's unfortunate for the due process of this institution. again i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time if the gentleman -- i yield back the balancemyime. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlem yldba. for what purpose does the gentlem fm lirn sk recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday, january 26 2015, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speakerroemre: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman om nnlvis to speak? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and te. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize and thank the thousands, tens of thousands of americans who traveled to washington d.c., to participate in today's march for life.

they came here today to remember a somber occasion. the anniversary of the roe v. wade supreme court decision. it's been 42 years since that fateful decision. while years have worn on, its impact on this country have not diminished. those who participate in the march today came from across the nation, from every state, despite the gold and the weather. -- cold and weather. for one reason, the next generation of americans depends on it. millions of americans have been unable to pursue their dreams and defend their unalienable rights because of abortion. this is not justice. this is not freedom. and i stand with those who march for life. i honor those who march for life. this is my seventh march for life since coming to congress. knowing that i can promise that as long as the lives of innocent, unborn children are at risk, these will be -- there will be those who make a stand against it. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanies ckhe la h te. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california wish to seek to be recognized? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minu. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objecti the gentleman is recogniz fneine. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in honor and memory of bill cordem, regarded by many as the father of the environmental movement in sonoma county. bill grew up in a sonoma county much more rural and undeveloped than today. and by the early 1960's, he for saw that growing population could threaten the county's natural landscape, so you fought to protect the home he loved. he was singularly responsible for instituting lasting environmental protections throughout sonoma county and california though he would never claim credit for them. one of bill's first victories was to prevent the development of pg and e's nuclear power lant. mr. huffman: he helped create the california coastal commission, which continues to guarantee public access to the coast today. he helped create the sonoma

county open space district. and championed the sonoma county land trust and the smart train. bill illustrates the incredible impact one person can have in making the world a better place. his legacy in sonoma county and beyond will not soon be forgotten. i extend my deepest condolences to his partner, his dear wife, lucy as well as his three children and grandchildren. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policyf nuy 25 the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it's been quite a week. there have been tragedies, there will be wonderful events

-- there have been wonderful events but having been to nigeria this past year and met with family members of girls who were kidnapped because they went to christian schools. there were three girls that i met escaped after they had been kidnapped. the kidnapped girls, as were known, were being sexual abused. may have now been sold into sex trafficking given as wives, been ordered to convert from christianity to islam or be killed and i know there are some in this town that think they're being asked to convert to an islam that doesn't exist

as a religion, but to those girls who are being told they must convert to the religion of islam or be killed, it does seem to be a religion. and having grieved with others around the world who have been harmed had family killed or harmed by radical islam tragic this week. read a story. this from bright bart. according to the united nations isis, islamic state, killing educated women following shahrya court sentences. and that is a problem. there's nothing wrong with religious people participating in government. that's what most of our founders were very strong christians.

a third of so that signed the declaration of independence actually ordained christian servants. that's a good thing. but when a religion also becomes the state, then this is the kind of thing you get. and it's tragic. in the article from edwin mora says the u.s. warned on tuesday that the islamic state, known as isis, isil or is, is showing a monsterous -- human life. this article points out that nevertheless, president obama, durinh state of theon address delivered tuesday night proclaimed that united states is stopping isil's

advance in iraq and syria. just last week, citing an unnamed pentagon official, reported that despite u.s.-led air strikes, isis is gaining ground in syria. the u.n. warned that the jihadist group is meeting out, quote, cruel and inhumane punishments against men women and children through unlawful quotes shahrya courts it's established in territory under its control. the civilians falling victim to the wrath says the extremist interpretations of islamic shahrya law or respected disloyalty says one spokesperson for the u.n. office of the high commissioner for human rights. isis has killed fellow jihadists and local residents

for violating the harsh version of islamic law imposed on the areas now controlled. it is a quote educated professional women particularly women who had run as candidates in elections for public office seem to be particularly at risk. in just the first two weeks of the year, reports indicated that three female lawyers were executed. goes on -- and this is a quote. the ruthless murder of two men that were thrown off the top of a building after having been accused of homosexual rights by a so-called court in mosul is another terrible example of the kind of monsterous disregard for human life that characterize isil's reign of tower over areas of iraq that were under the group's control, unquote. look, i know mr. speaker, that

our president stood right here the second level, and told us, and i quote, the shadow of crisis has passed. apparently he's not getting the briefings -- or maybe the briefings don't include just how bad the situation is around the world. christians are being persecuted and being killed in greater numbers than anytime in the history since jesus came. jews are being subjected to anti-semitic hate in many places like, we're told, has not been seen since before and during world war ii. growing up and reading and studying history, i couldn't

imagine that there would ever come another day that we would see hate growing against jewish people that could inspire another holocaust. that -- i just didn't think it would happen. so when i read about general eisenhower having soldiers bring people from the surrounding communities to help clean up the death camps, i thought you know, these are civilians in the community that may have been a little harsh. if they had nothing to do with the death camps. but i read his reasoning -- this is many years ago -- read that his reasoning was he wanted to make sure that nobody could ever proclaim that the death camps did not exist and that they were a figurement of someone's imagination. he wanted to make sure that couldn't happen.

so they were brought out to clean up. and yet mere decades later, here we are at a time when there are radical islamists calling for a new greater holocaust to kill jewish people calling for the complete wiping off the map of israel, calling for the complete destruction of what they call the great satan, the united states the shadow of crisis may have passed but the mental image i got when i heard the president say the shadow of the crisis has passed took me back to fifth grade. i was very small in elementary school, and there was one guy that could have been two grades ahead but he had been held back , he was about two heads taller

than i was and i was on the playground one day and as a little kid i saw ray's shadow pass me and i turned around and i got smashed in the face and made my nosebleed. that was the image i had when the president invoked the shadow of the crisis passing, that if the shadow of this crisis has passed then we may be just about get smacked in the face by these radical islamists and it will be a lot more than a bloody nose that ends up occurring. this is a very desperate time in the world for millions of people. since they perhaps weren't journalists, the nearly 2,000 or so nigerians that were

killed by radical islamists boko haram, in nigeria didn't get quite the attention i thought it should have for the horrendous killings in paris that got attention as they absolutely should have. you know under western civilization law it was true in early days of this country, it's been true as far as i know under every state's law. i know it's absolutely true under state law that when it comes to a physical assault the law has been clear, provoking words are never a defense to a physical assault. that in this country under our law and under the law of every state, no matter what you say, it does not justify a physical

attack. and now we've even had the president of the united stas basically stand up before the u.n., stand up in front of media stand up in front of crowds and say that, you know, we need to be more careful. but it goes beyond that. he appears to attribute blame for attack on people being attacked to the point that he and those who worked for him were asked to go out and tell the country before the 2012 election that a video was responsible for the deaths of four americans serving their country in bens, libya.

-- benghazi, libya. turns out that wasn't true at all. turns out people knew that before that was trotted out. the book written about the blood feud, according to the book, between the clintons and the obamas indicated that there was a phone call from hillary clinton to her husband upset that the president was asking her to go out and say that benghazi attack was the result of a video and according to the book she was advised that america wouldn't buy a lie like that but ultimately they decided at least not to have her go on the sunday shows. again according to the book. that, gee though if she resigns that might cost him the election and democrats would be

upset about it and so they would never want to nominate her for president if she resigned and cost obama the election in 2012. so that was according to the book why she didn't resign, but she didn't go on the sunday shows. susan rice was sent out with that task to blame a video when it was very clear, when chris stevens called that he was under attack, it was nothing about a video mentioned. when the warnings were being given by those who were aware of a buildup of radicals, potential problems even across the street, nothing was mentioned about a video because it wasn't about a video. but that would have been an inconvenient truth so close to

the election. our heart breaks collectively for these killings and it is my hope and prayer that liberal women's groups here in the united states that prefer the easy task of attacking conservatives creating allegations that gee, there's some war on women when actually, as i speak there is a war on women going on in radical islammist-held countries. there is a war on baby women going on around the world and there are people that actually accuse to -- choose to abort babies because they're baby

women. there is a war on women, but it's not by conservatives in the country who in this country want them to have the best health care they can get who want young girls to have the best care they can get both in the womb and outside the womb. this isn't where the war on women is occurring. . although there's still some vestiges of prejudice against women, and we are very hopeful that since the presint has made such a big issue about treating women equally that it won't be too long before the white house will start treating women equally and giving them equal pay for equal work. so i'm encouraged the president keeps bringing that up. hoping that that will injure to the benefit of women working -- inure to the benefi wen working at the white house so

they will be paid what men are there in the white house. i really do hope, not only liberal women's groups that take the easy path, taking potshots at conservatives, will stand with us against radical islam. i ask mothers of girls that were kidnapped by boko haram in nigh o geara, did they attack -- in nigeria, did they attack the school because it was a school for girls? they said apparently they didn't realize that it was only girls at the school because they asked where are the boys? they wanted to bring them out and shoot them as they did at other places. when they realized it was only girls then they took them to

become slaves sexually and otherwise, and force them to convert. but it wasn't -- the school wasn't attacked because it was a girls school because they didn't know it was only for girls. they knew it was christian. but there is also an attack on christian women and i would hope that even the most atheist of women in the united states and in western civilized countries around the world, would start standing up for the mistreatment of christian women. at that are particularly being brutalized because of their faith and because of their sex combined. so as the president for the first time since 9/11 of any president failed to mention al qaeda, and i can understand that. i have to be a little defensive

for the president here. he had been saying for so long before the 2012 election, he and vice president, that al qaeda was on the run. some cases osama bin laden is dead. al qaeda's on the run. and general motors is alive. well, it turns out if al qaeda's on the run it's a run directly at us and our allies our friends. and that is particularly true of israel. they consider israel the little satan and us the great satan but we have no better friend in the middle east than israel. our president has been overheard , microphone picked him up, basically casting aspersions on

the character of prime minister netanyahu. fair people that i have known if they ever got caught maligning someone inappropriately they would go out of their way to show that that was inappropriate and i want to make it up and i want to show that we are friends. we may have disagreements, but we are friends. and of course people have read about him treating prime minister netanyahu so poorly when he came to the white house. years having sit around while -- one account said he was told just wait here and when you have a change of position let me know. i'm going to eat with my family. prime minister ended up leaving rather than sitting in his corner for a time-out. as the president wanted.

we haven't seen any of that by this president. making clear to the world that israel is our friend and israel's leader that the people in the legislature of israel has elected. we haven't seen those kind of outreaches. and then we find out the president's all upset that the speaker of the house invited the prime minister netanyahu to come speak here on february 11. and perhaps that's yet another indication of the ignorance, and, mr. speaker, our parliamentarian, doesn't cast any aspersions on someone to be ignorant of something. we are all ig for rant of things. but there apparently is a blind spot in the constitution by the president for a number of

things, and apparently one is how the legislature works. even though he's been in the senate. because under the constitution the people's house here is not -- we can't have anybody come speak here who is not a member of congress. with one exception. under the constitution and thomas jefferson's rules of the house under which we have been operating for -- since 1789 with modifications, but still being the rule, you can come speak in the house chamber officially unless you are invited by the house. you can't come speak to a joint session of congress, both the

house and senate, unless both the house and the senate invite you. now, how do we know that the president doesn't really grasp that concept and is not aware of the constitutional and the rule ramifications in congress is because, been a few years back, but the president decided, as i recall, that he was going to come lecture congress on a jobs bill and tell us -- i think it was 16 or so times, that we had to pass it right now, right away. failing to mention he didn't even have a bill. nevertheless, the president went out publicly and a statement was made, released that he wanted -- he was going to come to congress and speak to congress on a specific day at a specific time and he had not even spoken to the speaker of the house of representatives maybe he talked

to majority leader reid, but he hadn't talked to the spear the hoe, and this is the house chamber where the house has to actually vote to invite him. didn't even bother to see what was convenient. and as i recall not only was there ignorance of the rules and the constitutional requirements but there was also ignorance about nfl, what's known as football here in the united states and it was going to be -- i believe it was the beginning game of the season, the president just announced he wanted to come to congress and demanded to come speak to us in conflict with the beginning of the first football game. of the season. i believe it was the first. it was a big night. and after that was pointed out, then he ended up coming and speaking earlier.

but the point being no president has ever picked a day, said here's when i'm coming to speak to the house, without understanding you can't come unless you're invite and you're not even allowed to come give an oral state of the union address unless the house and senate vote to invite you to speak to a joint session. that's been the rule since we began. now, under the constitution it's not required that a state of the union address be orally given in a speech. there is a constitutional requirement for a state of the union report to be given, but in the early years of our country, there were times when the president just sent a rept. here's my report on the state of the union. so the president has snubbed

congress, the rules, constitution repeatedly and then our speaker is condemned by the white house for inviting a world leader to come speak here. again, the president doesn't realize there is no requirement to check with the president. if it's not already occurred we'll have to have a unanimous consent or a vote to have the house approve the invitation of prime minister netanyahu to me speak here. that has to happen. if it hadn't already. so there are no requirement to check with the president. we don't even have to invite him over here to speak to do his state of the union. when the unanoucoen qut is made, anybody here could object to the president coming.

i'm not aware of that ever happening. don't anticipate that ever happening. but interestingly we have been reading, and when i have been in israel and talked to leaders over there, they talk about the massive pressure by the obama adminisatn to try to push israel into getting rid of prime minister netanyahu. we know what our president did to help support the removal of president mubarak. we know he went even further in libya after gaddafi, after 2003's invasion of iraq, threw all of his weapons systems opened the united states, you tell me what i can keep basically, and as some in israel have advised, gaddafi after his

conversion, experienced some fear the u.s. would invade libya in 2003, he became more of a help to going after terrorists, radical islamic terrorists than most anybody except in israel. we've got friends around the world that are trying to help us with radical islam and even our friends in israel -- in egypt, they are a neighbor of israel, egypt as many of us feared, if had he they had an election too quick after the so-called arab spring, which was more of an arab nightmare for the egyptian people, they had election too soon. the most organized group was the radical islamic muslim brotherhood. it was not really a military coup and that has offended the egyptian people as they have

indicated when news media or the white house has said it was a coup, because you had the largest uprising in the history of the world occur in egypt. it was demonstration after demonstration for the ages. 20 million, 30 million, 33 million came the reports of the uprising from the around 90 million people in egypt. massive. that would be like over 100 million people in america going to the streets and demanding the president be removed. it's hard to get a third of the united states just to go out and vote. they did more than that. they put themselves at risk and came to the streets and said, enough is enough. and the coptic christian pope

has told me of how touched he was to have moderate muslims secularrists, people of different faiths come and literally and figuratively join arms and march together to stop the brutality against christianity and against jews in egypt. that was extraordinary. so much of our media missed it. and i think our president really never understood that. briefings must not have been adequate if he -- or he missed them. but that was extraordinary. that was an event for the ages. the egyptian people arising in millions like no one, no country had ever had, had ever experienced in our entire

history of mankind. extraordinary. they are to be commended. what happened? yeah, there were even a couple of republican senators, but you had the president, the white house, the state department people condemning he egypt for saying -- condemning egypt for saying we don't want radical islam running our country. . i didn't realize but the constitution, i understand this administration helped with did not include a provision for impeachment. we didn't give them a peaceable way within the constitution to remove a leader once he acted outside the constitution, as morsi was doing. now because i've been told by a former c.i.a. operative, i asked general el-sisi while he

was still general, before morsi was elected, did you have evidence that he was trying to have you killed? because i was told by a former c.i.a. operative that he did. and he was reluctant to respond but eventually responded yes, we did. didn't really need that because of the unconstitutional activities actions of president morsi. now, i've had friends of israel that were saying, we want to give morsi a chance because he's really working to bring peace to the sinai. well, as we found out after the people arose and a peaceful revolution occurred that i

thought about the egyptian peaceable revolution as i watched the movie "selma." tragic that that ever came about and circumstances ever came to the point that we were treating, especially as a christian, treating brothers and sisters like that. thank god for martin luther king jr. we honor him this week. was an example. people in egypt know about dr. king. the pope knows of dr. king. he wanted a peaceful demonstration and they were part of a peaceful demonstration. unfortunately, radical islam did not like being removed. they burned churches. they went after christians. they went after jews.

and it was so offensive to the moderate muslims that make up most of egypt that they even voted overwhelmingly for a constitution that required the government to build back the churches that the muslim brotherhood burned down. that's historic for the ages. so we have this one country 90 million, most muslim. at one time there may have been, as i understand, maybe 10% or more christians, but radical islam took over after the alleged arab spring that was anything but a spring. and it's a place of hope with a very very difficult road in front of them. some of the military leaders asking members of congress that were visiting over there about

the apache helicopters and the tanks that had been frozen by president obama's administration and the refusal for so long to provide them and the military leaders are saying does your president not understand that we use those apache helicopters to keep the suez canal open? does he want a tragedy at the suez canal? is that why he's not allowing us to have new apaches that we need in order to keep the suez canal properly open and safe? we use the apache helicopters to go after the massive weapon buildup that occurred in the sinai under morsi. and the sinai is an area with rapid, huge weapon buildup under morsi that is a threat

and was a threat to israel our ally. somebody in the administration needs to get out a memo to everyone else saying, look, israel really is our friend. netanyahu has more in common in his government and what his government believes than any other government in the entire middle east. with us here in america. maybe we ought to go easy on pushing for a new leader. well, it didn't happen today. here's an article, not only apparently is the white house

unhappy with our speaker -- i've been mad at the speaker. here's an article since the leader of our closest ally and friend in israel -- in the middle east, israel is coming this article from nbc news -- nbcnews.com, president barack obama will not meet with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu when he visits the united nations in march, his administration announced thursday not meeting with heads of states in close proximity to their elections. i guess he's glad that countries around the world don't have the same policy because he was sure running around before the election wanting to make appearance with them. i guess it would only be natural that foreign leaders would assume since he did it

before his election that he would certainly not want to appear less than consistent. but they didn't use that excuse when the president gave prime minister netanyahu a time-out, you wait here, i'm going to go eat, let me know when you have a change of mind. i mean, that's what parents used to say to us. you know, that's what some of us -- our parties said, until you're willing to act right, you go to your room. but for a president of the united states to do that to a leader of the country that's our best ally in the middle east, is really extraordinary, so i guess it shouldn't be a surprise he wants him snubbed before his re-election. but i also think it's important, mr. speaker, that we

have him here to hear his side about what iran is doing. some of us in december met with leading investigators at the iaea in vienna to talk about iran's current status as best they can figure out and i think it was one of the most -- i think it was the most candid meeting that we've had with representatives of the iaea. i appreciate their honesty and forthrightness. but iran's centrifuges are still spinning. they are still enriching uranium. they are increasing the amount of uranium that they are enritching. and even though they are -- enriching. and even though they're assuring the iaea that they are

not taking it any more, they are not taking it past 5% enrichment people that know about the enrichment process know it's not that much of a step to go from 5% to 90%, have weapons-grade uranium that can be used for bombs. i think my friend, joel rosenberg, in his all-too realistic nofble -- novel, previously depicted iran as developing enough nuclear materiel to use, not just in one bomb, they wanted enough to use in several bombs so that when they got to that point in a secret facility in -- that even the iaea u.s., others didn't know about, according to the novel, they were able to

prepare nuclear weapons, multiple nuclear weapons at the same time and immediately ship them out in different directions so that anyone trying to stop their nukes once developed would have to worry that if they attacked the -- if they attacked iran to stop their nuclear weapons they had several that would be unlikely they would get them all and that would mean that nukes would probably show up in israel and the united states. seems pretty realistic. that seems like a realistic consideration for iran. they seem to be following that procedure, developing as much 5% enriched uranium, that we know of, but as even the experts can tell you it is possible.

they've got a facility we didn't know about. they've surprised us before. this is a tragic time in so many places in the world. the shadow of the crisis may have passed us but too often that means now the shadow has passed and the crisis is upon us. it's time to stand up to radical islam. and to stand and talk to kurdish leaders or outside irbil, at headquarters where they're able to watch things that are going on i hear commanders say, you have no idea how heartbreaking it is to see a vehicle, an american vehicle uparmored vehicle that

the united states produced, that's in the islamic state hands, that's now been made into a massive suicide bomb comes at our kurdish fighters fighting heroically but not having a single weapon that will stop an american uparmored vehicle as the vehicle comes as they know it's going to explode and it gets nearer and nearer and they're frantic but everybody watching the video feed, everybody on the ground there knows they're not going to stop it because the united states has not provided the weapons to our friends that will stop the weapons the u.s. weapons that are in the hands of our enemies. and then ultimately the suicide

bomb of a u.s. uparmored vehicle takes out those valiant heroic kurdish fighters. these are not people that threw down their weapons and ran like so much of the iraqi army did. there are iraqi officials that say, this is why we really needed a small american presence here to give us the backbone to tell us, here's what you do. yes, they're coming, but don't throw down your weapons. go here. go there. we needed that help that coordination. the same kind of help and direction coordination, that our embedded special forces, special ops people gave to the northern alliance in afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002 when the taliban was initially decimated, defeated before we added tens of thousands of troops and became occupiers.

it has worked. it worked in afghanistan before we became occupiers. it has worked when we helped people that want to defend themselves defend themselves. and we've seen over and over these reports that in syria, this so-called vetted, moderate, free syrian army is joining forces with al qaeda affiliates. and this administration still thinks it's a good idea to send them weapons, that they can use ultimately to go after our friends, the kurds. turkey, our ally, friend nato partner, says we can't use their bases to fight the islamic state. and i know. i got friends in turkey leaders there i met with. they don't like the idea of the

kurds being armed. well, i think it's time the administration should announce we're not sending weapons to baghdad so they can send what can't stop the islamic state to the kurds. we're sending weapons directly to irbil. we're sending directly tohe kurds and ok, turkey, we understand you don't like that idea. if you don't like it enough, you have a powerful enough military to stop and destroy the islamic state by yourself if you want to. . we would much prefer turning take out the islamic state by themselves. but it appears turkey is becoming more radical in their legislation and activities, it explains perhaps why they will not allow us to use our bases and will not directly themselves fight the islamic state. the kurds are willing. they are doing it.

they are fighting valiantly. let's help them out directly. not through baghdad. but directly. let's really -- let's try to be friends with israel. let's try not to snub their leaders. since i have been in congress i have tried to be encouraging when i've met with other israeli leaders before netanyahu became the prime minister. we met with others. we encouraged them. i wasn't crazy about some of the things they were doing, but they were leaders of our friend, israel, and i wanted to be their friend. would that it were so with this administration. now, we had with a was purr ported to be the state of the union -- purported to be the state of the union address in here. we were told the shadow of

crisis has past. and i don't know i'm finding maybe the president a few years ago when he came and told us pass my bill right away, right away, right away. maybe he didn't really know he didn't have a bill. . we kept trying for days to get a copy of his bill. timely after a week there was no president's american jobs act. i went ahead and created one. what it did was eliminate the biggest that any country in the world puts on their own manufactured goods. called a corporate tax. has to be passed on to consumers, which makes the price of the product or the services more expensive. imagine the manufacturing jobs that would come flooding back to america. if we even just reduce the corporate tax, this tariff that we are putting on our own goods, i have had reporters around washington that don't really get -- how would you make up for the

lost corporate taxes? those corporate taxes are paid by americans, they are paid by their consumers. any corporation that doesn't pass on that tax is -- not going to stay in business. so the consumers pay it. the american taxpayers pay it anyway. but what would happen when you lower the corporate tax rate, some of those massive manufacturing businesses like our president's dear friends that have moved places over to china and other places, and some of them have told a group of of us that went over there, the biggest reason we had to move is because america had such a massive, now the highest corporate tax in the world. you lower that like to china levels 17%, we would be able to be back there. i loved hearing from leaders of industry in china that the best workers they had were american workers in the united states of america. that was their best quality

control is right here. we lower the corporate tax, those jobs would come flooding back. i loved hearing the president so pleased that we are becoming energy independent. unfortunately it's not due to anything the federal government is doing. his administration is doing whatever they can to slow down energy production of oil and gas that we are so reliant on. but production from federal lands under his watch is down significantly. so it's all the private sector that has done this. sara -- sarah palin and others saying drill baby drill. that's actually happened. and now we've got an abundance it's brought down gasoline prices, and what is the democrat reaction to prices of gasoline going down? well, that means we need to add some taxes to gasoline. really?

i loved hearing the president say we need to do infrastructure . except dag gum it i remember him talking about that repeatedly when he first became president, and that's why he said we had to have this massive $900 billion because we are going to build infrastructure. what did he do? he got the $900 billion from a democratic house and senate and the only fraction of it went to infrastructure. we were toldhey were g to go to shovel ready jobs, and then we find out some years later, there was no such thing as the shovel ready jobs. they did send it to people like solyndra and others that lived high off the hog for a while and went broke. i'm sure they are getting some other grant somewhere else. which brings us to another story reported as a bombshell, story

by richard poll lock. i.r.s. has active contract for millions with company health and human services fired over the healthcare.gov web sy. wow. no wonder the president wants more money. he's still doing deals for millions of dollars with people they paid massive millio of dollars to do a website that didn't work. that we have had people come to the hill and say, could have done that for about 1/20th of the cost what was paid and actually had it working. things are a little better in texas. and i love hearing the president take credit for jobs that have been created in texas. unfortunately when you look at the jobs that his policies have

helped create around the country biggest thing he's helped create is part-time jobs in numbers like we never had before. and i love when he brings people in here to hold them up as good examples. i wish he brought some of my constituents some of which brokenhearted because their part-time job went from 39 hours to 29. they had to get a second one. and they also lost what benefits they did have at their first employment. and now they are spending more time away from their children making less. and i know he has the image that $15,000 a year is supposed to support a family of four. but what most people in business can tell you, especially small business that employs about 70%

of american workers. they'll tell you the minimum wage is entry level. when i talk to people at places like mcdonald's, they are not even paying the minimum wage. they are paying more. and places where oil is being drilled and gas is being drilled, they are paying a lot more than minimum ge some of them paying bonuses, because that's what happens when the federal government does not impede the ability of industry and of american entrepreneurism. but the president wants to provide net neutrality. i want neutrality. i want internet neutrality. i don't want the government taking over because i know his friends end up doing well and his enemies don't do well. i'd like to make sure that the market is able to play. i would love it if he had had

come in here and said, you know what we have wasted a lot of money trying to prop up solar energy and wind energy. squandered massive amounts of money, taxpayer dollars, money we had to borrow from china that won't be paid back if my lifetime. but here's a tax nokes, let's eliminate -- notion let's eliminate the subsidies for every energy form, whatever it is. eliminate them. nobody's going to get subsidies. nobody gets grants. good luck. what would that mean? it would mean the free market would take over. and when i hear the commercials buy solar energy whatever. air conditioner, whatever it is. heater. buy it now because the subsidies may be running out before long. let's run them all out. let's let energy be determined

by the free market without the government intervention. without use oing the tax code. and i am pleased that perhaps the president's heard some of us as we have said, the president keeps talking about warren buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. but he's never offered any solutions to fix that, as some of us here have. what would be the best solution? well, bring down the secretary's income tax rate to the capital gains rate that warren buffett is paying. that's how you do it. and i just love arthur laffer ronald reagan's former economic advisor. such a brilliant guy. he explained to a group of us a few years ago here, he said, you know, i hear people talk about

this and i'm paraphrasing arthur i hear people talking about we are going to tax the rich. the rich he says, are the ones you're to the going to tax. now, if you say, we are going to tax this activity of the rich, they'll change the activity. they can do that because they are also rich. you say they are going to tax in you this location, state, city, this country, they are ultrarich, they can move. that's what rich people do. one state where secretary kerry has his yath, has a really high tax, what's he going to do? he's going to do what he's done. he's going to move the yacht to a state that has a lower tax. that's what rich people do. you may say i'm going to go after the rich and tax them really put it to them. and then spread that wealth.

the ultrarich are the ones you're not going to tax. the rest of us, we can't just -- you know what, i'm going to go be a lawyer in another country another place. you can't just -- you're going to go through all kinds of training and pick up -- you just can't do that. can't go be a member of congress somewhere else. you can't just pick up your job and take it when your middle class or you're poor. so what happens when somebody says we are going to increase taxes on the rich. though change their acv they can avoid the tax. they can do that. that's why warren buffett can say he's not worried about inhair tain tax. he takes actions to make sure he is not going to get hit with it. the poor can't do that. you have to have over a minimum amount now. the poor don't get hit with it. but middle class does.

my great aunt was middle class through and through. as they say land rich cash poor. and land prices dropped, within six months of her death. the i.r.s. took every acre of her 2500 acre farm. every acre. they sold her home at an auction because land prices dropped. fdic had dumped land around there, prices dropped, and under the inheritance tax, it is the value of that land at the time of the death. took every acre, home place. the people she had specified in her will that would get specific things didn't get them. i.r.s. got them. that's why i went when the call came out to family members please show up, buy whatever you can so that we can keep it in the family, yeah.

that lady was middle class. she lived middle class. been to her home numerous times. you wouldn't find anything that you would say is even upper middle class. they took every acre of her land, her home for taxes. but if you're ultrarich, you don't run into that situation. you buy insurance policies, you convert the way you get income. you move cash here and there. other countries. you can do that. but not when you're middle class. so the policies of this president have caused for the first time in american history 95% of america's income to go to the top 1%. president admitted it a couple years ago yeah. he was aware that it happened. how about working with the rest of us that have good ideas that would increase the number of middle class moving people up from poor, increase the people moving from lower middle class up to upper middle class, moving people from middle class to

wealthy, we want that. that's what we hope for. we don't want to bring down people from where they have done well. even if they are one of the few that was born on third base and gone through life thinking they had a triple. we want everybody to do well. . and if you get jealous of them, your life is going to be ruined. i loved the quotes from martin luther king, so many of them brought out in the movie "selma." you get eaten up with anger, revenge cases around here, jealousy, you're the one's that's going to be miserable. let's get wealthy, not by taking from the wealth and bring them down, let's have a flat tax. you make more, you're going to

pay more. you make less, you're going to pay lets. and mr. speaker, let me just conclude saying 40 years, over 57 million babies killed here in america. as a father who held a premature daughter in my hand had her grasp the end of my finger with her tiny little hand, it wrenches my heart to think there are people that will want to kill a girl a baby of that same age. let's stop. god bless the march for life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: th gentlen'ti h eir. under the speaker's announced policofanry, 15 the chair recognizes the gentlen from louia, . rimo

30 minutes. mr. richmond: thank you mr. speaker. i would hope not to use the 30 minutes. in fact, i will not use the 30 minutes. but before we left after this workweek, i want to make sure that i came to the floor and took the time to recognize the loss of a cultural icon in new orleans and a family friend. so today, mr. speaker, i rise to honor the life of theodore, the big chief of mardi gras indians, a cultural icon in new orleans. he died this week at the age of 71. though his family did not want him to join the mardi gras indians as a child, he sewed his own suit at his friend's home. he joined the wild magnolias as a flag boy and quickly joined their ranks, becoming big chief in 1964 a position he held

until his health no longer allowed it. as big chief just as his mentor, big chief allison tooty montana, he urged the indians to shun violence and hold prettyness contests. he was instrumental in bringing the music of the mardi gras indians to an audience beyond new orleans. with bo dallas on lead vocals, they recorded their first single in 1970 and first album in 1974. under his leadership, the group toured all over the world, opening for aretha franklin and played at carnegie hall. this week the new orleans' jazz and heritage festival announced that he would appear on the festival's official poster. bo has received numerous honors and awards including offbeat magazine's lifetime achievement award and the national endowment for the arts national heritage fellowship.

mr. speaker, bo dallas embodied the happiness, the passion and love of music that define the culture of new orleans. his soaring voice brought joy to the countless listeners and his colorful personality brightened every room he entered. the city of new orleail not beheame without him but his legacy will live on in the lives of all that he inspired. and this mardi gras will not be the same without big chief bo dallas' presence there. with th mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: e gentlemayiel bk ti.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced poly of janua 6, the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, for 30 minutes. mr. franks: well thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, another legislative day has come to an

end and sunset approaches fast in washington, d.c. and like i have so many years, i stand before you in this house with what i call a sunset memorial, because you s mr. speaker, before the sun sets today in america, almost 4000 more defenseless unborn children will be killed by abortion on demand in the land of the free and the home of the brave. and that is more than the number of innocent lives lost on september 11 in this country by a multitude of thousands. and it happens every day. it has now been 42 years since the tragedy called roe v. wade was first handed down. sibs then the very -- since then the very foundation of this nation has been stained by the blood of almost 56 million

of its own unborn children. some of them, mr. speaker, cried and screamed as they died. but because it was amniotic fluid going over the vocal chords instead of air, we couldn't hear them. all of them had at least four things in common mr. speaker. first, they were just little babies who had never done anything wrong to anyone. and each one of them died a nameless and lonely death. and each one of their mothers, whether she realizes it or not will never quite be the same. and all the gifts that these children might have brought for humanity and to humanity are now lost forever. and yet, mr. speaker, even in the glare of such tragedy, this generation still clings to this blind, invincible ignorance while history repeats itself over and over again. and our silent genocide

mercilessly annihilates the most helpless of all victims, those yet unborn. we should remember the quote of president abraham lincoln when he said, those who deny freedom to others deserve it not themselves, and under a just god cannot long retain it. mr. lincoln called upon all of us to remember america's founding fathers and quote, enlighten belief that nothing stamped with a divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodened on or degraded and imbruted by its fellows. he reminded those he called prosperity, and that's us mr. speaker, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest should set up the doctrine that some were not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their prosperi, again, mr. speaker that's us

might look up again to the declaration of independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began. mr. speaker, when authorities entered the clinic of dr. kermit gosnell, they found a torture chamber for little babies that defies little description within the constraints of the english language. according to the grand jury, quote dr. kermit gosnell had a solution for unwanted babies, he killed them. he didn't call it that. he called ensuring fetal demise. and the way he ensured fetal demise was sticking scissors in the back of baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. he called it snipping. and over the years, mr. speaker, there were hundreds of snippings. ashley baldwin, one of dr. gosnell's employees, saw she saw babies breathing and she described one two feet long that no longer had eyes or a

mouth but in her words, was making like this screeching noise and it sounded like a little alien. for god's sake mr. speaker, is this who we really are? kermit gosnell now rightfully sits in prison for killing a mother and murdering innocent pain-capable children just like the one i described. getth those he had killed he -- if he had killed them only five minutes earlier and before they had passed through the birth canal, it would have all been perfectly legal in many of the united states of america, including here in the district of columbia. if there is one thing we must not miss about this unspeakably evil episode is that kermit gosnell is not an anomaly. he is just the visible face of this lucrative enterprise of

murdering pain-capable unborn children here in america. mr. speaker, more than 18,000 very late-term abortions are occurring in america every year placing the mothers at exponentially greater risk and subjecting their pain-capable unborn babies to torture and death without anesthesia. it is the worst atrocity in america today and this in the land of the free and the home of the brave. throughout history, there's often been great intensity surrounding the debates over protecting innocent lives, of those who through no fault of their own find themselves obscured in the shadows of humanity. it occurs to me greatly that in nearly all of those cases the collective conscience was finally in moved in favor of the victims. the same thing is beginning to happen in this debate related

to innocent unborn children, mr. speaker, especially those that are pain-capable. we are beginning to ask ourselves the real question. does abortion take the life of a child? we're especially asking the question recently that does very late-term abortion torture and take the life of a pain-capable baby? and we are finally beginning to realize as human beings that it does. ultrasound technology now demonstrates to all reasonable observers both the humanity of the victim and the inhumanity of what is being done to them. and we're beginning to realize that as americans taking brutally the lives of the innocent unborn does not liberate anyone and that 56 million children, mr. speaker, is enough.

ironically, i have heard barack obama speak such poignant words that whether he knows it or not applies so profoundly to the tragedy of abortion on demand in america. let me quote excerpted portions of his comments. he said, this is our first task caring for our children. it's our first job. if we don't get that right we don't get anything right. that's how as a society we will be judged. he went on to say, and by that measure can we truly say as a nation that we are meeting our obligations. can we honestly say we're doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm? can we say we're truly doing enough to give the children of this country the chance they deserve, to live out their lives with happiness and with purpose? the president went on to say, i have been reflecting on this the last few days and if we're

honest with ourselves, the answer is no, we are not doing enough and we will have to change. oh how true the president's words are mr. speaker. the president also said, we can't tolerate this anymore these tragedies must end and to end them we must change. and then the president asked, are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of freedom? mr. speaker, is this not the most relevant of questions we should all be asking in the midst of this genocidal murder of thousands of unborn babies in america every day? the president has said our journey is not complete until all our children are cared for

and cherished and always safe from harm. finally, he said that is our generation's task to make these words, these rights, these values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every american. mr. speaker, never have i so deeply agreed with any words ever spoken by president barack obama as those i've just quoted, and yet this president in the most merciless distortion of logic and reason and humanity itself refuses to apply these majestic words to helpless unborn babies. how i wish somehow that mr. obama and all of us could open our hearts and our ears to his words and ask ourselves in the core of our own