mr. mcdonnell: that is. ms. lam: will -- mr. pilpel: will we edit this after the break? it is our findings as to what constitutes the neighborhood. mr. mcdonnell: you just agreed on something. i have no idea what you agreed upon. ms. tidwell: what the task force lists are the task force's findings. mr. mcdonnell: what is there to correct? mr. pilpel: in district 1, we might continue to use the reference to the outer richmond, in a richmond, as opposed to the -- the doe'[s richmond district. i don't know that we need to make specific reference to doe in this section. ms. tidwell: can i make a suggestion that we clarify that i write down the deviations' currently in these districts, and then we can work on incorporating the other comments that we decided to do? we will come back with a final draft before we get to this. i will e-mail it and then i can include it. give me some time to draft. >> as and give you time to make the draft? >> the rest of the needs 10 minutes to include and create

mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: did we add clinton heights -- clarington heights? not the whole thing? park merced? mr. mcdonnell: ok. we are not attempting to create an exhaustive list. this is one that does not need as a vacation. district 8. -- need justification. district 8. >> i would combine diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: you would combine? >> just diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. leigh: i would strike open house and lgbt community center. mr. mcdonnell: removing them from this list. any additions? mr. pilpel: i am looking at it. it is changing. >> i withdraw the comment. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so, we have -- can -- >> can i suggest eureka valley? ms. tidwell: i just deleted eureka valley. some of those are encompassed with what the other neighborhoods are. mr. pilpel: i don't think i agree with that. i think eureka valley is in district 8. >> adding eureka valley. mr. mcdonnell: there is no need to create an exhaustive list. mr. pilpel: ok. all right. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? moving the

mr. pilpel? >> the printed version that we have, the top of page 5 and the third -- well, the second paragraph that begins on 5, the beginning and october 2011, it's redundant about the four community meetings. >> i'm sorry, what are you suggesting get stricken? >> one of the references. perhaps the second? well, it doesn't read well. that's my point. >> that's fine. is it factually incorrect? >> knost -- no, it's redoesn't ant and reperspective -- repit active. >> mr. alonso? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> i'm fine with striking the second one. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> ms. lam? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> so what is stricken is the second reference to the four meetings. mr. pilpel? >> to be clear, the second reference being however the task force conducted and just delete the entire sentence? >> but we're not going to rewrite it. >> well, i can't answer that question. >> ok, leave it as it is. that's fine. next. >> i have grammatical changes here. what do you want me to do with them? >> we a

mrs. roby. >> aye. >> mr. heelsamp. >> aye. >> mr. desjarlait. >> aye. >> mrs. he will%. >> aye. >> mr. gibson. >> no. >> mr. hope green. >> aye. >> mrs. hartzler. >> aye. >> mr. shilg. >> aye. >> mr. ribble. >> aye. >> mrs. necessarily many. >> aye. >> mr. peterson. >> no. >> mr. holden. >> no. >> mr. mcintire. >> aye. >> mr. baca. >> no. >> mr. cardoza. >> no. >> mr. david scott. >> no. >> mr. quayle. >> aye. >> mr. costa. >> no. >> mr. walz. >> no. >> mr. schrader. >> no. >> mr. kissle. >> no. >> mr. owens. >> no. >> ms. pingree. >> no. >> mr. courtney. >> no. >> mr. walsh. >> no. >> ms. fudge. >> no. >> mr. saab lan. >> no. >> ms. sooul. >> no. >> mr. mcgovern. >> no. >> mr. rooney. >> yes. >> mr. southerland. >> aye. >> mr. crawford. >> yes. >> mr. bosswell. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, the vote is 27 yays to 19 nays. >> the number 89 carries. the gentle lady from maine seeks recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am the co sponsor of amendment 3, it's at the desk and i would like to call it up. >> amendment number 3 will be distribu

mrs. schmidt, yes. mr. thompson, mr. thompson aye. mr. roony. >> aye. >> mr. rooney aye. >> mr. stutzman, no. mr. gibbs, mr. gibbs aye. mr. scott, austin scott. mr. austin scott no. mr. tipton. >> aye. >> mr. sutherland. >> aye. >> mr. sutherland aye. mr. crawford. mr. crawford no. mrs. roby. mrs. roby no. mr. healscamp, aye. mrs. elmers. >> mr. gibson. >> no. >> mr. gibson no. >> mr. holtgren aye. mr. hartzlel, no. mr. schilling. >> mr. schilling no. mr. ribble. >> aye. >> mr. ribble aye. >> mr. peterson. >> no. >> mr. peterson, no. mr. holden. >> no. >> mr. holden no. mr. mcentire. >> no. >> mr. mcentire now. >> mr. boswell. >> mr. boswell no. >> mr. cardoza. >> no. >> david scott. >> aye. >> mr. david scott aye. mr. kwai ar no. mr. costa, no. mr. walls. >> no. >> mr. walls no. mr. schrader. >> no. >> mr. schrader no. mr. kissell, no. >> mr. owens. >> mr. owens no. mrs. ping rey, no. >> mr. courtney. >> no. >> mr. courtney no. mr. welch. >> no. >> mr. welch, no. mrs. budge. >> aye. >> mr. siblon. >> no. >> ms. sewell. >> no. >> mr. mcgovern. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chai

mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. leigh: yes. mr. alonso: no. ms. tidwell: yes. >> i was going to make the same observation. parts of this are already there. it is augmenting it a little bit to get what is not there included. mr. pilpel: if we are not able to edit, i would not include it in this way. mr. mcdonnell: ok. thank you. ms. mondejar: included in the body of the report. maybe at the last sentence. -- edit the last sentence. mr. mcdonnell: your response but the break for editing. ok. thank you. on mr. pilpel's? everyone take a moment to read this suggestion. >> the question you're going to call is all or nothing? mr. mcdonnell: that is correct. mr. pilpel: -- mr. schreiber: no. ms. mondejar: the question is to include it all or not? um -- yes. ms. lam: no. ms. melara: no, because most of it is already included in the report and some of the things that were not, i think we did not vote on them. mr. leigh: i am going to say yes. on the whole, i think it is fine. i appreciate member pilpel's attempts to respond to the issues we had. ms. tidwell

mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i thank my good friend from michigan for yielding me this time, for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, just to address the previous speaker's comments, if you're a small business in america and with 50 or fewer employees, you don't have to do a god dang thing under the affordable care act other than receive tax credits for offering health care coverage to your employees. so let's stop this nonsense of trying to scare small businesses throughout america. it's been pointed out on the floor by numerous colleagues, it's the 3 isst attempt to repeal all or part of the affordable care act. even they pointed out earlier that baskin robins offers 30 flavors of ice cream. enough is enough. when i heard the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act, my first feelings was relief and happiness. not for me or anyone else who was involved in advancing the cause of health care reform, which was desperately needed, it's a system that failed too many americ

mr. pilpel: in general, i like the language that was proposed. outer richmond, in a richmond -- inener richmond. >> to preserve? mr. mcdonnell: in addition to or replacing -- mr. pilpel: i am generally not with the language they provided. i think it is less hopeful. i think this language is better. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. the proposal is to utilize -- the district is described on the bottom of page 8. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. all right. district 2. oh, -- mr. pilpel: oh, can we also have them not avoided -- voided -- mr. mcdonnell: please keep going. >> can we separate and jordan park from the village? mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to keep -- i will refer to it as the consultant draft. >> i am sorry. no. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. the proposal is to use the consultant language of district 2. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. mo

mr. issa. mr. issa: mr. chairman, hopefully the gentleman would note that the language you just quoted is from the president's executive order and it's not some sort of pocket information, but in fact something the president of the united states felt was a reasonable set of language. with that i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you, chairman issa. most congressmen call their district and staff workers case workers. i call my district workers red tape cutters. that's what -- because that's what they do. unfortunately we have to have a job like that because government red tape is so thick. a lot of what our case workers do is for veterans and social security recipients but they also help our small businesses. when i'm back home i hear time and time again from businesses, how the government is getting in the way of creating jobs. and if we'd just tell them what to do and let them do it and quit changing the rules midst

mr. mcdonnell: ok. let me suggest this as a weekend fully utilize the break for all the editing we need to do. there is another question that memberpilpel is raising. we will need to visit that. we have two sets of information. we have what is in the draft, and we have what is on the one- page that the consultants provided. member pilel is suggesting -- pilpel is suggesting we go district by district. mr. pilpel: in general, i like the language that was proposed. outer richmond, in a richmond -- inener richmond. >> to preserve? mr. mcdonnell: in addition to or replacing -- mr. pilpel: i am generally not with the language they provided. i think it is less hopeful. i think this language is better. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. the proposal is to utilize -- the district is described on the bottom of page 8. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. all right. district 2.

>> no. >> mr. mcgovern, no. mr. johnson? mrs. fudge? mr. sewell? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 15 yeas, 28 nays. >> since we have most -- i would suggest that we've made tremendous progress working through the schedule. let's stand in recess until 4:30. >>> after starting work at 10:00 eastern this morning, the agriculture markup is in a break. some members can go to the house floor for votes. including a vote on repealing the 2010 health care law. the members spent much of the day yesterday debating the bill and completed debate a short time ago. you can see that vote on the repeal on our companion network, c-span, expected at about 3:30 eastern. and we'll be back here live when members of the committee return for more work on the farm bill. expected back at 4:30 eastern and continuing late into the evening. until then, a hearing held earlier today on capitol hill. the house judiciary subcommittee looked into recent national security and intelligence leaks revealing the obama administration's role and clandestine operation against al qae

>> no. >> mr. mcgovern, no. >> mr. johnson? >> yes. >> mr. johnson, yes. >> mr. thompson? mr. hold en? mr. cherraichairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 17 yeahs and 27 nays. >> are there any other amendments? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. and i have not had the opportunity mr. chairman, to thank you and ranking member peterson for finding come ground on the farm bill. mr. chairman, i have an amendment to file with the clerk, i'm sorry. and i think it's amendment number 95. >> clerk will distribute amendment number 95. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. >> you are recognized for five minutes. and gentleman from texas reserves the point of order. the gentleman may explain his -- is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the purpose of the amendment is to get feedback on whether the reimbursement rates, the second secretary of agriculture uses for u.s. territories -- the secretary has the authority to set differentiates for alaska and hawaii and the territories, but he has only done so for alaska and hawaii.

mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- recognized neighborhood? >> that was a public submission boundary. mr. mcdonnell: what is the first letter? >> p. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it is a p. >> excuse my spelling error. >> that is why we are editing. mr. mcdonnell: ok. again, we have selma, treasure island, mission bay -- >> i combined the list. i hate -- -- i have -- mr. mcdonnell: i thought we agreed, no institutions? >> yes. ok. mr. mcdonnell: south beach, rincon hill. any additions? >> there was a public submission about this was the reason for the line. >> there is no publicly- submitted neighborhood boundaries for yerba buena. there is not a boundary from planned neighborhoods. mr. pilpel: i think this is referring to treasure island and yerba buena island, not yerba buena center. >> they are recommending it as a neighborhood based o

mr. mcdonnell: hold on one second. we are being corrected. >> a want to make sure we're all on the same page. we will replace this list with what is prepared by the consultant and the task force will review those neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: that is correct. >> thank you. >> can i clarify something very quickly? mr. mcdonnell: there is no such thing as very quickly in this process. go ahead. >> west of twin peaks submission here, what we submitted was the planning neighborhood. it was not the council neighborhood boundaries. what is on here is actually correct. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. do you have an electronic document? ms. tidwell: it is a subset of what i included. maybe just for purposes of, we can move district by district. mr. mcdonnell: ok. we will get that information and insert that. can we move to section 6? anything else in section 5? we are going to insert -- we are going to insert the neighborhoods into this section of section 5 under each district with the deviation. comme

mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i just started to launch into this because there is such an important subject that is looming over the country right now, and the congress can do something about it, and that is the possibility of cyber attack. we have had this discussed by a number of people in very high, responsible positions, and the threat is real, and what the threat means to all of us in our everyday lives is the fact that electrical systems could be shut down, water systems could be shut down, the banking system could be shut down, sewer systems could go awry, and you can go on and on, mr. president, as to the possibility of what is happening. and here for months we have been stymied from passing anything here because of a disagreement in the business community which is going to be one of the main recipients of the potential cyber attack. now, i will choose my words very carefully as a member of the senate intelligence committee and say this potential attack is real. and it's real not only from rogue

mr. ribble? mr. ribble, no. mrs. nome? mrs. nome, no. mr. peterson? mr. holden? mr. holden, no. mr. mcentire? >> no. >> mr. mcintyre, no. mr. boswell? mr. bacca? yes. mr. car doze za. mr. david scott, yes. mr. quayar, yes. mr. costa? mr. costa, yes. mr. walls, mr. walls, yes. mr. schrader, mr. schrader, yes. mr. kissle, mr. kissle, yes. mr. owens, mr. owens, yes. miss pingree? miss pingree, yes. mr. courtney? >> yes. >> mr. courtney, yes. mr. welch? mr. welch, yes. miss fudge? mr. sublon? mr. sublon, yes. miss sewell? miss sewell, yes. mr. mcgovern? mr. mcgovern, yes. mr. goodlatte? mr. goodlatte, no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson, no. mr. naugabauer? mr. naugabauer, no. miss elmers? mr. peterson? mr. peterson, no. miss fudge? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 18 ayes, 26 nays. >> amendment number two is defeated. are there additional amendments to title two, the conservation title? seeing no additional amoment m to title number two. title number two the conservation title is now closed. title number three, a trade. now it's in order to consider title nu

mr. griffin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on s. 1959, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. griffin: mr. speaker, yumeds. -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. griffin: i thank my senate colleague, mr. burr and mr. rogers of michigan for their work on this issue. this directs the secretary of state to submit a report to congress dealing if the haqqani network meets the criteria for terrorist organization under current law. if the secretary determines that the haqqani network does not meet the criteria, the secretary shall provide a detailed justification as to which criteria have not been met. the bill also provides a sense of congress that the secretary of state should designate the network as a foreign terrorist organization. the haqqani network is an insurgent

mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: i am going to say yes, and real quick, it was a pleasure working with all of you, and hopefully i never have to work with you in this capacity again. [laughter] mr. alonso: but in the end, we pretty much brought the best out of the city as we could. thank you. >> i vote in support of the map. i also really want to thank everybody for working together on this, and it has been a pleasure to work with everybody. i personally feel like i learned a great deal about the city, which is what i will take the most value from a personal level forever, really. i want to thank, in that regard, the staff, the consultants, the district attorneys that have worked with us. they have been a tremendous resource to us. i also think everybody in the community. i am amazed summon people have spent so much time, whether in our meetings or submitting it public comment or facebook, or what have you, it has been a very rich and critical source of information for all of us. i admire the dedication of ev

mr. mcdonnell: we are on 6 now. so, tenderloin. >> we look at district consultants now? where are we? mr. mcdonnell: we are on district 6. this is the consultants lists list association. all of those will come off. we will now refer to ms. tidwell's list. mission bay, south beach, rincon hill, treasure island, filipino community, and the tenderloin just added by ms. melara. >> are we keeping it together in district 6? >> we did not fully achieve that for the mission, either. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include the tenderloin. >> there is a planning department-recognized neighborhood. correct the spelling. replace "n" with "p." mr. pilpel: could i suggest combining those and saying south of market? that seems to be more of a neighborhood that we could recognize. >> they are separate, though. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- rec

mr. kissel, no. mr. owens no. >> mrs. embrey, no. >> mr. courtney? >> no. >> mr. courtney, no. >> mr. welch? >> no. >> mr. welch, no. >> miss fudge, aye. >> mr. sublime. no. mrs. sewell, no. mr. mcgovern? mr. mcgovern, no. mr. chairman? >> no. >> oh, excuse me. mr. johnson? >> yes. >> mr. johnson, yes? >> mr. chairman? i know the clerk will record no. >> no? >> no. mr. chairman, the vote is ten yeas to 36 nays. >> the amendment number 23 is not agreed to. the gentleman from iowa. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment, number 69. the clerk will distribute amendment number 69. may i go ahead. >> the gentleman may proceed when he is prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the efforts going forth here. it will be a long day so i'll try to be short. as you know, the underlying bill offers two commodity-payment programs for significant loss coverage. farmers may lose for a program that will address deep, multi-year price declines through a calculation in the index below the cost of production. it just happens the risk management is based on crisis. the revenue

mr. young: mr. chairman, this is another amendment that slashes large amounts from our eaverl national defense appropriations bill. i would say that this subcommittee is not adverse -- is not averse to reducing defense spending when we can do so without having an adverse effect on readiness or without having an adverse effect on our troops, their medical care, their family. i understand the gentlelady does protect some of those issues in her amendment. but this committee is already -- has already proved that we are willing to cut defense. in the last two fiscal years, this subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis new york a bipartisan way, was able to reduce by $39 billion, and we did so very carefully, by looking at every account, every project, every place that we could find weakness in the spending, in the contracting. in programs about to be terminated. we can do that. but just an across-the-board cut is not smart. here's what could happen. we could actually, with this amendment, and this reduction,

mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: all throughout this last year, we have heard from the administration and we have heard from the navy that it is important to be able to have a large presence in the pacific area. this is something that we're going to do. we are going to have an increased presence in the pacific. that is the administration's statement. and all of the hearings we have done in the central command area, the middle east, persian gulf, the straits of hormuz and threats from iran, we were told by the military leadership who fight those wars there that they needed a larger naval presence in order to counter any threat from iran and similar threats and to keep open the persian gulf and especially the straits of hormuz. today, we don't really have as much naval capability as they suggest that we need. and so the committee added this 51 for this year. the navy actually asked for advanced procureme

always wanted to stand next to mrs. nixon. mrs. nixon would smile and i'd grab her arm. and mrs. nixon would chastise me later. >> i don't think we'd let you loose in the press office. >> in the end, i just took barbara walters by the arm and said this is not the barbara walters show. >> that's why you weren't on ten most interesting people with barbara walters that year. [ laughter ] >> but what else did you see when you were over there? >> well, of course, we -- of course, with the president, with the president, we took him along on a couple of the trips. we went to the great wall and the ming tombs. and the dinners. listen to this -- well, she was nice enough. we were so tired -- i was so tired, mrs. nixon wasn't usually. one night we had on a schedule, thursday night, free night. couldn't wait -- all of us, couldn't wait to sleep that night. instead of, you know, doing something, going here and there. we left the great hall of the people. i get in the limo with the president, the interpreter, myself and secret service, president nixon just for something to say, oh, mrs. premi

>> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> further depopulating three, no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> please make this change. >> mr. leigh? >> then just the second part of it to move then the other two blocks into three. >> and -- >> i'm sorry, into six. >> question, the manors in both blocks? >> no, the northern block. we could just take that one, the northern block and that would be fine with me. as far as my proposal is concerned. >> ok. >> so desubmit the southern of those two blocks? exactly. >> miss tidwell? >> i would like to comment that i think if we are considering putting portions of the tenderloin, continuing to add to the tenderloin, it raises the question of moving the line i think, well, in my mind again sort of revisiting the mission market digs continuation -- distinction that's been raised because i think pot point you're going to -- we heard a number of testimony about the bristol hotel, and i could see a distinction in making that line,

mr. baron? >> no. >> miss sohn? >> no. >> and mr. erge, in? >> no. >> now, mr. ergen, i have a question for you about this auto hop issue. as you testified in your statement, and i think everybody knows the auto hop technology lets consumers skip over commercials or other things that they don't want to watch and as you said, that would mean that when kids are watching tv they won't have to see junk food or alcohol commercials and i would like to seay see that many viewers would skip over the shock and awe tv commercials that everyone will be treated to in the campaign this fall and so -- so. i'm sorry? >> not to mention the volume. >> yea, and the volume, too. i think the volume is the issue, but if people had auto hop it would let them decide what they wanted to see, and i know this is in the courts right now and talking not about the legal issues, the consumer choice and innovation in the free marketplace, doesn't auto hop simply improve on technology that is available from the dvr to what's possible on the dvr? >> yes. i think it was settled legally 28 years

mr. wilson: mr. speaker in a recent opinion piece, jeffrey december, the acting director for the office of management and budget wrote, quote, as president barack obama has said many times, the see quester -- sequester wasn't meant to be implemented, it was designed to cut so deep just threatening them would force congress to meet and agree on big balance package of deficit reduction, end of quote. if the president actually believed the budget control act would destroy jobs and threaten our national security, why did he sign the legislation into law? additionally, if he believed the proposed cuts would frighten members of congress, why has he remained silent on this issue? house republicans have acted and passed bipartisan legislation several times replacing the see quester -- sequester with responsible reforms as well as calling for more government transparency, to stop the destruction of 200,000 jobs in virginia alone. i urge the president to support this bill to promote peace through strength. in

mr. berg: mr. speaker, senate bill 2039 is a bipartisan bill sponsored by senators from north dakota conrad and hoeven which passed the senate by unanimous consent in january of this year. this bill will provide a great deal of help to the citizens of our state. the text of 2039 allows for a process of building permanent levees on federal land in north dakota. with the approval of fema and the army corps of engineers. i want to highlight the unique situation we have in north dakota. and this legislation tends to address just that. first of all, fargo, north dakota, it's faced repeated flooding along the red river which runs through the heart of the city. the city is constructed to permanent -- has constructed a permanent levee. however, over the years some properties have been bought out along the river bank with federal funds. as a result, we have a patchwork of properties that exist along this levee system with gaps in the system. recurring flooding along the red river requires temporary levees t

friend, mr. young, from alaska, for having recognized the justice and the obligation we have to fight for that justice. and i'm going to leave congress this year after serving 36 years here, but i'm going to continue to fight for indian justice, and i just want to commend you for what you're doing. you really are on the right path and a path that you must continue to pursue, and i thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. kildee. mr. benishek. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i certainly appreciate mr. kildee's comments as well. i want to thank the members that came forward to testify today. i represent michigan's first district. this is my first term, and we have 15 federally recognized tribes in michigan, and it's been my pleasure to work with both the recognized tribes and with those tribes seeking recognition. i, along with mr. kildee, introduced a bill to reaffirm the status of the indians, and i'm really anxious to learn more about the issues. i'm really disappointed that the department of inte

mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, i don't know how many times that i have said this on this floor and in the committee and anyone that would listen, you cannot make your decisions on national defense based on politics. you can't make your decision based on national defense just on a number. and this number, by the way, on this amendment has changed. where's the commitment? the policies and the investment in our national defense must be based on the real threat to our own security, to the security of the united states and to the security of our troops and to the security of our allies and our interests, whatever they might be. now stop and think, the threat has not diminished. the threat has not gone away. did anybody happen to watch iran's exercises last week where they fired short-range missiles and medium-range missiles and long-range missiles. iran is moving to make itself a strong, str

mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i claim time on the -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the gentleman has an amendment? mr. hastings: yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 112-590, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 726, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. this bill is an irresponsible giveaway to the mining industry that has taken enormous profit at american taxpayer expense. one section in particular is extremely disturbing. section 205 of the bill eliminates awarding of attorneys fees to litigants bringing successful legal challenges against certain agencies' actions like the issuing -- issuance of a mining permit. eliminating the possibility of fee shifting mation litigation prohibitively expensive for groups a

mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 6079. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: mr. speaker, house republicans promised the american people that if granted the majority we would vote to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act, better known as obamacare. let's face it, obamacare is nothing like what was promised. former speaker pelosi said we would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it and she assured we found out. rather than reform health care, this law epitomizes washington at its very worst. intrusive mandates, higher costs, red tape, taxes on employers and families in control of personal health care decisions by boards, bureaus and agencies in washi

mr. mica: mr. speaker, before i begin i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: would the gentleman state his inquiry? mr. mica: mr. speaker, i have not been privy to the prior debates of our discussion j--al subject and the repeal legislation at hand. is it appropriate and within the decorum of the house to refer to the legislation that is being considered repeal as repealing obamacare? i don't want to inflict any disrespect on the office of president or should rewe have -- should we refer to keep in the decorum and respect for the office from referring to the president's plan for health care, government takeover, as obamacare or in another term? what would be appropriate under the -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not render an advisory opinion. mr. mica: if i do refer to it as obamacare i'm not out of order? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not enter an advisory -- render an advisory opinion. mr. mica: thank you. and i have been instructed by the staff that the pro

mr. sablan. mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and stepped my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. s. 271 transfers approximately one acre of land from the wallowa national forest to the city of wallowa, oregon. a local nonprofit organization would use the facility for local historical preservation, interpretation and education. we do not object to this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i now yield such time to my friend and colleague from oregon, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i thank you for that and thank my colleagues who have brought this legislation forward as well. this, like the prior bill, the partnership between senator wyd emp n and myself to work together to resolve these lapped issues in oregon. in 1936, the city of wallowa donated this parcel of land to the u.s. forest

mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, a member of the natural resources committee and subcommittee chairman, dr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: i want to thank the committee chairman for allowing me to speak. first i would like to agree with the gentleman from new jersey. he is absolutely correct that oil production has increased in recent years and that our dependence on oil has actually decreased over the same period of time. but why? why? because of the private sector. the private sector industry out there has been out there drilling in new areas like north dakota, in my own home state of louisiana. it's the private sector that's driving this, that's producing more oil than we've ever done and there's much more that we can have. on the other hand, in public plans that's been under the control of the president, we've seen a reduction of 15%. so there's no way in the world that we can give our presid

mr. alanso, in or out? >> out. >> mr. leigh? >> out with the possibility -- i think this is the suggestion i would make just based on what madam clerk has said is that we have two sentences tend of this, one referring to the public file and one referring to the website and in the second sentence referring to the website, explicitly mention working map drafts as well as maps submitted by the public will be available 10 years on the website with the url. >> is it accurate then to infur that maybe you or others would like to see almost a table of contents-ish. why call the entirety of our proceedings will be on the website. is there a particular reason why you want to call out either the maps submitted by the public or draft maps as opposed to anything else, minutes, the agendas, the -- everything else that will be available. >> well, i think -- i guess where i would like to include reference to the public maps is just out of respect for the time that people spent in developing those maps and acknowledging that. >> ok. miss melara?

mrs. nixon reacting in the car? >> i was just going to tell you. when this chaos was going on -- and i've never had anything like that. my experience with war is i didn't see the people i was shooting at or they were shooting at me. but here they were right there. and the hate on their faces was just unbelievable. they were out to kill us. and all of that going on, and mrs. nixon finally had the minister's wife, who was by now hysterical. so pat had her arm around her. and she and i were talking kind of quietly. and she asked me to check on the car ahead to make sure the vice president was all right, which i was doing. but finally the secret service service managed to break us out of the roadblock, and we just forgot about the stop that we were going to make. we went all the way back up on the hill where it was secure. but all through it, pat never, ever raised her voice. she never showed any anxiety. she was busy with this woman. i'll never forget that. and we got up to embassy and went i

mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. thompson, no. mr. rooney? >> no. >> mr. guzman, no. >> mr. gibbs. >> no. >> mr. gibbs, no. mr. sutherland. >> no. >> mr. sutherland, no. mr. crawford. >> no. >> mr. crawford, no. >> no. >> mr. gibson? >> yes. >> mr. gibson, yes. no. no. >> mr. schilling? >> yes. >> mr. schilling, yes. >> mr. ribble? >> no. >> mr. peterson? >> no. >> mr. peterson, no. mr. holden, no. >> mr. mcintire, yes. >> yes. yes. mr. clayton? >> no. >> mr. costa? >> yes. >> mr. walls? >> yes. >> mr. straiter? >> yes. >> mr. kissle? >> yes. >> mr. owings? >> yes. >> mr. kingery, yes. yes. yes. yes. mr. johnson, no. mr. king? >> no. >> mr. king, no. mr. kardosa? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. the vote is 18 ayes, 26 nays. >> amendment number 29 is not accepted. >> i have an amendment. >> what is the number? >> it's number 12 on broad band. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 12. the gentleman may begin his explanation when he's prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the bipartisan leadership that's been brought to this bill here today. you k

mr. polis: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question iloffer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that congress will not adjourn until the president signs middle class tax cuts into law. and with that i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding time. i would hope that the order of business on this floor is guided by priorities, the most essential priorities that are calling for this body to respond to the people of this great nation. and in these difficult economic times to do it with the degree of urgency. but what is our order of business here on the floor, fixing a typo, that's what we're doing here this morning. we're fixing a typo on an election year driven, politically motivated bill. but we're really wasting time in playing games. you see, our families

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i -- mr. smith: i yield the gentlewoman from florida an additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 15 seconds. mrs. adams: furthermore the individual mandate is the largest tax increase on americans in american history. largest tax increase. so it is time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rejoin us, repeal obamacare and its taxes. i may not have been here when congress passed obamacare but i was sent here to repeal it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. to remind my distinguished friend from florida on judiciary committee that obamacare extends medicaid and does not cause anybody to lose any insurance if they already have it. and i now turn to the distinguished the gentlelady from los angeles, california, who has worked with us on so many progressive causes. i yield maxine waters of los angeles two minutes. the speaker pro

mr. ellison: mr. chairman, representative eshoo and i have submitted this very straightforward amendment for a very simple reason. we believe that it's simply fair and it's good for public disclosure to require defense contractors to publicly show and disclose their political contributions. money, secret money in particular, can breed corruption. sunlight will banish it away. when government contractors make political contributions there's no doubt that the office knows who gave them money. the only ones in the dark are the american public. this can lead to corruption where contracts donate to candidates they believe will benefit them. and this would misserve our democracy. we need full disclosure so that the public can ensure that contracts are awarded based on merit rather than money. now, some have expressed a concern that in the past, that disclosure, a precontract disclosure requirement could be a problem because they fear that agencies would choose contractors for partisan reasons. while i think

mr. young: mr. speaker, there is broad bipartisan agreement in this house that the looming defense sequestration cuts are bad policy for the u.s. military and our national defense. our defense secretary has testified to myself and other members that the armed services committee that such cuts would hollow out the military. our constituents are rightly concerned about our ability to provide necessary equipment to troops in the field. troops that are often our sons, daughters, brothers, or sisters. the original goal of this legislation that gave us the sequester was to find deficit reduction in the federal budget in a careful, deliberative manner. despite their best efforts, the small group that was charged with finding these cuts failed in the end. that's why we have passed legislation in the full house to replace the defense cuts with deficit reduction elsewhere. but the senate has once again failed to act. as for the administration, it's failed to specify how these cuts will be distributed and what

mr. nadler: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself 4 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 4 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: ma dame chair, i rise in support of my amendment which would exempt rules to protect nuclear power plant safety from titles 1, 3 and 5 of the bill. it is rare that the premises of an entire week of legislative week on the house floor is wrong, but here we are. we are told this is regulatory week. during which house republicans have supposedly working to see that the yolk of oppressive government regulation is thrown off and the american entrepreneur's free to grow his or her business and increase jobs. . i'm reminded of a famous line, it is a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. we will hear sound and fury on the house floor like all the other regulatory bills, but this will die in the senate. all of that talk will signify nothing. this, too, is a tremendous waste of time. more importantly, there i know evidence to support the position that overregul