this is not about raising awareness but about seeking justice about rising for justice for your friends. for anyone who has not received just because they've been silenced and shamed. to be complete survivors of violence have to feel they've received justice so i ask you to rise and help them release the shame and a silence and rights for justice and people have asked me why are we dance because you know what one billion rising is an escalation of our demand for justice for her and him and anyone (clapping) who's been a victim of violence all forms of violence so dancing insists we take up space it has no direction but we go there together and we dance. dancing is dangerous it's joyous and sexual and wholly disyou republic active you can dance anywhere like here in front of the city hall and in your bathroom or the parking lot anywhere but you know it is happening here now and you are here and i thank you (clapping) and you know what dancing is free you can dance anywhere no corporation control substance it. it joins us and pushes us to go further that's why we have rising for justice t

it delayed justice. and so i urge my colleagues, and anyone interested in completely revamping that military justice system, you need to be certain that all the questions are resolved and you need to be certain that the implementation will be bulletproof because anything less means delayed justice or no justice at all for the victims. i can go on, madam president, and talk about the commission that brought forth their recommendationrecommendations te remain with the commanders. they didn't say, take it away, take it away from the commanders. and the makeup o of that commission -- mostly civilian and mostly female. i hope that my colleagues will remember these things, look at the facts, look at how we truly can address the needs of the victims, truly find them justice. support the mccaskill, ayotte, fischer proposal, and i would ask that you not support the gillibrand proposal. thank you, madam president. i yield. ms. mccaskill: madam president, i yield knife minutes to my friend from arizona, senator mcc

justice for allen blueford and otherwise who have a justice name attached to them. we have had the displeasure of being at meetings like this in oakland, in santa rosa and los angeles, all across the country. in san francisco, the police make a big deal about how they are some of the best police in the country, the best police force. they serve the best devilled eggs. they don't both with that in los angeles, with oakland in santa rosa. they don't both to conceal the fact that they fear and hate the people who have shown up to express their loss and hurt and their anger. and i have watched you in the bayview. i was impressed when wayne tucker, the chief of police in oakland had to be at one of these meetings he couldn't conceal his fear and anger of the black people surrounding him and you couldn't. we watched you do a performance to pretend that you care, to pretend to investigate. >> can you address the commission, please? >> i will address who i want to address and i don't give a -- about you guys or him. because we know you are irrelevant. you are a joke. you ar

chief justice. it is also true that this -- >> well, if they want to do that, they can just pay a greater salary and let the employees go in on the exchange. >> exactly, which is, by the way, why comparing the $2,000 penalty to the cost of the health care is a false it's a false comparison. >> it's not called a penalty. it's called a tax. and it's calibrated and it's calibrated >> she's right about that. >> and it has been treated for some purposes as a penalty. and i think for this purposes, it certainly feels punitive. and if i could finish the thought about why it's a false comparison, the 2,000 penalty to the cost of the health insurance, is that it's going to very much hurt hobby lobby if all of the sudden it doesn't provide health care to its employees. and in order to compensate for that, it would have to increase the wages. and i think it would be worse off as a result of this. but if i could also -- >> well, let's say that that's right. let's say that they have to increase the wages a littl

we're working together to make sure the justice is a modern justice system. i believe i can speak for all of us we're proud that our city is setting the bar for what is possible and in spite of the the great things to rehab offenders we must never lose site that the criminal behavior has on the community. our current system focuses heavily on the over and over they're wrong doing and needs but the traditional system spends little time addressing the offenders needs we must do more. we must psyche so restore the victims safety and help them recover if trauma victimization. this balance is parallel justice. it requires the crime justice system to help victims heal by offering maepg full services this is something i embrace. in 2013 they provide 5 thousand victim plus with 3 exhibit no. 7 in 5 different languages. the services was with skill and a therapy to covering bowler expends. so most of you are familiar with the repeat over and over but what happens when someone is repeatedly victimized. in the boyfriend enclosures to violence is 4 times higher than the c

in the department of justice. what the fraternal order of police feared was that perhaps with debo in office, the department of justice my take on this case of investigating the police. one of the least known facts in this case is that a third of the police officers involved in collecting evidence in mumia abu-jamal's trial, were later convicted for corruption and tampering with evidence to obtain a conviction. in 1970 nine, the department of justice conducted an investigation of the philadelphia police department, the largest ever in the history of the united states, that concluded that the level of brutality and corruption in the police department in philadelphia "shocks the conscience." that is what the department of justice concluded in 1979 at around the same time mumia abu-jamal was convicted. and what the fraternal order of police feared, which has an office in washington, d.c., and initiated is organization in philadelphia, is that they might actually come down with the election and nomination of debo adeg

justice is hard to find. but we have evidence that people don't trust the system. 26,000 episodes of unwanted sexual contact. they say 50% of the victims, though, go unreported. there is a lot of reasons for this even in the private world people are afraid or ashaped or and don't feel like they can talk about it. we should make sure it is easy to report this because we don't want this to occur. it doesn't mean men and women that serve is a problem. it is small percentage. but 26,000 people having this happen to them, we need a solution. when i see this, and i see what senator gillibrand has done, to me, the idea says the time has come and it is about finding due process. when you get this out of the arbitrary nature of a commander making a decision and you have it in a court with judges yowl hear arguments on the boat sides and protects the innocent and finds justice for the accused. i overwhelmingly support this and i suggest we understand that the problem goes on, and twerking or nibbing around the edges sa

we will put a lot of pressure on our justice department -- i said our treasury, but it would be our justice department to enforce the laws here and to enforce them against you if you are unwilling to do what our laws, we believe, require you to do which is to turn over the names of the people whom you eight and abetted in tax evasion >> mr. chairman -- >> let me just ask you about swiss laws, by the way. have you urged the swiss government to change the laws to allow disclosure of u.s. government names? -- of u.s. customer names? you urged the swiss government to change the laws? >> we have actually worked at all levels within switzerland, certainly with the government, with regulators and also have been public about our support for increasing the ability for transparency, as we have said -- >> that's not my question. my question is -- >> chairman. >> credit suisse urged the swiss government publicly to change the law so that you can turn over the names of your customers that you had prior to 2009. >> chairman, we have absolutely the same goal. >> no, not the same goal. it is a very specifi

, chief justice warren, justice brennan. that is something we don't normally teach in law school. how do you learn to get people to work together and how do you build teams? >> i make no claims for anything on the court. i'm still pretty young there and i'm still pretty new. i'm still finding my way, i'm sure. but i did take some degree of pride in this after law school. and you are extraordinary at it, dean shrader. part of it is listening to people and getting them to focus on the institution as a whole and how they can contribute to the institution as a whole and work together with other people, rather than just go their separate way, or even worse, fight with everybody, which was often the case at harvard in some parts of its history. i love thinking, actually, about institutions and how they operate, how they work. how you can get people to work together in them and make them succeed in ways that you didn't think you could. it is a little bit trial and error, and i don't think it came very naturally to me. it was someth

chief justice. it is also true that this -- >> well, if they want to do that, they can just pay a greater salary and let the employees go in on the exchange. >> exactly, which is, by the way, why comparing the $2,000 penalty to the cost of the health care is a false it's a false comparison. >> it's not called a penalty. it's called a tax. and it's calibrated and it's calibrated >> she's right about that. >> and it has been treated for some purposes as a penalty. and i think for this purposes, it certainly feels punitive. and if i could finish the thought about why it's a false comparison, the 2,000 penalty to the cost of the health insurance, is that it's going to very much hurt hobby lobby if all of the sudden it doesn't provide health care to its employees. and in order to compensate for that, it would have to increase the wages. and i think it would be worse off as a result of this. but if i could also -- >> well, let's say that that's right. let's say that they have to increase the wages a littl

department of justice. i guess what i'm saying is we sent a message we have a double standard, a terrible double standard. the chief justice of the supreme court defended a mass murderer in nor florida, committed eight murders -- mass murderer in florida, committed eight murders. he's the chief justice of the supreme court. did we hear one peep from the republican side, from anyone? no one on this senate floor at that time ever raised that as any issue at all for his qualifications to be a judge on the appeals court or to be the chief justice of the supreme court. and rightfully so. it should never have been an issue. he was fulfilling his legal obligations. yes, his moral duty, aside from his legal duty. but debo adegbile, working as an attorney for the naacp legal defense fund, he wasn't even asked to defend a murderer. he was just asked to join on an appeal, to sign an appeal on a technicality and he did. and because of that -- and only because of that -- he was excoriated here on the senate floor and de

he was studying justice. it is our responsibility in the community to make sure that there is justice for him as long as it takes years and years there is going to be justice for him. if it takes years to take those guns from all of these officers here so the majority are their work is going to be composed of non-violent work, work that we do in the community. the violence prevention work that we do in the community, we've had to deal with people that point guns to our faces, the violence prevention work that we do. there is a shotgun put to her face and she was verbally able to disarm the young man verbally with the gun to her face able to disarm him. and the police officers are not trained enough to do that. there is something definitely very wrong with this police department that you cannot able to disarm people verbally. that is the primary thing that they should be able to do is to talk. they are peace officers. buddhism is peace. that is what we will bring to this department to this state, to this natio

president, as the justice department's web site explains the civil rights division of the justice department -- quote -- "fulfills a critical mission in upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals" -- end quote. clearly this requires that the head of the civil rights division have an absolute commitment to truth and justice. there are many highly qualified americans who can carry out this critical mission. mr. adegbile's record creates serious doubts that he is among them. for these reasons, mr. president, i urge you and my colleagues to oppose the nomination of mr. debo adegbile to serve as assistant attorney general for the justice department's civil rights division and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. white

votes like the other justices, he writes opinions in the way the other justices do, he writes the sameve or take, and the oral argument is certainly not the most important part of being a supreme court justice but it is an important part and to me not asking questions nfor eight years is a dereliction of his job. >> in your column you called it a disgrace. >> well because the only public thing that supreme court justices do other than render their opinions is hear argument and, you know, there's a reason why the phrase "your day in court" resonates for so many of us because, you know, when you're in court, you expect that the judge will hear you out, the judge will engage with your lawyer, and if you think about nine justices behaving the way thomas does, if you had nine justices who never asked questions, people would be outraged. i think the fact that thomas doesn't do it is something worthy of comment and that's why i talk about it. >> jamal, do you agree if all nine acted this way it would be news worthy but not in this case? >> well, i think it would be newsworthy if all nine acte

that the justice system has totally failed abu-jamal. this demagoguery of the murder of a defenseless police officer has shocked and offended law enforcement officers from across the country. the current district attorney of philadelphia, seth williams says, "apart from being patently false, moreover, these chambers are personally insulting to me. as an african-american, i know all too well the grievous consequences of racial discrimination and prejudice. i also know that abu-jamal was convicted and sentenced because of the evidence -- because of the evidence, not because of his race. i've continued to fight for the jury's verdict because it was the justice result." district attorney williams notes that, "given all the cases in which the legal defense fund could be involved, it was telling that the nominee would go out of his way to inject himself and his organization into this one." the vision to chaf champion the caution of a cop killer sends a message of contempt to police officer. the national fraternal order of police wrote presiden

i just need justice. for him too. [ cheers and applause ] >> my name is juana and i'm here because of the anger and frustration and sadness of what i feel about the murder of alex nieto. you try to justify the color of fear. the color of fear that is rooted in racism. you don't understand. i don't think the san francisco police department understand how it feels to have to explain to young black and brown people that their very existence is a threat to young people. it's a threat to people that are not from here. that we have to feel that we have to look behind our backs that we have to live in paranoia in our community. i think it's a shame that alex nieto was treated. we understand the contradictions in our city, we are people who are working here and working class of color that are inconvenience to white people. i'm upset to see that the san francisco police department is trigger-happy. they shoot people later. i think it's crazy that we have to think about living in a war zone where we have to be worr

chief justice and may it please the court. in atkins versus virginia this court held that the constitution bars executing persons with mental retardation. that is persons with significantly sub average intellectual function concurrent with deficits in adaptive behavior with an onset before the age of 18. because of the standard error of measurement that is inherent in the iq test it is universally accepted that worsens with obtained scores of 71 to 75 can and often do have mental retardation when those three prongs are met. the statistical error of measurement or saddam is --. >> a line has to be drawn somewhere. and we did say in atkins that we would leave it up to the states to determine the standards for this issue. so what is the rule being announced today? are we saying that 70 is not okay and that 75 wood the? how would you announce the rule? >> well let me first take some issue with all due respect with your characterization of atkins. what this court said in atkins is not that we leave it to the states to establish the

this is about access to justice. survivors overwhelmingly tell us that the reason that they do not come forward is because they don't trust that chain of command. they don't trust the chain of command will handle their case objectively. a fact that has been repeatedly acknowledged by military leaders during armed services committee hearings. so placing the decision on how to have the hand of experienced military prosecutors is a commonsense reform that will go a long way towards promoting transparency and accountability within our system. our military's tradition are too important when victims of sexual assault have the confidence to come forward and report crime. and we removed dear and stigma from the process. we strengthened our military and we are able to deliver fair and impartial justice on behalf of victims. victims eyes are on us today. they are a strong display today and i urge all of my colleagues to support this measure and let's make meaningful reform to what has happened to victims of sexual assault in t

why is she talking to the justice department instead? >> vulnerable democrats breathe a sigh of relief as the administration announces yet another obamacare delay. if you thought that was the only trick up the president's sleeve, wait till you see his budget. >>> welcome to the "journal editorial report," i'm stewart varny in for paul gigot. fireworks on capitol hill as lois lerner once again refused to answer questions at a house oversight and government reform committee hearing. committee chair darrell issa says contempt charges could come as early as next week. some democrats are crying foul, with ranking member elijah cummings calling the house's investigation into the targeting of tea party groups one-sided and unamerican. >> i am a member of the congress of the united states of america. i am tired of this. we have members over here each who represent 700,000 people. you cannot just have a one-sided investigation. it is absolutely something wrong with that and there is absolutely unamerican. >> joining the panel this week, "wall str

we apparently the question that the supreme court justice asked today, that's what the justice was saying. is it that you pay a fine of over $36,000 a year per employee and then that's the price for exercising your religious liberty. you can have religious liberty but it's at a very steep price. since when did it become for sale? that's the issue. that's what's unconstitutional about this bill. no one has to pay for speech. no one has to pay, are we going to start charging the printing presss? what about local tv? what about bloggers? what about all of the mainstream media, usually called team obama, what if they have to start paying for the privilege of being able to publish? then where would they be in their defense of the administration? mr. gohmert: it's going to be interesting, and this is a bit of a tangent, but because of what the gentlelady has pointed out, this president has indicated he's going to turn over the control of the internet away from where it is now to an international con fab that has been -- con it isfab that has been -- confab that has been chomping at the bit to c

department of justice report on the shooting. which also notes "while there are audio and video recordings of the interview of todashev earlier that evening, there are no recordings of the shooting, itself." "because the interview discontinued when mr. todashev began to write his statement, the massachusetts state trooper shut off the recording device on his cell phone and was sending a text message so other law enforcement officers, thus no recorder was activated at the time of the shooting." department of justice report continues, "the last segment of video recording depicts mr. todashev sitting on the mattress next to sliding glass doors. he's beginning to write on a paper tablet using a coffee table as a writing surface. as the records ends, the massachusetts state trooper is moving toward the recording device and shutting it off." then moments later with, they tell us no recording devices running, ibragim todashev is shot seven times and is dead. the state prosecutor's report and department of justice report tell similar but

that was the decision of the department of justice. we are trying to say is that from a public health perspective, we are not making a distinction. atsee as we've been talking the issues with prescription most him a if you look at people's progression around addiction, it often starts with alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana at an early age. we know that giving legal status to a substance decreases the perception of risk. it is one of the issues we see around prescription drugs. if it is seen as legal, seen as a medicine, kids perceive it as less harmful. we are trying to draw the distinction between what is a law-enforcement priority versus what is the public health priority. >> that's what they're hearing great air not going to enforce this. you don't change the drinking law. think it may the job more complicated. fromthink, we come at this states havesure resources to implement prevention programs. when you think of prevention programs, while some of them are drug specific, giving kids resiliency skills around substances, it transcends

what did we learn about the state of the justice probe such as it is? >> well, they had a number of legal experts appear before the house oversight committee. it was a pretty depressing recounting. this seems to be a farce. you have got this probe being headed up by a former obama donor, barbara basserman, heading out of the civil rights division of the justice department known as a hotbed of liberalism. >> hold it. this is not being run out of the criminal division? >> right. public integrity unit which is where it should be. this is being run out of the civil rights division. >> what is the justice department's response when that is pointed out? >> they don't have a response. that was part of this discussion this week in front of the committee. they won't brief congress on anything. one of the scholars who was present there pointed out it's ludicrous the fbi and justice saying we can't share information, it might derail our probe. this witness used to work at the justice department and said that is ludicrous. there is no reason why they can't be conti

s activities to the department of justice --, excuse me, referred the c.i.a.'s activities to the department of justice, the acting counsel general of the c.i.a. filed a crimes report with the department of justice concerning the committee staff's actions. i have not been provided the specifics of these allegations or been told whether the department has initiated a criminal investigation based on the allegations of the c.i.a.'s acting general counsel. as i mentioned before, our

>> one is the one that your honor and justice sotomayor were referring to. design for -- whether you rewrite the threshold or regulate down to the infinitesimal level, you are rewriting the threshold. another is the requirement that this particular program be focused on these area specific air-quality impacts. there are three central features of the psd statute that we think show that. the first is section 7471. which is on page 1380. that is the -- 13a. that explains what psd refers to. 7470 one says the program consists of emissions limitations as may be necessary to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region. air-quality in each resident -- region -- regionally defined effects on the air people breathe. >> there are many statutes and the wrigley tory area where congress passes a statute -- in the regulatory area where congress passes a statute. it turns out there are so many -- often, i would think courts read in an exception. for example, if there were a statute that said you have to throw out all bubblegum that has been around for m

i would just remind the justices about the e.m.c. homer city case a few months ago the it's not unusual that the e.p.a. would be regulating substances in one place that pose effects hundreds or even thousands of miles away. that's what that case is all about and so, and you regulate those pollutants also through the p.s.d. program. so you don't, you aren't, in that situation, looking just to see what happens in the local area the it's just never been the nature of this program. it just doesn't work that way. if i could jut remind the court in conclusion why e.p.a. did what it did is because this is an urgent problem. every year that passes, that problem gets worse and the threat to future generations gets worse. i think faced with the options e.p.a. had it made the most reasonable conclusion it could. thank you. >> you've got five extra minutes, to be fair. >> telling me i could have done my summation? >> you had already gotten going! you don't think greenhouse gases should be regulated at the 250 tons per year level, right? you said

the justices are considering misused the authority. this oral argument is one hour and 40 minutes. >> we will hear argument in case 12 1146. mr. keisler? >> made these the court -- may it please the court. the situation here is unprecedented in two respects. epa agreed that -- according to their terms result in a program that would have been unrecognizable to the congress that enacted it. country to congress's and 10, the agency calls a absurd. conclusion -- took the conclusion as a basis for re-writing other parts of the statute. wrongly believes it fixes the problem. this is not a one-time act of statutory rewriting. the agency has said it intends to adjust and readjust the thresholds based on its ongoing assessment of the costs and benefits. may i ask about your interpretation of the phrase -- there are a lot of different interpretations that have gone on. here is some choices. i want to ask you to pick what you are arguing for. your original position was that any pollutant meant -- that was your original position. judge kavanaugh's

s activities to the department of justice, the acting counsel general of

with the sec the general of the department of justice. two weeks previously and asked him to tell the minister for justice about the issue. however by the time brian russell called in to the commissioners home last monday nights the minister said he still hadn't seen that letter sources close to market come and say that the two men talked about the emergence of the top of the recordings and that the conversation was polite and involved somewhat diplomatic language. they also say that one person explains to market accounting dr was the difficulty of coveted level in relation to the issue that the was some disquiet and thought it was put to the former guard the commissioner but there may or may not be a difficulty for him over the issue of the covenant into the next day. the former commissioner was asked to consider what he was told overnight. the next day he again spoke to the sec gen the department who sources say informed about the situation had not changed barton come and then told the second the general according to sources. with all t

justice ginsburg and sotomayor. >> justice kagan talked about the slippery slope here. if it's true they can bring the claims is your argument limited to sensitive issues or materials like contraceptives. justice sotomayor said what about religious groups that don't believe in transfusions and vaccinations. mr. clement responded, well it depends on the burden placed on the person with the religious belief and as well as the government having a compelling interest in imposing that burden but there's no compelling interest in this particular case. >> woodruff: how unusual is it to have three women justices coming at an argument like this? >> it's not unusual because justices sotomayor and kagan are active questioners. sotomayor is often the first questioner in any argument. clearly they were ready and primed to go to the heart of the concerns raised about the issues in this particular case woonch tell us how the other -- >> woodruff: tell us how the other side came at this. the government and -- >> the solicitor general of the united states told the court that corporation

the american people shouldn't darsha the department of justice mr. cole. i ask you to keep in mind in use already available legal tools at your disposal rather than relying upon the treaty process. so i guess my first question mr. cole is niche or even if the senate ratifies the 2009 protocol to amend the convention between our two countries for the avoidance of double taxation the justice department will be no closer to obtaining information from noncompliant bank accounts close prior to 2009? >> senator that's true. the 2009 treaty only applies to matters and situations after the september 2009 time that it was put into place. >> so basically never certainly in the way we are urging information about noncompliant tank accounts that were close prior to 2009. >> i don't think that's necessarily the case. >> how do you do that then? >> the program we have is going to require that hanks even prior to 2009 go back into 2008 and provide us with the information about accounts that will enable us to make much more effective effective --. >> back in 2008? one yea

and the deprived of justice. the situation saying leader gerry adams was also beyond the minister to its proper golf the hook. he has further questions to answer most of those center and the fact that the minister was informed of the telephone recordings debacle on monday although initially said his department and the tenth of march. the opposition also one thirty and things that mark and karen and wanted to withdraw his remarks last friday but was advised not to the department of justice officials to opposition. mr cheshire was the cause of all the students. and this is actually doing is following through to do. the other issue that is not going away to thirty six decision to dispatch the second xi gentle off the department of justice to my hometown and has only been nice if it were to go through. the decrease in the dollar on the winds in the post. not to and from campus. in the knowledge of the serious indications for some kids. you might use me so if it is very important that the chubby countries to the commi

>> the issue is what part of the justice department is she talking to? an issue like this would normally be handle by the public integrity section of the department of justice. she's not talking to them. she's talking to the civil rights division, which is run by an obama partisan. so that makes you wonder what is the point of her talking to the department of justice. i think the obama people understand three are on very thin ice with this irs investigation, because abuse of power is not it merely a political expression. it's a federal felony. if you start pulling on that string and find other people who conspired to impede a federal investigation, a lot of people are going to have exposure, and lois lerner is the one they're all hanging onto. >> it sounds like a harsh question, but i'll phrase it. is the fix in? >> i think it's a reasonable question. i talked to jim jordan this week. and he was saying, lois lerner essentially has been given a grant of immunity by the administration and its signals. it's saying on the fox interview there's not a smidgeon

>> that is exactly what it means, justice kennedy. it is a clinical condition, unlike for example in sanity. it is clinical -- >> any evidence that society in general would give substantial difference to the psychiatric profession in this respect? any studies on that? to see that that is true or not true? >> i am not aware of anything that suggests that society doesn't look to professional evaluations to do this and in fact if one looks only at floor at's system florida uses mental retardation as a determinant for things other than the death penalty. it uses the existence of the condition for educational remediation, vocational rehabilitation, and in those instances as we point out in our brief the florida does apply the standard error of measurement -- >> later in novel week, we have economic theory says, it is of little different because in that case it is the court's own jurisprudence and we have not said as we have in adkins that it is up to the state. do you think we deferred to psychology, psychiatrists any more or less than eco

gohmert: god bless justice antonin scalia, clarence thomas, i didn't hear justice thomas ask questions, he normally doesn't. it's extraordinary if you spend time with justice thomas, you find out rather quickly how really brileant he. is he didn't need affirmative action to get him into yale law school. or harvard as we was accepted to but at the time thought was too conservative. but justice scalia took on the government's position, the government's attorney stood up d basically said, if a corporation is for-profit, no matter how religiously convicted the holders of that are, they have no right to religious beliefs. scalia took him on and said there's never been a case where we said if you're a for-profit corporation, you had -- there has never been a case that you don't have religious freedom. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3771, an act to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relie