mcglovepb i yield to mr. meeks for a unanimous consent. mr. meeks: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it hurts the working poor, it leaves children without food, and it hurts seniors on an everyday basis. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. hoyer: parliamentry inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. hoyer: in explaining your answer to the last parliamentary inquiry, you indicated the problem was that he embellished by introducing himself as chairman of the hispanic caucus. the gentleman from new york who just spoke did not do so, but simply articulated three reasons he was opposed to this bill. it seems to me that that is certainly within the contell plays of a -- contemplation of a unanimous consent request. if we start parsing that people can only articulate one reason, i would suggest to our friends, the parliamentarians and spea

mr. meeks, who has put so much time and work in researching this whole issue about auditor rotation. he's worked very closely with mr. hurt and helped to educate the members of the committee about the difficulties and the complications of this whole issue of auditor rotation. i yield to mr. meeks from new york. the speaker pro tempore: how much time goes the gentlewoman yield? ms. waters: such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meeks: i thank the gentlelady from california for all of her hard work and i rise to support h.r. 1564 which i co-introduced with mr. hurt, and this bill will ensure we maintain strict auditing standards without imposing overly burdensome requirements on our public companies. but i want to point out the hard work that the gentlelady from california put in in regards to the g.a.o. study and why it is important so we can continue to make sure that our markets are strong and sturdy and that amendment as she so indicated is what

relevin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. i tell my colleagues on the other side it's time to stop chasing the ghost. 38, 39 times and trying to repeal obamacare, give up chasing the ghost. i also tell my friends, stop being confused by the facts. the facts are,s as "the new york times" indicated today in new york, that the cost of health care insurance, because of the affordable care act, will go down 50%. the fact is, as mr. levin has indicated time after time that preventive care for all americans, the fact is you will not be discriminated against because you're a woman. the fact is the american people want affordable care act. how do i know? they re-elected president obama again understanding that president obama stood for health care for all americans and bringing down the cost of health care in america. that's what this is about. 38 times, give up the ghost, chasing the ghost. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from georgia.

mr. meeks's objection was charged. >> the chair is looking at a simple declarative statement, not multiple simple declarative statements. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> mr. speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. there was one declarative sentence. it had two commas. this toe going to parse that extent, i suggest to the speaker and, frankly, to those -- we are going down a road that is very dangerous. clearly if there was an extended time one could understand that. rtt adding two very shoe parenthetical phrases is, i inconsistent with your previous rulings that when you would not charge time against mr. mcgovern. >> i understood that when mr. he knows that introduced himself -- himselfjosa introduced as revisiting all of the hispanic caucus, that might be perceived as greater expedition than the speaker thought weren't it. statement was a simple declarative statement phrases,parenthetical explaining why he was objecting. it seems that is consistent with will three >> the chair continue to evaluate each individual declarative statement and make the judgment there with regards to embel

mrs. zimmerman to her knowledge as meek.er interesting thing about this cop wannabe, they have this citizens on patrol program where you get a uniform. you get a car. a little yellow lights on it. they can't be blue lights like we have for true law enforcement. but you get little yellow lights and you get to drive around and act like a cop. and he said to that opportunity to be a cop wannabe and in a cop uniform and a cop car with cop lights and probably a little cop computer in his car, or at least a cop clipboard. no. thanks. but no. i'm just -- i'm doing, i'm working, i'm going to school, got my wife. i don't want your cop car. i don't want your lights. and i don't need your uniform. but this is the guy that the state is telling you get ill will and hatred out of his cop wannabism? really? seriously. have they proven that to you? have they come even close? except for speculation. how many times did you hear an objection on the stand of speculation? because we are not allowed to do that in court. you can't be a witness up

meeks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to first thank hakeem jeffries who has come to congress and he stated early on that we needed to do this and talking to mr. wrangle of course, he joined us, yes, we have to do this. i want to give my heart-felt sorrow to the family of mr. martin for the way they have carried themselves in dignity and asking people to march but in dignity. i want to give my heartfelt thanks to the protesters all over america, black, white, asian, hispanic, all over america. they are walking together as one to say, though we are a country of laws, although we know the jury has made a decision, we don't have to agree with that decision. and we're going to speak out to say that we do not. and so it makes me feel heartfelt that americans are coming together to say, we're going to speak out. for clearly in my estimations, as congressman jeffries hasn't indicated, the investigation of the justice department has begun, must be completed, and it is clear that, you know, some have asked me previously, is

mr. zimmerman, to her knowledge, as meek. other interesting thing about this cop-wannabe, they had this citizens on patrol program where you get a uniform, you get a car, little yellow lights on it. they can't be blue lights like we have for true law enforcement, but you get little yellow lights, and you get to drive around and act like a cop. and he said to that opportunity to be a cop wannabe in a cop uniform in a cop car with cop lights and probably a little cop computer in his car or at least a cop clipboard, no. thanks, but no. i'm just, i've got what i'm doing. i'm working, i'm going to school. i have my wife. i don't want your cop car, i don't want your lights, and i don't need your uniform. but this is the guy that the state is telling you get ill will and hatred out of his cop-wannabism? really? seriously. have they proven that to you? have they come even close? except for speculation? how many times did you hear an objection on the standard of speculation? because we're not allowed to do that in court. can't bring a

mrs. zimmerman, to her knowledge as meek. an interesting thing about this cop wannabe, they have the citizens on patrol program, where you get a uniform, you get a car, a little yettaw lights on it. they could be blue lights like we have with true law enforcement, but you get little yellow lights, and you get to drive around and act like a cop. and he said to that opportunity to be a cop wannabe in a cop uniform in a cop car with cop lights, and probably a little cop computer in his car, or at least a cop clipboard, no. thanks, but no. i'm just -- i'm working, i'm going to school, i have my wife, i don't want your cop car, i don't want your lights, and i don't need your uniform. but this is the guy that the state is telling you ill will and hatred out of his cop-wand abe-ism? really? have they pro proven that to you? have they come close? except for speculation. how many times did you hear this is not evidence. that's why. you can go back and say john doe speculated, the judge allowed it, i guess we can speculate. absolutely

gregory meeks. you, mr. chairman, i want to thank hakeem jeffries congress and he stated early on that we needed to do this. and talking to mr. rangel of course. he joined us, yes, we have to do this. want to give my heart felt of mr. o the family martin for the way that they've themselves in dignity in asking people to march but in dignity. i want to give my heart felt protesters all over america -- black, white, hispanic. all over america. as onee walking together country ough we are a although we know the jury has made a decision, we don't have to agree with that decision. and we're going to speak out to say that we do not. me feel heart felt that americans are coming to say, "we're going to speak out." in my estimation, as ongressman jefferies has indicated, the investigation of that the justice department has begun must be completed. and it's clear that, you know, previously, ed me well, is this trying the case all over again? absolutely not. about mr. re talking martin's civil rights violations. that i