tv Public Affairs CSPAN July 19, 2013 9:00am-2:01pm EDT
statistics that show if if you are a white veil that uses the law you are much more likely to be let off than if you are a black male. i have read that in several places. >> we just got out of this. were we have three major scandals. we are waiting to see what will happen on the budget. >> thank you so much. we go to the house floor. thing for all of america. the work they have is difficult
work. may they rise together to accomplish what is best for our great nation and indeed for all the world. for you have blessed us with many graces and given us the responsibility of being a light shining on a hill. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question
are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. mr. welch: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. the hat purpose does gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, o ordered. >> mr. speaker, this week our civilian defense employees are at their desk after staying home for their first furlough day last week, now they're having to take a furlough day each week for the next 11 weeks and i have talked to my
constituents in my district and they're frustrated and our nation and them are deeply, deeply affected by these furloughs. mr. wittman: as one constituent said, they're being held hostage. the united states has the greatest nation in the world and has the greatest military we have ever known because we have citizens dedicated to serve, dedicated in spite of a lack of true leadership in washington. while the administration had other choices rather than to furlough these essential employees, they decided to make a political statement on the backs of our citizens. our nation's defense will undoubtedly suffer. i continue to urge the administration to utilize the flexibility it has and for congress to get to work on our nation's defense legislation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. barrow: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
mr. barrow: i recognize brandon webb. after more than six years, randon left my office to serve robin kelly of illinois. he climbed through the ranks to serve as senior legislative assistant. he played an important role draft cravetting legislation including cutting the vehicle fleet saving millions of dollars and he helped families for the care they need. i'd like to congratulate brandon for his promotion and his new bride on their recent marriage. on behalf of the people of georgia he served for six years, i'd like to thank him for his hard work and dedication. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: america needs
reform. we've watched how red tape and regulations have robbed our youth to have the skills they need to succeed. they need more than the status quo education practices. we need to empower those who know best for our children rather than continue the tradition of big government mandates. house republicans, led by education chairman john kline, have a plan to reform our education system with commonsense solutions. by removing the power of government bureaucracy and empowering locally elected school boards, our teachers, parents and local leaders will have the opportunity to develop a working educational plan to help our children succeed. as the house votes on the student success act today, it is my hope that members from both sides of the aisle will join together and support this legislation for the sake of our children's future. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: to address the house
for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: mr. speaker, climate change is real. the future, damage that will be done if we fail to address it, is foreseeable and predictable. we're living through an extended period of radical weather. 2012 was the second most damaging weather systems infelix of economic harm in this country in the history of our country. $115 billion, much of it from hurricane sandy, much of it from an extended drought. sea levels are rising. this is measurable. this is not debatable. it is fact. what we're doing in this congress is arguing about energy policy, but we're having that argument in a context where we're denying that thele failure to address climate change won't have serious economic and social implications. sea levels are rising, the
damage to our treasury is rising, the suffering of our people is real and it is absolutely essential that the house of representatives acknowledge the reality of climate change and include that in its debate on energy policy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania ise? mr. pitts: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: i come to the floor to recognize two young heroes om lancaster county, pennsylvania. last week a young 5-year-old girl, jocelyn rojas, was abducted from her front yard by a stranger, older man, who turned out to be a previously convicted sex offender. the police and folks across the ighborhood quickly organized a search. tamar boggs and chris garcia set out on their bikes with other friends and when the boys spotted a suspicious car wandering through their
development they checked it out and saw the young girl inside. they relentlessly chased the driver on their bikes for 15 furious minutes, recognizing that the boys wouldn't give up, the man let jocelyn out of the car and drove away. she immediately ran to the boys asking for her mother. they safely brought her back home, and while they may not think of themselves as heroes, they certainly are. thanks to tamar and chris, jocelyn is home and the suspect is now in custody. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so recognized. >> i rise today to speak about the terrible fire earlier this week that destroyed much of the own of prophetstown, illinois. a small town in whiteside, illinois, that i have the honor of representing. it disrupted the lives of so many people working and living in this illinois town full of
caring people. rs. bustos: many people lost their possessions, not to mention their livelihood. angie lost everything in her fire, including precious nick knacks that were passed down by her grandparents. her cats are still missing. as angie said it's not the stuff but the memories behind the stuff. she has hopes that her cats will still home. the community's response to the fire should serve as an inspiration to all. residents are coming together to help everyone through this. the methodist church has received so many food donations that its freezers are overfilled. neighbors are helping neighbors clean up the rubble and turning rest rooms over to those who are homeless. they have begun the slogan, prophetstown strong. i have no doubt due to the
spirit and resolve of this town, this town will recover and be stronger. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, we've had a few acrimonious weeks over the last month but today i want to talk about something that crosses the partisan divide, something that makes this country go, whether you're a republican or democrat. it's undeniable that the ethic of hard work is the glue that binds our nation together, and when we go back and forth yelling at each other, we in congress tend to forget that. our task is to promote legislation that leads our country into the 21st century. mr. bentivolio: as congress prepares to take up some major issues, we have to keep in mind that people of this nation want solutions, solutions that empower them to achieve their
american dream. we must remember what keeps this country together. we must strive valiantly and dare greatly and we develop solutions that promote hard work and an honest wage. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: since taking control of the house of representatives, house republicans have held 39 separate votes that would undermine all or part of the affordable care act. what's most unfortunate in those 2 1/2 years the house republican leadership has refused to work across the aisle with democrats to put people back to work and pass a comprehensive jobs bill, a bill that will help middle class families. it's time for the house republican leadership to put away political slogans and partisan gamesmanship and get serious about governing. let's focus on rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of our country so we can move goods, services and information to
compete in the 21st century economy. let's harness american innovation and support the resurgence of american manufacturing by taking up the make it in america agenda of the democratic caucus. and let's protect young people and families from rising interest rates on student loans. mr. speaker, let's stop wasting time and get america back to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a distinguished leader who's earned the respect of everyone who knows him, mr. tom price. price has lived in the kingman area for 30 years and is married and together they have six children and four grandsons. attorney ccessful who is happy to advise anyone on their legal situation. he's a thinker, someone who is take a complex situation, simplify it, put it in something that is workable and
solvable. mr. gosar: today i honor him for his service to the kingman chamber of commerce. he's served in each of the executive officer positions within the kingman chamber of commerce and is serving in his last year as immediate past chairman. he's the chairman of the commerce business and government committee which concentrates on educating the community on political issues and candidates. tom, thank you for your work and your dedication to our community. i truly believe the entire kingman area is a better place to live in because of you. for a life that includes more than 30 years of service, i am pleased to recognize tom price today for his -- in this great body as a true american and a leader for the business men and area of kingman, arizona. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to bring your attention to the development of an exciting new fabric that was recently created by the biomedical engineers at the university of california-davis, a fabric that
away. moist yearure . mcnerney: led by professor tingrey pan developed a textile that stays dry by forming moisture into droplets that drain away by attaching a network of water attracting threads to water-repellant fabric. now, discoveries like these have led to significant advances in a variety of applications. this project could be used to develop and improve active gear but more significantly is likely to be developed into materials that will help our firefighters and our troops stay cool while in the field or help astronauts conserve precious liquids while in space. i'm proud to support federal funding for scientific research, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
entleman's time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 303 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to support state and local accountability for public education, protect state and local authority, inform parents of the performance of their children's schools, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose on thursday, july 18, 2013, amendment number 21, printed in house report 113-158, offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. brown, had been disposed of. it is now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?
>> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22, printed in house report number 113-158, offered by mr. culberson of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 3303, the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment will restore state sovereignty of public education and restore parental rights over the education of their children by restoring the state legislature's power to accept or reject federal education grant dollars. i have worked closely with the committee to ensure the amendment supports goals of local control and flexibility as promoted by h.r. 5, and i appreciate chairman kleine's support of this important amendment as well as his continued leadership to improve our nation's education system. state legislatures, mr. chairman, should have the ability to make an informed decision regarding federal grant dollars just as a patient consents to a medical procedure after a doctor explains the risks and benefits. i'm grateful for the task force
chairman bishop's support and co-authorship of legislation we filed in this regard and support of the national taxpayers union and council for citizens against government waste because my amendment will actually ensure that a state legislatures reject the grant dollars they will be dedicated to reducing the deficit and paying off our outstanding national debt. finally, it should be noted the congressional budget office indicates that my amendment will have no impact on direct spending. i want to thank chairman kline again for his support and urge my colleagues both to support both my amendment and underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. tierney: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tierney: i oppose the amendment because it nages education funding, it requires state legislatures to improve every single grant program for the department of education before states receive the money. so taking the authority from the local communities, local
education agencies, putting it ck into the state ma lace of -- malaise of legislative process, creates a mountain of paperwork. when the shortsighted legislatures may refuse that funding, the men and women take the money and send it back -- returning it to the deficit as opposed to its intended use which is the education of disadvantaged students. i sometimes wonder why my colleagues remember why the federal government is involved, and that is to address the shortage of court mandated -- addressing shortage of attention to disadvantaged students. this is another attempt by the majority to slash education funding. mr. speaker, it's not the time to play ploiks now. now is the time to increase our investment in education and in our children so we can be competitive and so that they can have an opportunity moving forward. this amendment is simply a distraction for the very real, very big problems that this entire bill, h.r. 5, has, and it lets students down.
h.r. 5 guts education funding because it locks in that automatic cut of sequestration. it does nothing to ebb sure -- ensure students improve learning or graduate from school. it lets students with disabilities be taught to a different lower standard, and h.r. 5 blocks grant funds and forces states to give the money to private schools and for-profit companies instead of students. for these reasons, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues vote no on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. chairman. i point out that the amendment in fact upholds our system of dual sovereignty and ensures local control over local dollars and the legislatures will actually be able to conduct this vote as part of their regular legislative proceedings during their annual budget vote. the amendment as it says in the language itself, the vote will be taken by the state legislatures as a part of their budget vote. a s is a vote they take as
part of their legislative session, so it's no additional burden on the states. we are simply ensuring transparency and ensuring that the legislatures fully understand the implications of accepting the federal dollars. those dollars, for example, texas rejects, we want to make sure go toward deficit reduction and paying down the national debt. it will be no additional burden on the states, and in fact this mendment will reaffirm and restore our constitution system of dual sovereignty where the states retain a residual and viable sovereignty over those issues that deal exclusively with the citizens of their own state. i want to thank chairman kline again for his support and urge the members to adopt this amendment and the underlying bill. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i just want to give a little historical perspective for this again. the whole reason that the federal government's involved in k through 12 education is
because states weren't doing the job when it came to addresses disadvantaged students. it was a judicial mandate that said states had to step up and do that. they, the states, and how much that was going to cost, so the federal government stepped forward and said you can have federal moneys if you do the job. we have had that tension between flexibility to do the job and how we'll hold them accountable for years. this notion of saying the state government will decide whether or not the local communities will accept the grant, if they don't we are not going to apply that money to educating those children that are disadvantaged, we'll toss it back into the treasury is no other way than cutting education funding. we don't need education cuts at this point in time. we need an investment in education. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: the money will continue to flow to the states as it does today. the state law also sets up a mechanism for the money to flow through the states to local school districts so that money will continue to flow. and also under the language of my amendment, the federal
government has unshakable obligation to ensure equal protection and due process. so that 14th amendment obligation on the federal government is undiminished and expressly reaffirmed in my amendment. so there will be no discrimination nor imposition on every american's right to legal protection and due process. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i don't want to beat a dead horse. simply the notion is states that were already at fault for not having done the job now get to not do the job again as long as the state legislatures make the de--- decision. it would be a delay, if it's done at all. if the state should make the unwise decision as they have done historically, which gave the reason for us being involved at all in the first place at the federal level, are you cutting education money and not applying it to the use of educating disadvantaged students. with that i wreb. -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i urge the house to adopt the
amendment and support chairman kline's underlying bill. i move passage. the chair: do you reserve? mr. culberson: i'll reserve if the gentleman has no further comments. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. tierney: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 23, printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? million fitzpatrick: amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 23, printed in house report number 113-158, offered by mr. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 3303, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania.
mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to thank the chairman of our committee, mr. kline, for his important work on the student success act. this amendment, mr. chairman, is designed to estop the important practice in american schools known as passing the trash. passing the trash is a term used to describe those cases where school administrators deceitfully move to other school districts teachers who are known or suspected of being sexual predators. the predators allowed to resign their employment, often keep their teaching certificate, and move on to a new, unsuspecting school to continue their deplorable crimes. sometimes their move with the recommendation of the previous employer. matter of passings the trash was brought to my attention in 2006 when i learned of 12-year-old jeremy bell who was drugged, abused, and murdered by his elementary school principal. jeremy bell's principal had been passed between schools and
school districts despite multiple allegations of sexual misconduct brought to the attention of school administrators and school boards. sadly jeremy's story is not the only one of its kind. reports show that nearly 10% of students are targets of educators' sexual misconduct sometime during their school career. these predators must be stopped. this amendment would block state or local education agencies from receiving funds if they facilitate the transfer of an employee if they know or have probable cause to believe that the employee has engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor. furthermore, the amendment would require the hiring of employees to be client with the adam walsh child protection and safety act background check requirements. teachers play an important role and part in the development of our children and in doing so they shape the future of our nation. many of us are here today thanks to the devotion of a teacher or teachers who saw the potential
in us and took it upon themselves to go above and beyond in our education. we know that the overwhelming majority of educators are committed, caring individuals who are deeply invested in the development of their students. and because of this, we owe it to them to rid our schools of the bad actors. this amendment ensures that the days of sweeping child predators under the rug are over. by holding all educators to the very high standards set by their pearce, we can ensure that quality -- peers, we can ensure that quality education will be a reality while doing everything we can to protect their incense. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: i rise in support of amendment number 8 offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. the essence of this proriggs is included in the democratic substitute amendment that mr. miller is offering with the intent of protecting children's safety and all the schools throughout the contry.
mr. miller wants to thank the gentleman for joining the democrats in this effort. congressman fitzpatrick's amendment would require all schools to have background checks for all employees including f.b.i. ping fingerprint checks, and national sex offender registry. it also includes a critical provision that denies federal fund to schools from employing any individual who is found by these checks to be a potential danger to children. schools would also lose federal funds if they transfers such employee to another school which unfortunately happens too many times. tragically the abuse of students by trusted adults is a regular occurrence. we read about it in the headlines. every child deserves a safe and abuse-free learning environment. that's why we include a similar provision in the democratic substitute and why earlier this session mr. miller introduced a similar bill, the protecting students of sexual violence act. it passed the house in a bipartisan fashion 2 1/2 years
ago. mr. miller's bill and amendment are stronger versions of mr. fitzpatrick's amendment because his provisions also cover school contractors and any crime against a child even if it's a misdemeanor. but this amendment is a step in the right direction. this amendment and these provisions are needed in federal law, mr. chairman, becauseard codding to a recent general accounting office o study conducted by mr. miller's office, state laws are inconsistent with their coverage of types of checks, types of crimes covered, and individuals who must be checked. some states only check licensed employees, and some states don't check contractors, leading to some school districts unknowingly hiring offenders. children in school need to be safe from any adult who has access to them regardless of position. they also highlight add wide range of cases in numerous states where convicted sex offenders working in schools have previously targeted children. in other cases, g.a.o. found the districts knowingly passed a potential predator no another school district, allowing them to resign instead of reporting them.
the glaring holes in the way schools screen prospective employees lead to gaps in protection and often to abuse. a child's safety in school is too important to leave to chance. we must ensure all children are free from the abuse of violence of sexual predators. there is no place for this in our nation's schools. the vast majority of school staff is trust woshty and work hard every day to support students' learning needs. we honor and respect their work which is so central to the success of the nation. these criminal background checks are essential, however, to ensure that schools and school districts are doing everything they possibly can to protect children's safety. that's the most fundamental of our priorities. mr. chairman t. again we want to thank mr. fitzpatrick and mr. meehan for offering this amendment and urging this vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: i thank the gentleman for his support of the amendment and comments here this morning. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support the underlying bill. i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in house report 113-158 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman. good morning and i'm pleased to be on the floor with mr. tierney and the gentleman from california in their commitment and their comments on the question of the equality of education for at-risk children. i think if there's anything that comes out of this important discussion and from the chairman's presence on the
floor, it should be we should be focused in tunnel vision with the concern of at-risk children, and my amendment is a straightforward amendment. it is an amendment that gives information. specifically, it calls for a study and a report containing recommendations regarding the advisibility of authorizing a state education authority to close the school district over the opposition of locally elected school board families, students, teachers and calls for best practices governing the exercise of authority by a state education agency and monitoring, superadvising and controlling underperforming school districts with particular emphasis on rural and underserved districts and underserved communities. our children are our precious resource, and i have been in schools and school districts where children love the atmosphere in which they are in. they clamor for the teachers.
there is a mutual respect and coming together, and all they need is a focus of resources and improvement. but rather than getting that, authority is used to either undermine the funding of those school districts or in essence say to those school teachers and all of those who have been working and taxpayers that in fact this school will not be given dollars to improve. in the center on reinventing public education, assessed a number of states and the interesting determination was that states spent less on improving school districts and schools, less on improving but more on shutting them down or not allowing them to go forward in at-risk areas. this chart gives you the balance of distribution of performance and improvement and many states, such as texas, spend less than 5% on
performance. so what does my amendment do? it provides balance between local control over schools and our state educational agencies by providing a report. it makes sure that taxpayers and locally elected officials are not ignored by the state. it also has a way of preventing communities from being blamed as a problem and engaging the community. it prevents poorly prepared state elected officials who've been placed in positions to run schools from taking money from those schools as opposed to investing in those schools. it makes sure that minor problems are fixed before you go to address the concerns. it allows a determination of the structure of appeal so that the appeal is allowed broadly by those who are impacted. taxpayers, for example, who are very important, and it allows to determine whether the state authorities are giving the effective oversight of -- over
rural districts and at-risk districts. and then it provides the opportunity to ensure there is a fair play and we are interested in the quality of education. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment requires the secretary of education to conduct a study to examine underperforming school districts. whether equal education opportunities are being afforded in those school districts and the impact of closing those school districts. mr. chairman, as the amendment clearly states, this is a state activity in which the federal government should have no role and should not be involved. we do not need recommendations from the u.s. department of education on how states should protect the constitutional rights of students. this is the law of the land today. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the student success act and i yield
back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: well, as we started, the reason why the federal government got engaged in education is because i remember times in the south and across america when there was unequal education and we needed the u.s. department of education. more importantly, we needed the courts. today i stand here and ask for a simple inquiry made by the u.s. department of education. our state agencies effectively closing school districts and not seeking to improve them. a very fine example is the north forest independent school district in houston, texas. solvent. 50,000 registered voters. 7,000 students. had received awards. what did the state agency do? the state agency came into the opposition of a community, teachers, supporters of a combined effort between a public school and charter school, proposed coming together to put forward the best proposal to keep this
school teaching our children. the support by republicans and democrats and an autocratic state agency closed the school district. so this is a simple inquiry. it's an inquiry whether or not you want to boost up the taxpayers and boost up the parents that have no standing. it's a question of whether or not you want to make sure there is a basis of a fair appeal as opposed to an autocratic process, a tatorial process. i ask all -- dictatorial process. i ask all of you, no one want to interfere with the educators. what do you want to interfere is closing rural school districts and urban school districts and not allowing the people, the teachers, to be able to understand and give input into the best process, mr. chairman. i would argue and i'd like to be able to refer to the center on reinventing public education, but i will argue in closing, mr. chairman, that this amendment is an opportunity. i ask you oto support the jackson lee amendment.
the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not passed. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask the yeas and nays. i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. chairman, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 rinted in house report 113-158 offered by mr. cantor of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. chairman, a
good education is a first step in a long walk toward living the american dream. that's what this amendment is about, mr. chairman. so i'd like to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. does any member seek recognition? mr. miller: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. chairman, this amendment is not about a good education. this is an amendment suggesting an approach that in fact the amendment doesn't enable to happen and that is the idea that a student can choose the school under the guise of portability when in fact it doesn't set up any mechanisms for the students to do that. the suggestion here somehow is students t that the will make this choice -- parents will make this choice.
we had the right under no child left behind for students to elect to go to any school in the district they sought to do that. of course, what we have found out is that in many instances it's less than 2% or 3% of the parents make that decision and they don't -- the reason -- many reasons why they don't do that is in fact it's a decision that doesn't work for them because of lack of transportation in poor neighborhoods, lack of issues of personal safety of the students. the difference in my districts and some parts of my district going to the school next to your home and walking the six, eight, 10 blocks to where the next school is is a matter of personal safety for those children. we have children unfortunately who are harmed every day on our streets and some cases killed on those streets. so for parents, this isn't just a choice of that's a better school. cantor under the
amendment, you would be requiring school districts to engage in an incredibly complex accounting system. i don't know why we would burden them with that. we currently have in many, many, many districts open enrollment. as i say parents can choose that if they choose but many cases they can't because of barriers to that enrollment. so this is the suggestion somehow that you can just pick up and move your child. what we see in survey after survey after survey is what parents want is they want the -- their neighborhood school, the school next to them, they want that school to be functioning at a high level so their child, their children can get an education at that school. i know that maybe the author of this amendment isn't familiar with these parents, but these parents are struggling between their jobs, their work, holding their families together. very often single -- individual working women supporting these
families. this is a difficult task. and the idea that the burden won't be on the district to improve that local school but will just leave it be under the guise that parents can opt to send their children somewhere else when that's not a real option for them, this amendment doesn't address the concern of open enrollment, the system the states are set up and it clearly doesn't address the needs of the parents and it fails to recognize that in many school districts there's only one school, there's only one middle school, there's only two elementary schools. that's not the issue here. this isn't like wide choices made available to that. that's why many of us have encouraged charter schools inside these districts so that parents will have that choice that is within -- within reach of them. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield two minutes to
the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby. the chair: the gentlewoman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of leader cantor's amendment to lr 5, an amendment that would allow title 1 dollars to actually follow the students to the school of their choice. so i thank the leader for recognizing me. we all agree that every child deserves equal access to quality education, one that challenges them, builds critical thinking skills and enhances their opportunity for success. but all too often the system fails those who need it most, and for too long we have perpetuated failure by not demanding accountability for results. this amendment would allow title 1 dollars to follow the child to the school their parent deems best. as a mother of a child in public school, i understand firsthand how important it is for parents to be able to choose the school that best fits their child's needs. and school choice can help drive innovation, healthy
competition and most importantly accountability. if a low-income parent makes the brave and noble decision to seek a better opportunity for their child, the last thing that we should do here is make it more difficult by withholding funding meant to help educate that child. mr. chairman, we can't afford to do the same old thing expecting different results. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and pass the student success act. let's get washington out of the way to ensure a brighter future for our children. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california reserves? does the gentleman from california reserve? mr. miller: i yield to the gentlewoman from connecticut one minute. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for ne minute. ms. delauro: i rise in support of the miller substitute
amendment and in strong opposition to the underlying bill which as it is drastically underfunds our education system and sets up our children and our nation to fail. right now the majority's bill freezes education funding through the end of the decade. at just above the sequestration level in 2013. compared to last year's level, this means a $570 million cut to education funding. one of our fundamental priorities as a nation for each of the next five years. nor does this majority bill allow for annual increases due to inflation or enrollment growth. in effect, the majority is trying to lock in federal education spending at a level far below what is needed and then simply walking away from our schools and our kids and keep in mind all of these cuts come on top of several earlier rounds of deep cuts by the majority to education spending. mr. speaker, without access to quality education, there is no
middle class. the compact is broken that allows hard work to pay off and allows future generations to do better. we cannot allow this to happen. i urge my colleagues to support the miller substitute to this flawed bill. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. . mr. bishop: my home state has been one of the leaders in equitable funding for kids so whether you come from a wealthy mountain resort, salt lake city city, or west dezer rural ranching family, the same amount of money follows the kid to their schools in any situation. and we did that simply because we care about kids and we established a fair system of disbursing the money. the money followed the g.i. only in washington, here, with these particular funds, where education does not have an
equitable disposable mechanism do we find this situation in which we treat kids differently. it appears to me some of the outside groups that may be opposed to this are simply saying they like this antiquated disposal system which means some entitlement schools get a whole lot of money and another title 1 schools don't get very much money if any at all because we don't have an equitable system for disbursing our funds. we need to do what many states are doing right now and make sure we have an equitable distribution system. this amendment moves us in that direction. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: how much time? the chair: the gentleman from california has 30 seconds. mr. miller: on your mark. this amendment just doesn't address the realities of the current law. first of all the underlying bill takes away the choice the parents have today. this amendment wants to pretend like it's choice. when thea. utah says the money falls to child, no. in utah they have state
equalization. it's the same amount of money wherever you go. no money follows you. the suggestion in the cantor amendment is somehow this money will follow you except it requires states and districts to set up an entirely new bookkeeping system. these are people who say they don't want to burden those districts. the fact of the matter is under current law parents can choose to send their children to another school. whether all the money will the them or not under cantor amendment, there is no mechanism and no money. there is no full entitlement of the money. i know the gentleman wanted to have vouchers and this is an invitation vouch e., it doesn't work. it doesn't work for the child shall parents, or -- child, parents, or school districts. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: i yield my southwest remaining time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: what i would say to the gentleman from california, first of all this is an amendment which provides states the option if they want to allow this type of funding or flow of federal dollars.
no one's forcing any state to do anything or any local school district. i'd also point out, mr. chairman, that i believe there are several cities, i think one in the gentleman's state, in san francisco, which actually have allowed for state dollars to follow the kids. so perhaps i think there are -- i think -- the chair: the gentleman from virginia -- mr. cantor: i think to the point that is a bookkeeping difficulty, certainly there are localities, school districts who figured out this can easily be done. i want to follow up on the point that the gentleman from utah has made. this is about how federal dollars currently are allocated under title 1. and in the school districts, once the school districts have the money, the way the federal requirement is now there's some schools that receive a lot of title 1 money, and there are
others that could receive none, or very little, title 1 money. -- this t what the amendment is about is trying to provide all title 1 kids with the resources that i think all of us want them to have. and again, mr. chairman, this -- i'll yield when i'm finished. mr. miller: the reason some schools don't have a lot of title 1 money or some is they don't have title 1 students. mr. cantor: reclaiming my time. the state of the law is such that there is a requirement now that title 1 moneys at the local level go to schools with 75% or higher population. it is the overpopulated, poorest schools that are in the law said to get the moneys first. the problem is what if your school doesn't quite make that
cutoff? what if that population isn't quite at that benchmark? what about the title 1 kids in those schools? that's what this is trying to address, mr. chairman. so, again, too many of our underprivileged children today are finding themselves in schools that cannot address the problem. and this amendment is aimed at trying to restore those children and those parents' ability to have the quality of education that all of us want. and again, this amendment does so by granting the states the power if they so choose to allow title 1 funds to follow the students. i believe the current system clearly is leafing some kids behind that exist in these schools that aren't getting any money. and the lack of access to quality schools and quality teachers will and can hold children back and most especially those children living in poverty and those often with
special needs to do -- who do require help. many states are reforming their system to address these inequities and these shortcomings. and in fact as i indicated earlier, there was some makor school systems that i -- i know of one in the gentleman's state, that have actually tried to redirect state and local moneys according to this spirit which is allow every child to have equal access to funds and resources. but unfortunately those states don't have the flexibility to match up federal funds with these type of reform efforts that are ongoing at the local and state level. federal title 1 funding was created to help the most vulnerable of our students. foster children, the homeless, those living below the poverty line. and this amendment will give states the option to allow title 1 funds to allow each student to -- to follow each student to the public school, including charter
school of their choice. again right now federal dollars do not follow all of the students that they are supposed to help. this amendment will make certain that no matter what school a low-income student attends, he or she will benefit from these dollars. mr. chairman, improving our education system is a bipartisan issue. and this amendment builds in a bipartisan -- on the bipartisan work being done at the state level. and, mr. chairman, i'd like to at this time just thank the leadership of the gentleman from minnesota, the chairman of the education and work force committee, for his commitment to responding to the desires of all of our constituents who believe that education is the fundamental building block for all to achieve the american dream. i salute him and his work and in his tenacity to try and get things right in the reforms that are necessary to allow for that
promise to be realized by all of our kids. i yield back. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in house report 113-158. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? -- i rise -- yield i have an amendment at the desk in the nature of a substitute. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26, printed in house report number 113-158, offered by mr. george miller of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from california, mr. miller, and a member opposed, will each
control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: mr. speaker, this debate highlights some of the stark choices about the direction of our education system. the republican bill sends us backwards, letting these students down at a critical time. this substitute amendment i'm offering will move the nation forward. every day schools are making great strides to take our education system into the 21st crentry. they are raising standards, trying ways to boost learning, improving the schools of teachers and principals. mr. speaker, we in congress should be a partner this these efforts, providing resources and the support to help them move forward, not gutting funding or walking away from our responsibility to help as the republican bill does. despite some good things in current law, no child left behind's one-size-fits-all approach has hampered progress. it's time to revise the law, building on what we have learned over the past decade, spreading best practices to all schools, not just to some.
the democratic approach does this. it maintains our bedrock civil rights responsibilities. my amendment would help ensure all students have access to world class education, regardless of their background or zip code and that teachers, principals, schools, have support and resources to provide that education. unlike the republican bill, the democratic amendment improves current law in several ways. we call upon states to set high expectations for students, ensuring every child graduates prepared for college or for a career. we eliminate the one-size-fits-all approach of accountability called a.y.p., while we still call on schools to emprove the student lenching and graduation rates each year. we give districts and schools the flexibility on how to improving learning and graduation rate. we ensure teachers and principals get timely feedback so they can improve their skills. we also ensure educators have good working conditions and positive supports to help them do their jobs even better than they do now.
we provide robust funding for literacy, stem, for technology, and other subjects like art, music to ensure that all students have a well-rounded education. and we provide resources and supports to ensure the students are safe, healthy, and free from bullying in schools so they can focus on learning. the republican bill does not come close to meeting any of these goals. in their effort to eliminate federal involvement in education, they let students down. they fail to ensure students improve their learning or graduate from high school. they fail to ensure that students with disabilities are taught to the same high standards as other students. they fail to provide adequate funding and resources for students and schools. they fail to move beyond the narrow focus of reading and math and ensure all students get a well-rounded education. if we can't pass a better, bipartisan bill, no child left behind will remain the law of the land. and this is unacceptable. it's unacceptable to the scores of organizations who oppose h.r.
5 from business to labor to civil rights to disability advocates to education organizations. that's why so many groups support this substitute amendment. this fight is about equity. it's about every child in our country getting an education they deserve regardless of poverty, disability, or other challenges. i urge my democratic and republican colleagues to support this democratic substitute so that the students and their families have the education system they need to prepare for the future. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: when no child left behind was signed into law, more than a decade ago, it was heralded as groundbreaking. and certainly in many ways it was. the expanded use of data helped superintendents, principals, and
teachers pay more attention to the students with the greatest need. parents now have more access to important information about the quality of teachers in schools and some student achievement gaps have narrowed. however, hindsight is 20 to and we can now -- 2020 and we can now identify the law's weaknesses. it's a one-size-fits-all mandate that fails to provide schools any meaningful information about their performance. the law's highly qualified teachers requirements to motivate students in the classroom, strict mandates and funding restrictions stunted the development of education programs. the students success act will correct the mistakes of the past and provide states and school districts the flexibility they need to put more children on a path to a brighter future. flexibility, mr. chairman, i might say, has been begged for, demanded year after year since this law passed.
superintendent after superintendent and principal after principal has said to me, i don't need money here. but i've got it. i need the money over here and i can't spend it. if i just had more flexibility we could take care of making sure that all these kids get the education that they deserve. the substitute offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply continues the same failed policies we are seeking to correct and encourages greater federal intrusion in classrooms. no matter what you call it, a.y.p. or many other rigid ederal accountable system is still the wrong approach. replacing the existing law's 100% proficiency target with the unequal realistic goals is not the answer. the unprecedented control of schools assumed by the obama administration rather than supporting the innovation occurring at the state and local level is not the answer. this substitute also fails to meaningfully consolidate programs or give states and school districts greater freedom
to use federal funds. it includes outrageous and unrealistic authorization levels that congress and the administration will never come close to meeting. i welcome meaningful contributions from my colleagues across the aisle, but saubstute that doubles down on the stay toes quo is not what students, parents, or educators deserve. i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the underlying bill that will empower the parents, teachers, principals, and school administrators to deliver the educational system or students need. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. r. holt: mr. chairman, i rise in mr. miller's substitute and in opposition to the underlying bill. we must never forget that the elementary and secondary education act is rooted in the civil rights movement.
since 1965, the role of federal involvement in the schools has been to eliminate inequality in education, not just provide additional funds for schools to use as they please. this bill is not a thoughtful response to the concerns of parents and teachers and school officials. it reduces our investment in education. it would lock in the sequester spending cuts. it treats professional development as an afterthought it would eliminate federal investment in science and math education. yes, the republican bill does mention science, but the proposal does nothing to tie high accountability measures to science assessments. a real proposal would not foster an exception that -- to that lack of -- a lack of improvement is acceptable. a real proposal would have wrap-around services. a real proposal would not
abandon students with disabilities. a real proposal would not have development as a mere afterthought. we should be considering a proposal that recognizes that federal investment and high standards in science and other areas as well as literacy and foreign language development are critical component to a high-quality education that every student deserves. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: could i inquire of the chair how much time i have available? the chair: the gentleman from california has five minutes. the gentleman from minnesota has 7 1/4. mr. miller: and i have the right to close debate on the amendment? the chair: no. the gentleman from minnesota has the right to close. mr. miller: on the substitute, the gentleman from minnesota closes? the chair: yes.
mr. miller: thank you. i yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: thank you. i want to respond to some of chairman kline's introductions. i think both sides can agree there are flaws in no child left behind. a.y.p. is a flawed formula. i think the democrat substitute is to get accountability right, not take a step back from accountability. the chairman mentioned, quote, now we have more information about the quality of teachers and schools thanks to no child left behind, end quote. we were placed after three years the teacher evaluation system. however, unfortunately that was amended here on the floor with the scalise-bishop amendment. so i think one thing we can be assured of in the underlying bill will lead to less information about teachers and the assurances that funds will going to be funding teachers and they're effective. the democratic substitute takes into account student growth, proficiency rates, help turn
around our lowest performing schools. whereas h.r. 5 guts education funding, the democratic substitute provides funding for critical programs like stem, school turn-around grants, safe and healthy students. this amendment would help invest in our nation's teacher quality. i strongly support the democratic substitute and call on my colleagues to make surely we move forward in education reform to help serve all kids in our great country. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. chairman, i reserve again. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from miller. mr. miller: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. schneider: the republican bill is flawed. it's disheartening instead of working together on an actual re-authorizing we're debating a divisive partisan bill. there is nothing more important to our nation than educating our children. the most crucial element for
ensuring our children's success is supporting our children's teachers. teachers do an incredibly important and remarkably challenging job. the vast majority of them are excellent and their good work is overlooked far too frequently. education at the elementary and secondary level is critical to 21st century jobs and competitiveness. we need to work together on a bipartisan legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield five minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary education, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman of the education and work force yielding such time. well, here we are again. perhaps the culmination of this debate that started yesterday afternoon here on the floor, has been going on in committee
now for several weeks, and in this nation now for 12 years. mr. chairman, you know it's been 12 years since we've been on the floor debating these issues? i'm encouraged by that fact alone. that some of us had the leadership, the responsibility, the courage to bring some of these issues to the floor for the betterment of our teachers, our parents and mostly our students. but i rise now in strong objection to the substitute amendment offered by my colleague from california. i oppose this amendment for a number of reasons. because it's more of the same, quote, washington knows best, unquote, that's brought us here today. it turns out, as we hear from parents and our districts -- in districts that washington does not know best. a bureaucratic sitting in washington by definition, mr. chairman, doesn't know our children and can't possibly know what's best for a student in indiana or anywhere else in
this nation. who do you believe, mr. hairman, knows a child best? is it the bureaucrats in this 10 or 11-story rectangle-like building known as the lyndon b. johnson department of education? or is it this mother or this ather who knows their child? who do you trust, mr. chairman, with your children? do you trust the bureaucrats in this building 1,000 miles away you where you live or do trust you and your wife? who do the parents of america trust more to educate their children, their local teacher or these bureaucrats? you know, throughout the amendment and the process of the student success act and the remarks offered now in support of this amendment, we heard ime and time again how the
student success act is an attack on children, teachers and all other sorts of demagoguery and doom and gloom. don't believe it. don't believe it because if you listen closely and certainly if you read the plain meaning of the text of this amendment and everything else that's been written and said about these reforms that we're going to make here on the house floor today, you would find that at he very essence of all of them we find that the other side and those that talk against the student success act inherently trust these bureaucrats more than parents or teachers. they continuously say we know best, we are smarter than those of us who raise our own children. the truth of the matter is that this amendment offered by my colleague is the real attack on children, parents and teachers. it attacks teachers by holding
them to washington-based standards, not local ones. we know every school is different. it attacks parents by robbing them of the hopes and dreams that they have for their children and takes away so many decisions that these parents can take to guide their children's future. they know best. worse of all, this is an attack on children. washington-based education policy attacks children by endangering their chance at success and a brighter future by hamstringing them with teaching to test results as opposed to teaching to success in life. the student success act ensures parents can be in direct contact with those who are setting education policy for their children and their teachers and hold them accountable. there's a reason why in bill has received so much support from groups like the american association of school administrators, the council of chief state school officers, the national school boards association and the school superintendent association. they all support this bill. the student success act will give states and schools the
flexibility and incentive to administrator their policies effectively. the student success act encourages teachers to be innovative while also responsibly measuring success. it's been said here just recently and time again that, no, 10-year credentialism should be what we measure teachers against. i say no. it doesn't matter how long, mr. chairman, a teacher has taught or how many classes they've taken. what matters is how well their kids are learning, what their success is and that's what the student success act does. it will give parents the authority and choice that they deserve as they make decisions about their child's future and they will give students themselves the best student to succeed. that's the best thing we can do here on the floor of the house today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 30 seconds.
mr. foster: thank you. i rise today to speak against .r. 5 and its impact on stem education. as a physicist and someone who started a business in my parent's basement and manufacturers over half the theater and lighting equipment to the united states and provides hundreds of jobs in the midwest mid west i know the importance of stem education and driving our nation's innovation and competitiveness by generating new ideas, new companies and new industries. and this -- the impact of this -- of this underlying bill would be devastating to stem education. under h.r. 5, funding for stem programs would be combined into a single block grant with 70 other educational programs with no requirements for the school district who actually spends any funding on stem education. i yield back and encourage a yes vote on the miller substitute amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make sure my colleague understands that i am prepared to close. i have no more speakers.
i'll reserve until he's had a chance to have his speakers. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: might i inquire of the chair how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from california has three minutes. the gentleman from minnesota has 2 1/4. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself the remaining time. choim the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: mr. speaker, -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: mr. speaker, members of the house. this substitute i've introduced on behalf of democrats creates a fundamental choice for this body in our vote later today. it creates a fundamental choice whether or not this nation is going to go forward and provide a high-quality education to every student or whether this nation is going to go back, back to a time when students are left out of this system and resources weren't provided, when schools weren't keeping up. it's also a question of whether or not we're going to -- we're going to break a promise and go back on our constitutional responsibility to make sure
that all students have access to that education. poor students, minority students, english learning students, students with disability, are we going to hold school districts and schools accountable from providing that educational opportunity for those students and will those students have the same access to a high-quality education that in many instances is available across town, in the next neighborhood but not there in their neighborhood? or not accessible because it's not friendly or welcoming to students with disabilities or students learning the english language, will they have the same rights to that education? we know from this economy, from this economic downturn we need every one of those students to be able to be productive and successful and achieving, but that's not what the republican bill promises. it grinds down the funding
available to these school districts for poor and minority children, for students with disabilities. it grinds it down because it marks it down to the sequestration label. so quietly and silently school districts all across the nation will be losing the resources for these poor children. we're stealing money from the orest people in this country to achieve deficit reduction, but tax reform may be next year, the year after, the year after. economic justice sometime later down the road. oday this is about education justice and whether every student, every family will have access to a high-quality education that no longer depends on their zip code or the neighborhood in a town in which they live. you know, it's been said very often from the other side that somehow all we want is a washington-knows-best solution and what they offer is
something opposite of that. no, what we put together in this substitute is different than washington knows best. this is about parents who know best, parents who demand the accountability that is in the substitute and not in the republican bill because they want to know if their child is learning in that school, their child who may be poor, their child who may have disabilities, their child who may have learning problems, they want to know if their child is learning. this is parents who want to know best, teachers who want to know best who want the resources so they can teach those children. the business community that wants a well-trained -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: they want it and that's why the business roundtable, that's why the chamber of commerce opposes their bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: that's why they oppose their bill. parents who want it -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: who's running out of time?
children are running out of time. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is not recognized. mr. miller: they're taking it away from those schools, that's the option -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend, is not recognized. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. is not recognized. mr. miller: thank you for the time and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. the house is not in order. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. hairman. we apparently agree on both sides of the aisle that parents, parents should be making decisions. parents should be in charge.
parents need information. we believe in the underlying bill that we are giving parents the information they need, the control they need, the choices they need, giving their children the best chance to succeed. i think we agree on both sides of the aisle the status quo is not working. in fact, the administration is engaged in instituting its own education policy through its conditional waiver scheme. it's moved so far down the line, mr. chairman, they have even ffered waivers to the waivers. and yet it's been 12 years since this body or the senate or the united states congress has passed an education law. 12 years. it is time for the congress, the
house, and the senate to step up and do its job and write new law and get the administration out of the business of writing education policy. i would hope that republicans and democrats recognize that it is not the role of the administration of the department of education of the secretary of the president to write education policy. republican and democrat in the white house. it's our job to do it. it's time to do it. i don't believe this substitute amendment is the right thing. i oppose it. i'm asking my colleagues to oppose it. i believe the underlying bill moves us in the right direction, giving children a better to tunity, so i'm going encourage my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment despite the passion that surrounds it and support the underlying bill and i yield back
the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 113-158 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 22, mr. culberson of texas. amendment number 24, by ms. jackson lee of texas. and also amendment number 26 by mr. miller of california. the chair will reduce to two minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 22 printed in house report 113-158 from the gentleman from texas, mr.
culberson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22, print in house report number 113-158, offered by mr. culberson of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it this will be a 15-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 227. the nays are 196. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 24, printed in 113-158, by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed boy voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24, printed in house report number 113-158, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: recorded vote having been requested, those in support of a recorded vote will stand and be counted, a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 186. the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 26, printed in house report 113-158 by the gentleman from california, mr. miller, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26, prnted in house report number 11-158, offered by mr. george miller of california. the chair: recorded vote having been requested, those in favor of a recorded vote will stand and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 193. the nays are 233. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker the committee of the whole house on the state of the union had under consideration h.r. 5, pursuant to house resolution 303, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the chair: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 5 and pursuant to house resolution 303, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment
adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature f a substitute as amend -- of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye, those opposed will vote no. the aye vs. it, the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to support state and local accountability for public education, protect state and local authority, inform parents of the performance of their children's' schools, and for other purposes. the chair: -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. he house will be in order. he house will be in order.
the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> yes, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. >> moves to recommit the bill h.r. 5 to the committee on education anti-work force with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 23, after line 9, insert the following new subparagraph, f., guaranteeing educational students for children with autism or other disabilities. each state plan shall demonstrate that the academic content standard and academic achievement standards adopted under this paragraph should not deny educational students -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from --
mr. kline: i reserve a point of order against the motion. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. the clerk will report. the clerk: adopt lower standards than the standards adopted for students without disabilities, or otherwise lower expectations -- miss custor: mr. speaker. the clerk: page 481, after line 22, insert the following. section 5562, protecting school children from sexual predators, a, background checks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new hampshire is recognized. ms. kuster: thank you, i scuck unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. you, mr. thank speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. the speaker pro tempore: the order.s not in
please remove your conversations from the house floor. ms. kuster: if adopted the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended. this week, we have debated how best to educate our children and prepare them for the lives and jobs of the 21st century economy. mr. speaker, this bill is not the answer. in new hampshire, we recognize that investments in education are investments in economic growth, job creation, and expanded opportunity for middle class families. . unfortunately this -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. please remove your conversations from the house floor. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kuster: unfortunately this bill fails to adequately make these investments in our future. it fails to reflect the bipartisan support for stem education, for fairness, and accountability. along with the chamber of
commerce and a broad coalition of stake holders, i believe that this legislation fails to deliver the education system that our students, our children, deserve. while some would rather abolish the department of education, i know that we have a responsibility to ensure that every child in this country has a chance to learn and succeed. we may have our disagreements, but we owe it to the people we represent to focus on those areas where we can find common round. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will be in order. please remove your conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. custer sprk i know that we can all -- ms. kuster: i know we can all agree on the need to preserve
opportunity and safety for our students and i'm hopeful that you will all support my amendment which makes four very commonsense reforms. first, this amendment protects children with autism and other disabilities. according to the centers for disease control, an astounding one in 88 children and one in 54 boys across the united states are on the autism spectrum. my amendment would simply ensure that education plans do not deny opportunity to these students with autism or other disabilities. second, this would amend to protect children from abusive seclusion and restraint policies. a shocking 41 states have verify red ports of any appropriate -- of inappropriate seclusion and restraints in their schools. the government accountability office has documented hundreds
of allegations of such abuse against students including students with disabilities. troubling reports have emerged of students pinned to the ground, face down. students who have been confined in car board boxes, and students who have been literally duct taped to chairs. as a result, some students have even die. my amendment would put in place minimum safety standards to prevent abusive se clues -- seclusion and restraint in school. third, this amendment would require thorough background checks for any school employees or contractors with access to children to keep sexual predators out of our schools. we can all agree on this part of the amendment. to prohibit public schools from hiring or retaining anyone convicted of crimes against children such as sexual assault
and pornography. importantly, it would ensure that schools report to local law enforcement with predators -- when predators apply for positions with access to children. and finally, this amendment would establish standards for protecting student athletes from concussions. i know that many of you are parents and i have had sons with this condition. research shows that 300,000 sports-related concussions occur every single year in our schools. younger athletes are at greater risk of concussion and this amendment would provide schools, athletes, and parents with the information on how best to prevent and manage these injuries. it would also require parental notification. so together, these reforms will keep our children safe from injury and abuse in our
schools. i urge my colleagues on beeth sides of the aisle to vote to protect children with disabilities, both to improve safety for all students -- vote to improve safety for all students and vote to approve this amendment. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. and i withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is withdrawn. the swrelt is recognized for five minutes -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. what states and school districts are asking for, have been asking for, clamoring for, is more flexibility and less federal mandates to address the individual needs of their students. we should not tie the hands of school officials and predetermine how they can best help their students and staff. instead, this motion will force them to jump through hoops and meet burdensome requirements this motion is full of
requirements. some might be good, most will be burdensome, but at the heart, this is a motion that says my democratic colleagues do not believe our school leaders and teachers have the best intentions for their kids. they do not trust them to know how to take care of their students, we disagree. i urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and support the student success act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back he balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is order. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. ms. kuster: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman requests a recorded vote, a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule -- pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this
five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered and the question of agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. 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, the yeas are 191, the nays are 231, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested.
those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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.]
pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of h.r. 5 the clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and
cross-references, and make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the house in amending the bill, including the changes now at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the changes. the clerk: an amendment numbered 1 insert the first place it in the fter programs, instruction regarding page 366, line 6, an amendment numbered 17, strike page 3, 15, after line 15, and insert page 311 after line 15. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i now yield to my friend and majority leader, mr. cantor of virginia. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. on monday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 2 p.m. for legislative business, votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday, no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 2397, the department of defense appropriations bill, authored
by representative bill young. his bill provides the revorses necessary for our men and women in the armed services to carry out their mission. there are also a number of bills the appropriations committee has reported which may come to the floor in the near future. furthermore, the house may consider two energy bills out of the energy and commerce committee. the first bill, h.r. 2218, the residualee re-use and management act authored by representative mckinley would provide for regular ligs of coal ash by the state, allowing their use in a safe manner that protects jobs. the energy consumers relief act sponsored by representative cassidy will require the e.p.a. before finalizing any energy-related rule costing more than $1 billion to report to congress on specific energy price and job impacts. both of these bills, mr. speaker, foster an environment of economic growth and lower energy costs for american
families and businesses. finally, mr. speaker, the house acted last month to prevent the doubling of the student loan interest rate. should the senate send this legislation, the house may act as early as next week. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information with respect to legislation for next week. i note that there was not on the notice for next week the senate has now voted to go to conference on the farm bill. clearly that is a matter that i think both sides, our side certainly and i think your side as well feel is a priority. does the gentleman have any plans to move to go to conference, to ask the senate for a conference on the farm bill? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i respond to the gentleman by saying we are committed to acting with
urgency to bring to the floor a bill under the nutrition title of what was formerly the farm bill which that title married up with the agriculture provisions. it is our hope to get the nutrition bill to the floor because we believe strongly that the programs under those titles providing a safety net to the country's most vulnerable is something important that we maintain and we implement the kind of reforms to those programs that have long been called for by the g.a.o. and others so that we can make sure the efficient flow of dollars to those beneficiaries who most need it. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that comment. however, i'm somewhat perplexed, mr. leader. you and i had a relatively animated colloquy some, i think, two or three weeks ago at which point in time you said
we passed the farm bill. of course we didn't like it and none of us voted for it. we passed the farm bill so that in fact we could follow regular order and go to conference. we passed that farm bill. the senate has now voted to go to conference. what i hear the gentleman saying is, like the budget bill, we're not going to go to conference unless something else happens. in case of the budget, until mr. ryan gets mr. murray to agree on -- i don't want to haracterize it too heavily but to agree with him as opposed to compromise. but i'm a little, as i say, perplexed because a few weeks ago you told me the reason we passed that farm bill without the provision for nutrition which has been in there for half a century was so that we could go to conference. well, now we're there. and -- but there's no motion to go to conference. i'm perplexed and i would
appreciate the gentleman, because we now have the opportunity to follow regular order, we now have the senate who has voted to go to conference, acted on our bill that we sent there, substituted their bill for us and now have asked for a conference on the same. that is regular order. can the gentleman tell me, are we now making a condition as we lawyers say, presea dent that something has to -- precedent, before we go to conference? you and i both know the nutrition bill is what made the farm bill apparently fall on the rocks which is why you drotched it in order to pass the farm bill. it was not -- it was a totally partisan bill but now we need to get to agreement. i'll tell you, we're running out of time, mr. leader. and i think we need to get this farm bill done and i would hope that we can go to conference.
as the gentleman said we were going to do with the senate on the house-passed bill. yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i know that the gentleman in his call for regular order also knows that the house has its prerogatives as does the other body. we believe strongly that marriage of the two constituencies of the old farm bill was a marriage that began some 40 years ago and frankly it is the sense of the majority in the house that that marriage makes little sense. and that instead, if we could, as a house, opt to be transparent and look at the policies on the agricultural side the way that we did and then look at the policies under the nutrition title in the same deliberative fashion that we
can actually make for better product. the gentleman said the farm bill that was passed was a partisan bill. certainly no member of the minority voted for the bill but i would, and not to rehash several weeks ago colloquy, say that the same attitude was taken with the old farm bill. by the minority. saying it was too partisan. we intend to proceed deliberate live -- liberately, looking at policies that make sense in reforming these programs in the veen of trying to get to those -- in the vein of trying to get those most vulnerable the relief they need at the same time paying cognizance to the fact that we have fiscal challenges we must deal with. we are trying to be about truth in legislating, mr. speaker. and that is making sure that the purpose of agricultural policy is adequately addressed as well as the purpose of the nutrition title in providing
relief to our country east most vulnerable. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his observation. the truth in legislating is that we are not legislators -- legislating. we are putting forth the positions of your party in this house, not shared by the senate, not shared by the president of the united states, also elected by the people of the united states and absent agreement by those two entities, co-equal branches of the congress, and a co-equal branch of the government, the executive, absent their agreeing with your parties perspective, we're not legislating. that's the problem. mr. leader. and again, i express to you, you said, and i don't have the words in front of me exactly, but we can pull them out, but i am perplexed because you said when we passed the farm bill without the nutrition program in it, which had been done for a half a century, they have been paired, by republican congresses and democratic
congresses, signed by republican presidents and democratic presidents, only the last two years we have been unable to come to grips with bipartisan agreement on the farm bill. it is only in the past two years we have been unable to get a bill that was bipartisan in fashion to the floor and ultimately voted on on final passage. the bipartisan bill that came out of committee both in the last congress and this congress were turned into, the first one, the last congress didn't come to the floor, the gentleman didn't bring it to the floor at all, not withstanding the fact that it had bipartisan support in the committee. and knot swith standing the fact that the bill brought to the floor had bipartisan support and the support of the ranking member, mr. peterson, notwithstanding he didn't agree with some portions that were adopted, he was nevertheless prepared to adopt it until three very partisan, we thought very harmful amendments to
people without means were adopted. you knew that was the case. you then have told me and i repeat, i know, reiterate, but the simple representation you made was that we did that and mr. sessions made that and said by the way that the farm -- the nutrition part of the program getting support for people who needed food was extraneous to the bill. that's not our perspective over here. but that was the perspective that the chairman of the rules committee laid out when we considered the rule. you then said in that colloquy that the reason we did that is because you wanted to get a bill through and frankly that's the only way you could pick up the overwhelming majority of the 62 of your republicans that voted against it, i can only conclude that because you got the majority to do it, failing the first time, because 62
republicans decided they didn't like the nutrition part of the bill and voted against it. when you dropped the nutrition part of the bill which had been there for 50 years, you got the majority on your side. that's when you got zero of us. you had 24 the first time. so i'm perplexed that now that we have done what you said we were going to do, not about budgets, not about -- you and i agree we need to get a handle on it. that's not what this issue is about this issue is about whether or not we're going to have a farm bill, whether we're going to have in it a timely way. i'm going to talk about the c.r. but we have 17 days left to go between now and september 306789 we think it's timely to your nd i don't know when the ion bill is not on program here, we'll have one week after next week, we're not sure -- we haven't seen a nutrition bill you have, we don't know what's going to be in that, but we have to pass the farm bill, senate wants to go to conference, senate wants to go to conference, at least
the democrats do, on the budget, and we're not doing it, mr. leader. and we need to. mr. cantor spock -- mr. cantor: not to belabor the point, but to make sure the record reflects what i did say before, i said it was our intention to act with dispatch to bring to the floor a bill dealing with the snap program that portion of which was traditionally the farm bill and we intend to be bringing that vehicle to the floor at some time in the near future. i did not say, mr. speaker, what it was the gentleman indicated, we would like to say to all of our colleagues, we want to work together on a nutrition title. the gentleman heard what i said before. the marriage of those two bills and policies were done in an arbitrary fashion 50 years ago as he indicated. there is no policy reason for that to be done. and we're trying to get down to
what policy works and the reform of making sure that we pay attention to the efficacy of the programs getting the dollars to the people who need it, and doing so in an efficient manner. takes some deliberative approach. that is why our members on the majority side of the aisle felt very strongly that we should act in the way we did and we intend to bring nutrition title to the floor, we're working with the chairman of the agricultural committee to get that policy right. i hope that the gentleman in his spirit of bipartisanship will work with us to do that. i yield back. mr. hoyer: it takes two to be bipartisan, mr. leader, you know that, and i know that, and i've got a pretty long record of working in a bipartisan fashion. but i will tell you, i i tell you i disagree respectfully to have the votes on this floor to pass the snap
program and the agriculture program. we agree on this side that there is a relationship between those who produce food and those who eat food. we think there is a direct relationship which is why for half a century these have been related. so that the folks in the city would understand that those on the farm are very important people. we need to make sure that we have a partnership with them. very frakely it's worked for half -- frankly it's worked for half a century. unfortunately it didn't work this year. i will say to my friend, i don't know that you're going to be -- that you're accurate in saying that there are a majority of people on this floor, not in your party, but a majority on this floor, including mr. lucas, who twice has reported out a bill with bipartisan support and argued for it on the floor, he argued for it and pleaded with your party to support the farm bill even though, from both
parties' standpoint, it wasn't a perfect bill, but 62 of your members rejected his plea. then my view is mr. lucas is still in that position where he sees the rational of having those together. he's the chairman of the committee, republican chairman of the committee. i respect mr. lucas for his comments both times the bill was considered on the floor. i will move on, but allowing the farm bill to languish is dangerous for this country, for the farm community, and for others. and it undermines our economy. and moving with dispatch is in the best interest of our country. let me ask you something, as i said we have 17 days left to go until september 30. this congress has not passed an appropriation bill. we passed three appropriation bills, the senate's going to consider one, apparently next week.
inevitably it appears we are going to be confronted with a -- the necessity on september 30, we won't be here on september 30, we are only here two weeks in september, holidays and labor day, so we are only going to be here two weeks, i want to ask my friend, has he or the majority or the budget committee or the appropriations committee and the leadership in concert got a plan ar what we might do to assure stability in government and in our country's competence that the government will be operating on october 1. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that, yes, we are looking forward to the legislative activity for the remainder of this month. as i said earlier, to include appropriations bills. we also look towards the
prospect of the other body perhaps beginning to act, as the gentleman indicated, at all, on appropriations bills. it does take two to be bicameral, and we need that body to act as well. and look forward to seeing how we resolve differences on spending levels, policy differences, as we approach the end of the fiscal year. very well aware that we have challenges ahead and look to find resolutions to those, yes, in a bipartisan way, and necessarily in a bicameral way. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank you, mr. leader. there is a way to do that, of course. it is called regular order, as we discussed. the conference committee is where you do that. notwithstanding the fact we have for over 100 days now seen languishing the senate passed budget and our budget, an attempt by the leader in the senate, mr. reid, to go to conference, but no effort to go
to conference to, as you say, in a bicameral, bipartisan way resolve differences. they are very substantial. but everybody's sitting in their corner, and patty murray wants to come to the midpoint to have a conference. i have talked to her. she's the chairman of the budget committee. we have not moved, unlike the senate, they haven't succeeded because of republican opposition, but they tried to go to conference. we have not made any effort to go to conference, mr. leader, and you can't have a bicameral resolution and compromise and bipartisanship if you don't sit down and talk to one another in conference. mr. ryan asking senator murray, do it my way, is not going to get us there. a conference may, i don't think it's guaranteed, but it may, and i would hope we would go to conference and follow regular order on the budget. september 30 is when we should have adopted a budget, of
course, five months ago, four months ago. we need to adopt a funding resolution by september 30 in some form or fashion. the failure to go to conference is undermining our ability to do that. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker. the gentleman knows that he speaks of two different things when it comes to spending and when it comes to the budget blueprint. the gentleman and i, mr. speaker, have had this discussion several times in these colloquies about why it is that chairman ryan has taken the position he has as has our speaker and our leadership in that we don't want to go in to a discussion if the prerequisite is, you have to raise taxes. and that's the bottom line. it's not process. it's substance. it is one of those issues that continues to make the divide between the parties. and, frankly, if one thinks that
washington spends tax dollars well, this we should go ahead and ask the hardworking taxpayers to pay more, we -- our side doesn't believe in that approach. and unless we get beyond that, i'm not so sure there is going to be a resolution as to a budget conference. that does not mean that we cannot continue the work that we are doing on the appropriations bills, on the other policy measures coming to this floor, in hopes of finding areas we can agree on. t there is a strong one we disagree on and that is the issue of additional revenues in an environment where washington doesn't spend what it does spend well. we are trying to get to the bottom of that. effect good policy, act in a deliberative manner, and willing to work with the senate. the problem is, senate hasn't even begun their appropriations
process on the floor there. that was my point about bicameral, hopefully in a bipartisan way. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i'm surprised to hear the majority leader to say the budget has no relationship to the appropriations process or the continuing resolution. surely -- mr. cantor: the gentleman yield. i didn't say no relationship. i said the gentleman knows we are talking about two different things. we are talking about a budget blueprint and the spending bills. two different things. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i have been on the appropriation committee, as the gentleman knows, for 23 years. i'm not on it now. the fact of the matter is the budget sets and you have adopted not because the budget passed, but because you deemed it passed, you pretended it passed, we did that ourselves. to get a number. why is that important? because that's the spending number. ours is $967 billion. the senate's a $1.058 trillion. some $91 billion more. there is a very substantial
difference between the two houses. it has to be resolved. maybe the gentleman can tell me if we don't have a resolution of what the number's going to be, which is what a budget conference does, and what i hear the gentleman saying, unless the senate agrees with your perception of revenues, and i know that you repeat that all the time, i get it. i know your position. i know the position of your party. my position, of course, is we need to pay for what we buy. you're right. if we don't buy it we don't pay for t we have to make that judgment on behalf of the american people. that's what they sent us here to do. but the fact of the matter is, if your position is, unless they agree with your perception -- they have a different offensive. they -- point of view. they were elected by the american people. by the way this side was liked by the american people, 1.4 million of whom voted for us than your side of the aisle. now, you have the majority. redistricting provided for that. god bless you. i wish i were in your position,
not mine, from that standpoint, but the fact of the matter is, the american people more voted for us than your side. but you have the majority. you are not to be in the position, i suggest respectfully, mr. leader, saying unless the senate will recede to our position, we are not going to go to conference. i don't understand saying you want a bicameral, bipartisan agreement without going to conference. the gentleman want to respond to that? no. let me ask you about immigration, then. nothing on here about immigration. senate has passed a bipartisan bill. does the gentleman have any reason to believe that we are going to move ahead on immigration, george bush, president bush said just the other day the system is not
working. the system is broken. your chairman of the budget committee, talking about the budget, your chairman said we have a broken immigration system. needs to be fixed. can the gentleman tell me whether there is any action contemplated on immigration? mr. cantor: i thank the speaker for that. mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, that as he correctly indicated our chairman of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, has said that our system of immigration is broken, and that he and the members of that committee are fast about trying to look at the complex issues of our immigration system and try and deal with them in a fashion that is discreet on each issue with a solution thereto. and we are in the process, as the gentleman knows, in that committee, in looking at all of
that, and intend on making sure we get it right. and the chairman has said rather than just doing it, we want to do it right. and we intend to do so. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. leader, the last question you said the defense authorization bill has come to the floor. can the gentleman tell me whether that will be coming to the floor under an open rule or rule other than open? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say to the gentleman that the d.o.d. approps bill been coming to the floor, and the rules committee will decide on the structure and how that debate will occur. and we will announce that, obviously upon the rules committee meeting. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn
to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. it the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, tomorrow we will mark the first anniversary of the mass shooting that place in my hometown of owe aura -- aroara, colorado, in the early morning hours of march 20. we must never forget the names of those who lost their lives in this senseless tragedy. mr. coffman: mat mcquinn, mckayla medic, jessica gaoly, jesse, jonathan,
veronica, alex, alexander tevis, rebecca wingo, and a.j. boyt. aurora was devastate the in the aftermath of the shooting -- devastated in the aftermath of the shooting, but we have come together as a community in demonstration of both strength and resilience and tomorrow we will come together again to remember those who were lost last year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise with my colleagues in remembrance of the one-year anniversary of the aurora, colorado, shooting. over the past year those who lost loves ones have shown
face of age in the such terrible tradge by -- tragedy. mr. perlmutter: that fateful night claimed the lives of those we will never forget. this tragedy has not and will not define the city of aurora, the denver area, or colorado. we want to thank and recognize the outstanding work of the police officers, medical staffs, and first responders who acted bravely and on july 20 and continue to serve the people of aurora and denver every day. mr. speaker, i request a moment of silence for those who were killed, for those who were maimed physical -- maimed physically and emotionally last year in the aurora, colorado, theater shooting. i'd like to call for a moment f silence. thank you, mr. speaker. we yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, democratic senator max bachus was dead on when he called the president's health care law a train wreck, its effects are becoming clear and undeniable. stifling economic growth and job creation, premiums are skyrocketing and record numbers of employers are avoiding hiring or hiring part-time to avoid the employer mandate. i rent crily heard from a small business owner, sue, who owns a small hardware store. since the passage of obamacare
she's seen her premiums balloon to $2,100 per month. mr. rice: that's outrageous. how can we expect our businesses to grow and expand. i'm glad we have the federal government to dick kate which coverages we need we can't be trusted to make that choice ourselves. how can we expect our small sinesses to hire when they can't afford to buy maternity coverage on every employee, regardless of their age? minimal health coverage on every employee and substance abuse coverage on every employee is mandated by this ill-con seed and poorly drafted law. the american economy would have already recovered if we could get the federal big brother out of the way. i'm glad we delayed the employer and individual mandates but the only way to relieve this law's enormous drag on our economy and get hardworking americans back to work is full repeal. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the uniform and civilian employees at the navy space and navy warfare systems command and their skelve launch of the second mobile user objective system satellite muos 2. with the muos 2 launch hours ago, our services will have a narrow tactical bound satellite system designed to improve ground communications for u.s. forces. mrs. davis: this comes at a time when most d.o.d. civilians including those who worked on this project are being forced to take a pay cut because congress cannot fix sequestration. it would be natural for our federal workers to listen to the debate in washington about the budget and feel that their work is not valued. mr. speaker, i value our
federal workers and muos 2 is only the latest example of the important role they play even in these troubling times. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, a few minutes ago, i sent out an email, i tweeted about an hour ago and posted on facebook this morning. we have a world of instant, unlimited email storage, high speed broadband, social media and cloud computing. however, after 180 days, government agencies can snoop through everything i just mentioned. how in the cloud is this possible? because current law allows spying government to seize without warrant or probable cause emails over 180 days old. big government can demand a
private company turn over a citizen's information without their consent, without their knowledge, or telling citizens later their emails have been seized. s that violation of the fourth amendment. that's why representative zoe lofgren and i have introduced legislation to protect a citizen's right of privacy against government. it will update the electronic communications privacy act. government can't seize and snoop through your mail it shouldn't be able to snoop through your emails without warrant or proximate cause. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom utah seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i wish that our president had the same respect for our constitution that our founding fathers had, but he doesn't. he simply doesn't. for fa too many of his
political decisions are made with little regard for the sacred document that has guided our nation for more than 00 years. several -- for more than 200 years. several weeks ago, the president announce head won't enforce certain provisions of obamacare. whether this is good policy or bad policy is not the point. the point is the president doesn't have the authority to make such a decision. the president is constitutionally bound to enforce the laws of the land. how would my democratic friends feel if mitt romney had been elected and his first day in office he the sided to pick and choose which parts of obamacare he was going to enforce? what if he decided the capital gains tax was a drag on the economy and he was no longer going to enforce that law. the president's willingness to pick and choose which laws he will enforce is dangerous and demeaning to our democracy. it's demeaning to the very idea of an elected form of government.
we have a president, not a king. i hope the president will remember his constitutional oath and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this afternoon i'm heading home. heading home to western pennsylvania. people back home are being negatively impacted by president obama's war on low-cost american energy and all the regulations emanating from the unelected federal elite here in washington, d.c. mr. rothfus: we've got power plants closing back in western pennsylvania, resulting in hundreds of lost jobs. we've got miners with middle class nblings also being laid off. we've got truckers and shippers' jobs also being threatened. president obama's anti-energy
agenda hurts all those folks in western pennsylvania and around the nation. these hardworking moms and dads are losing their jobs, their livelihoods and their ability to spoth their families and communities. this is a humanle to of president obecause -- human toll of president obama's war on energy. it's a tragedy and must end. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. horsford of nevada for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted. of
under the speaker's announced spoifl january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. so much happening in the world oday, so much that is really earth shaking in its potential ffect. in the middle east, i've spoken before about the potential rise that w ottoman empire unfortunately our own country, this obama administration, has helped jump start.
had a t, we supposedly friend, there were comments direct your attention back june 2, the bbc reported an during in 2009 where the interview the president was asked, do you regard president mubarak as an authoritarian rule her president obama said, in part, he's been a stalwart ally in many respects to the united states. he has sustained peace with israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in that region. but he has never resorted to, you know, unnecessary demagoguing of the issue and has tried to maintain that relationship. so i think he's been a force
for stability and good in the region. he points out, obviously, there have been criticisms, but he saw him as a force for good in the region. that's rather amazing when you , we at what happened called it an arab spring that we later realized was more of a nightmare winter and certainly the people of egypt did not see it as a spring. after president morsi got around 3 million votes from the potential, as i understand, of 50 million or more that could have voted and he took over. and he began creating problems. and he became dictatorial and he started violating his own
constitution and taking actions that only a monarch or a tyrant should be taking. ut going back to the mubarak on, deposal of in egypt, it creates problems for a country when their leader on one occasion says, as the president did, he's been a stalwart ally in many respects to the united states. he has sustained peace with israel, which is a very difficult thing to do in the region, and he has never reported to unnecessary demagoguing of the issue and has tried to maintain the relationship. so i think he's been a force for stability and good in the region. what kind of message does it send to the world from what has been referred to as the remaining superpower in the says to n its leader
the world, this man has been a force for stability and for od, and then not so long later, the same u.s. leader says, he's got to go. he's got to go. he just needs to be gone. well, if he was a force for tability and good, if you were accurate in those comments, then one would think to get rid of him would bring about instability and bad. to use the anotnyms. -- antonyms. but push, cajole, make efforts to force mubarak to leave, we did. and as the president said, you
know, he'd been an ally, so that doesn't look very good when other nations start tryi to determine how sh w with the united states? and in one of my trips overseas meeting with foreign diplomats, i was told that diplomats from china regularly stopped by and asked, have you learned that you cannot trust the united states yet? because one of these days you're going to figure that out, you can't trust the united states, they'll say they're your friend one day and then turn around and be your enemy soon after. one of these days you're going to figure out the united states can't be trusted, they're not your friend and we're ready to be your friend whenever that happens. just let us know. we're always ready to be your friend. you can trust us. i'm not so sure well, i'm not so sure about
that, but i am concerned about the u.s. lack of credibility. so mubarak was ousted and the muslim brotherhood took over egypt. the e people of egypt on whole very good decent people, the moderate muslims that reside did didn't want muslim brotherhood, didn't want tyrants, but enough people didn't come out early on. the muslim brotherhood had the best organization, and anybody with any intelligence in the region or anybody that watched news other than cnn could figure that out, that the muslim brotherhood was going to take over but they are not what the rank and file people really wanted. and that became clear when the rank and file people saw more i -- morrissy, a muslim
brotherhood member, who said he was withdrawing since he was leader of egypt but his omments so disparaging and slanderist of israelis and jews and certainly uncomplimentary of americans didn't make him someone that the united states should have endorsed so holeheartedly. and in libya, the secretary of defense said we have no national security interest in libya at all. we had a president that decided unilaterally, at least unilaterally in this country, he did have the support of the 57 states that comprised the organization, the islamic council, he had some support of some of the nato countries that got oil from libya. he went in unilaterally when it
certainly did not appear there was any will of the majority of congress to use american assets, military assets to take out qaddafi. make no mistake about it, qaddafi was a man who had blood on his hands. there's no question. qaddafi was a man who had been ngaged and supported terrorism but interestingly, after 2003 when the united states under president bush went into iraq cause both democrats and publicans thought he was a threat and according to the c.i.a. notes, some guy named joseph wilson also believed they were trying to get uranium and even though there were
reports that uranium had been president iraq, bush went into iraq and in , his time saddam hussein defense became the mother of all weak defenses. and he was ousted. d all of a sudden qaddafi in libya went from a man who had been supporting terrorism to a man who was afraid of the united states and all of a sudden wanted to be our dear friends. there was a document that was made public that says the united states rescinded libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism in june of 2006. libya renounced terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction in 2003 and has continued to cooperate with the united states and the international community to combat terrorism and terrorist financing. one president confirmed that the malian press said they plan to coordinate efforts to fight security threats linked to al qaeda in magrid s of the islamic region. aharan so interesting, you know, qaddafi had a true conversion experience when he became afraid that the united states might invade him next because of his support for terrorism and he actually and legitimately did become an ally in the war against terror. and in fact when we look at
things that the u.s. did, this is from the "washington post," certainly not one of my biggest fans, but july 9, 2009, they reported that libyan leader muammar qaddafi, who former president ronald reagan once denounced as a mad dog, sat just two seats away from president obama from the group of eight summit and even secured a handshake from the u.s. president and talked about qaddafi attending the summit and it said, as obama was shaking hands with qaddafi, there were families of pan am 103 victims gathered at the british embassy in washington. goes on, because they were still concerned about the blood he had on his hands. so that was rather interesting that all of a sudden this was a man we could shake hands with,
be friends with, work deals with and of course, you know, senator mccain was one of those who had gone over and felt like there was an opportunity to be friends. in fact with regard to mubarak, senator mccain, supportive of the obama administration and secretary clinton had said this, in the case of mubarak, the case of mubarak is a great example of that mubarak was a great friend of the united states. mubarak's predecessor had camp david agreements. he stuck to it. between egypt and israel. and with regard to qaddafi, from ticle from reuters august 14 of 2009, senator mccain, delegation with him,
expressed their deep happiness to meeting with the leader, speak being qaddafi, and praised him for his strategic vision to tackles issues concerned to the world in his efforts to sustain peace and stability in africa. and so there were bipartisan feelings when the obama administration started that, gee, mubarak was an ally, qaddafi had become an ally, somebody that could be trusted and all of these things. you know, they're easy to find on the internet. just a binge search away from finding these things -- just a bing search away from finding these things. so the world watches this. , they look for consistency because one of the things, you know, for those who are fans of baseball, you know, some umpires call balls and strikes with a different strike zone. but hbeen an umpire and
having played baseball, you know, you could live with someone that calls a ball just off the outside corner as a strike as long as he's always consistent so you know you can trust this umpire. he's skewed a little bit but he's consistent so you can always trust him. consistency is critically important in the area of foreign affairs. and yet we don't seem to have been very consistent when we used our military resources to help oust muammar qaddafi after he had had a conversion experience and was doing what he could to help us fight terrorism outside of israel. some referred to him as the best friend we had in getting inside information on terrorism, to help us combat it . and there was the sense here in congress, we had no business
etting involved in libya and especially, as the reports emerged that al qaeda was backing rebels and we didn't know how extensive that al qaeda involvement was, but we knew it was there. we knew there were radical islamists that were trying to drive qaddafi out, and this administration did not pause long enough to get an answer to the question, if we drive qaddafi out, will we be more safe in america or less safe? because despite this desire to please the organization of islamic council and others in nato, the number one obligation of this congress and this president is to provide for the common defense of the people in this country. this k an oath to support
country under this constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. and the reasoned analysis of libya during this so-called arab spring that was really a freezing winter was that we are going to be in more trouble if qaddafi is thrown out than if he's kept there. at least those of us that looked at it besides the o.i.c. and some that were getting oil from libya felt otherwise, but most people could see you're helping create instability into the region. and if you look at the map of the former ottoman empire, you can see it around north africa, coming up around through the middle east, turkey, and you can see this starting to take shape. we helped get rid of mubarak,
and all of a sudden we get a radical islamist in charge of egypt. we helped not just merely with words and coercion but with ombs to get rid of qaddafi and it's doubtful that he would have fallen and fallen when he did if it weren't for all our bombing and air support to help the al qaeda-backed rebels to throw him out and ultimately ave him tortured and killed. so where was the reasoning about how much this would help america to allow radical islamists to take egypt and libya and then coming on around as things fomented in syria, it looked like these were not al qaeda-backed terrorists in syria and some believe if we had acted quickly enough, if we
acted quickly enough maybe we could have supported rebels who were not al qaeda rebels, not radical islamist rebels. but as it's degenerated in syria now and even as recent as this week people are admitting that, oh, it looked like assad really is more in control now, it's degenerated to the point where our national security interest is not to get into the middle of that fight. you have a tyrant of a leader on one hand and you've got radical islamists, most of whom would like to destroy the united states as well, who are challenging him. where in the world is the interest in spilling american ood or treasure in getting into syria? and with regard to syria, i mean, we can look at comments
that this administration had had about assad. reported ws.com march, 2011, sick of state hillary clinton drew a contrast between syrian president assad and his late father and predecessor and said u.s. lawmakers who recently visited demascus regarded him as a, quote, reformer, unquote. she made this startling comment while explaining why the united states will not intervene on behalf of syrian civilians revolting against the regime as it's done in the case of libya. very ent assad has been generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. this is secretary of state kerry. continued. and when i last went to the last several trips to syria, i
asked president assad to do certain things to build a relationship with the united states and sort of show the good faith that would help us move the process forward. he mentioned some of the requests, including the purchase of land for the u.s. embassy in demascus, the opening of an american cultural center, noninterference in lebanon election and the improvement of ties with iraq and beran and said assad had met each one. this is in quotes, so my judgment is syria will move, syria will change as it embraces a serious relationship with the yeats and the west and the economic opportunity that comes with it and the participation that comes with it. from march of 2009, from jerusalem center of public affairs, it says, in early february, in reversal of long standing u.s. policy, the u.s. department of commerce approved a license to sell boeing 747
parts to syria. goes on a few weeks later, the u.s. treasury department authorized transfer of $500,000 to the children with cancer support association, a syrian charity associated with president assaad's wife osma. both were seen as softening and an overture. perhaps that's why when others around the world were saying you have moderates rebelling against assaad, perhaps we can help them this administration had already started having good feelings with the assaad administration and perhaps that contributed to the slowness to want to move and act. one thing is very clear at this point. it should be to anybody that looks objectively, syria is not a place the united states should be involved right now because when the winner between
two forces fighting is not going to be helpful, no matter who it is, in our country and our oath and obligation is to this country, we should not get involved in that. there are stories about gun running, going -- running guns from libya and to syria and hopefully at some point we'll know exactly what the story was on that and is on that and was it ongoing? was it going on when chris stevens was involved? and hopefully our leadership will allow us to pursue that properly and get the information so that we know exactly what happened. because we still have not gotten to the bottom of what happened in benghazi. d there are families of dead patriots who died in benghazi that deserve to know the answers. so we supported and were
thrilled with morsi -- i say we, this administration, not the congress necessarily. but seemed to be pretty impressed with morsi taking over and though reports came out of the slanderous things he said about jews and israelis and americans, this administration seemed to be thrilled with him taking the position that he did. and seemed to be comforted by him say, you know -- this is texas paraphrase but, you know, may have been part of the plus limb brotherhood but aisle become off of that for a while. but if you look at what he did, here are developments as reported by fox news in cairo, in june, morsi was elected, this is 2012, elected president with 51.7% of the vote. he was sworn in, became egypt's
first civilian islamist ruler. in august, a gunman killed 16 guards near the board we are israel. morsi scraps a constitutional document which aimed at sweep -- which ended sweeping powers to the military and ousted a field marshal who was head of state after mubarak's fall in 2011. in november, morsi decreed that he would have sweeping new powers for himself. islamic that month, dominated constituent assembly adopted a constitution after a process boycotted by liberal institution. he gave himself encreased power after the people begun to rise up in egypt and later in the month of december, 64% of voters in a two-round
referendum backed the new constitution in a vote that was marred by low turnout. the people of egypt could see what was going on. egypt plunged into political crisis with demonstrations by morsi supporters and opponents and they sometimes turned deadly. coming through april, sec re-- sectarian violence north of cairo killed four christians and a muslim. many may, morsi carried out a cabinet reshuffle that fell short of opposition demand. later in may, four gunmen kid napped soldiers on the sinai peninsula, they were freed in june. parliament was dissolved and a panel that drafted the constitution. he said the senate will
maintain its powers until a new lower house is elected then later in june, egyptian and foreign nongovernment official employees given jail sentences ranging from one to five years for working illegally, causing international outrage and we know there were some good people that were jailed for nothing except trying to help people. june 15, morsi announced a definitive severing of relationship with war torn sir yasm june 1, tens of thousands of islamists gather ahead of a protest. n the 23rd, defense minister -- the defense minister warns the army will intervene if violence erupts. the 28th, the u.s. says nonessential embassy staff can
leave after an american is killed. a rebellion -- rebellion campaign which called rallies for june 30 said more than 22 million signed a petition demanding morsi's resignation in a snap -- and a snap election. reports that the largest nonstration may reach 33 million. there's never been a demonstration in the entire world of as many as 20 million people but the people of egypt that p, they recognized radical islamists in charge of their country were not a good thing even though the leaders of our country and the executive branch could not see the obvious. having talked to egyptians who were furious with cnn because most of them don't get fox news so they're relegated to cnn, they're furious with how cnn seemed to take the side of the muzz lick brotherhood over and over and they related that cnn
was basically a part of the muslim brotherhood, at least conveyed to me, people very upset, why are they not more objective? i tried to explain to them, look, you have to understand, cnn has gotten such low ratings at times the last couple of years, sometimes we have more people watching c-span, they're that bored, than watching cnn even though we're not part of the neilsen rate wgs coverage here in the house, there are estimates. how sad is that, the once great cable news network. but what's even sadder is that this administration, with all of its assets and intelligence supposedly with all the people they could ever want, the people they thought were best in the world at analyzing foreign situations, they thought morsi was a good thing.
and as you look at the map and you see this jump start of an ottoman empire having developed, wow, a problem occurred. the egyptian people, as i've said on this floor, egyptians have said, hey, you're in congress, quit helping the muslim brotherhood. they're not good for egypt. we don't like their tyrannical nature. we want to have a government where we have some say, we don't want dity ran call people who are muslim -- muslims say we don't want that, ju as in afghanistan, moderate muzz rims -- muslims say we don't want radical islamists controlling our country. i daunt blame the obama administration for the constitution forced on afghanistan, forced sharia law, forced a centralized nation, and many of them i've met with over in afghanistan, northern
alliance leaders we met with said, look, you can give us a more federalist government like you're supposed to have in america where states have more power, if you could let our regions elect our governors instead of the president appoint them and elect our mayors instead of the president appoint them, if you let us have more control, we can keep the taliban from taking over. we're luzz him -- muslim but we don't want the radical islamists. don't leave us in a situation where that's what we have. that's what we left with and that's -- appeared to encourage in egypt, certainly what we left libya with and four americans were dead in benghazi as a result. bad decisions unfortunately at e level of the highest officials in america have terrible consequences all around the world. as i mentioned, an elder will
-- elerly african from west africa told me before i left a couple of years ago, we were so excited when you elected a black president in america but we've seen america appears to be growing weaker and weaker and you're not taking the strong stands you used to and we're concerned because if america does not stay strong, we will suffer around the world those of thause count on you to stand for freedom and what's right. please don't get any weaker. and there are people around the world, pleading that. and they don't ask us to be the world's policemen. they just ask us to stand strong. so that if needed to stop an outright injustice that can threaten the world including us, we can step in. but unfortunately, in the mideast, nobody fears the united states. nobody is threatened by the united states. they see us as a paper tiger.
it's been amazing, though. and many in america, you just watch certain cable news networks, and even fox i don't think has done quite an adequate job of capturing what's been going on in egypt, this is for the whole history of mankind, we're talking about major, incredible, earth shaking revolution that is going on in egypt. these are people, moderate muslims, combining with coptic christians, coupling themselves with liberal secularists, who don't want radical islam running egypt. so this grand scheme of building a great caliphate, a new ottoman empire, whatever
you want to call it, ran into a huge problem when these incredible freedom desiring egyptians rose up in greater numbers than has ever arisen anywhere in the world in the whole history of mankind. his is incredible. incredible. d people need to recognize and these to recognize the -- and see the arab winter that was called the arab spring, now the true spring in egypt as moderate muzz rim -- muslims and coptic christians and caring secularists have risen together and said no to radical islam. we want freedom. we want a say in our government.
and having visited with a iend who has been over there and has taken pictures and talked to people, she said, it as amazing to see the egyptian pope have people, muslims, come up and say, we are so sorry for the way christians are being treated in egypt by the morsi administration, we are so sorry. we hope we can change this where we can live together in peace. and that's what they want. 20 million or 30 million people coming out in protest, that would scare the little puny wall street -- occupy wall street people to death. it's incredible. and the people of the united states, mr. speaker, need to understand, we are living in a
time that we are witnessing extraordinary international events even when people at the highest levels of this country do not recognize how extraordinary it is. and perhaps they do but perhaps they're embarrassed because they thought when radical islam through the muslim brotherhood was taking over egypt and libya and trying to take over syria and putting our ally king abdullah in jordan in the hot seat force, try fog force agreement out of him over -- trying to force agreement out of him over threat of deposing him. . leaders there get it. this is a big deal. perhaps our administration has not embarrassed by
recognizing the real truth of what was going on. so i thought it would be helpful to just look at some of the photographs just recently taken during these of a trations to get more egyptian where the people in this most extraordinary revolutions is takeing -- taking place. and it's important to note that you can talk to people in egypt that say, look, we want to be friends with the united states. we like the united states. but we cannot stand the fact that your government we believe really helped force us into having a muslim brotherhood, a radical islamist in charge of our country. we didn't want it. you forced the elections on us before we were ready. some would say, well, they chose their own elections. we were helping. we could have delayed them until more people had time to
participate. but all of the information that i was hearing here on the hill that was nonclassified indicated that if elections occurred when they did, the muslim brotherhood would win. they were the most organized, and if they could be delayed to a time where the people themselves had a chance to organize and be heard that there really would be a good turn in egypt. but this administration did not help, did not delay the elections long enough to allow the true egyptian people to be heard, and as a result no matter how unfair it may be or how fair it may be, the egyptian people, millions and millions of them have a terrible perception of the leadership of the united states. they make clear they like america, they like the united states but the leadership currently did them great harm.
and we know when the president was elected, as he went around and spoke in the middle east, some said that this was going to really increase the love and affection between the united states and majority muslim countries and the polling data seems to say just the opposite, that our country, because of the leadership of this administration, is respected and admired far less than it ever was even under the bush administration because at least under the bush administration they knew that bush would be consistent whether they liked him or not. i think it would be helpful to ook at some of these pictures. one of the big posters that was being used during the revolution, and make no mistake.
when the egyptians put big messages in english, they want .he message coming to america the message these egyptians have, egyptians spoke. al sissi listened. we the people have spoken. and so they're appreciating the military leader that after 20, -- 20 million, 20 million-plus egyptians that dwarfed the small number of votes that morrissey got in their elections, the people of egypt spoke. this was a revolution, an uprising of the people, and the military heard and witnessed the people rising up and it answered and said ok, morrissey goes, because they recognize, as did the vast people across
egypt, that he had violated the constitution. he had become a tyrant. he had become a dictator and he had to go. and our administration here was slow to recognize. and it's very sad, because we do have a very intelligent president in the united states. yet, the image they have in egypt is that he sided with the wrong people, that the masses in egypt did not want. so on the same poster where they're praising the leader of the military in egypt for listening, the majority of adults in egypt in doing the they thing for democracy, have a red x through our great president's face. terribly unfortunate. does not actually do what this president and most of us
most country hoped majority muslim nations will look on us more favorably. another poster here during the massive protests from what i was told by people that were there. they got really upset, as cnn kept saying, this is a coup, this is a coup, trying to diminish the importance of what was happening with 20 million, 30 million egyptians rising up. so obviously they mean this for the united states consumption, but these are things that massive number of people in egypt were supportive of. it's a revolution, not a military coup.
33 million egyptians protesting against morsi, the tyrant terrorist who was supported by u.s.a. they want to make us understand this is the real people of egypt rising up and we need to be supportive of that. another sign. ew supreme guide of the muslim brotherhood. nne patterson, hands off egypt. more signs as people were gathering. they've seen what this administration did, and they didn't like it. these were the masses. similar muslim brotherhood in the same circle with cnn because they began to feel in egypt that cnn was not
reporting accurately, that the people did want to live in peace with christians and did nt to live in peace with secularrists and not at the hands of a muslim brotherhood tyrant. this sign in both english and their language says obama supports terrorism. well, of course president obama doesn't support terrorism. of course he does not. but the way it looked to egyptians when we were supporting a terrorist they presumed that we must and our president supports terrorism. we know he doesn't but they don't know that because this administration has supported terrorists in libya, supported terrorists in egypt and is now trying to get support for terrorists in syria.
another sign during demonstrations. obviously for u.s. consumption. my dear american friend, when you get killed by terrorists, do not blame anyone but your resident obama and his administration. well, that's ridiculous. when we're killed by terrorists in america we should not blame the president. there may be negligence in america by many people when it occurs, as i believe what happened with the boston bombing. we were given information that was not properly utilized because of the handcuffing that's gone on within our f.b.i., within our intelligence community, within our state department, the purging of training material to keep as one intelligence officer said, to keep us from being able to ee who our enemy is, we have
hurt ourselves in a terrible -- ion and in our ability fashion in our ability to see who wants to kill us. i don't support any of these signs. i think it's impour. but i think it's important to understand what -- i think it's improper, but i think it's important to understand what the people in egypt are seeing o we can give them the right thing what people are thinking. this is not a coup. it's the people. thanks to our great army supports our great revolution. and there are those who would say that in fact the october revolution in the soviet union which lennon appeared there in st. petersburg, persuaded some people to support his revolution, but that
revolution, that little gathering would not have done any good. historians know it was not til trots key went across -- trotsky went across to the military, went across the river and he got up on something and he starts speaking eloquently to the military and once he convinced the military to side with lennon, then there was a true revolution that occurred. nobody called that a coup. it was a small handful of people around lennon rising up but they convinced the military to support the october revolution and as a result there was a revolution and not just a tiny little uprising which it would have otherwise trostky's
eloquence so that's why it's important to understand when 33 million in egypt rise up, this is not an in-house coup. this is the masses of a great we try rising up to say yearn to be free and we don't want a radical islamist controlling our country and it's important for the people of the united states to understand this is where we are and 33 million people, the vast majority of the adult voters in that country want to make clear we want to live in peace with christians, secularrists. and those are the people we can hold accountable and trust more that they will do the right thing, because are the support for the persecution and christians -- of christians around the world, the persecution and the killing of
christians, the tore during of christians around the world is growing like never before. be and this country that arose based on jew dayo-christian thic stands as the last public christian church in afghanistan closed, as the last jew publicly admitting jew leaves, i mean, that's when afghanistan still had vast american presence and even today we could still turn the tide if we chose to but we are not -- and there may be an accountability issue someday with the judge of ll judges, because as john quincy adams argued right down here below us in the old supreme court chamber downstairs, in the amistad case, as he stood there
representing africans who were free africans but then they were wearing chains and they were said to be slaves because they had been captured by other africans and sold and brought to the caribbean and the caribbean put on the ship the spanish ship the amistad and they land in america by mistake and the africans wanted to be free and the spanish said, no, they're our property. and ultimately the supreme court downstairs, the last part -- you can find it online, mr. speaker, the last part of john quincy adams' oral argument as he was literally frightened because he knew if he had not done an adequate job to argue his case that those africans would wear chains for the rest of their lives and their children will end up -- possibly their children if he did not do an adequate job in representing them and he didn't
feel good about the first two days of his argument so he finishes by pointing out -- he asks this question, where is chief justice marshall and he ran and took the name of every justice that was on the court and dead and one of the justices of that nine-justice court had died during oral arguments one night. not during the arguments themselves but during the course of the arguments. he asked where he was. he asked whether the solicitor general was that had last argued a case against him in the early 1820's. . he ends up pointing out in essence they have all gone to meet their judge, and the big questions question -- biggest question about their lives is did they hear, well done good nd faithful servant? john quincy adams won the case and those africans left as free
as they should have done. that me of us have a fear f we do not do more to support truth and justice and the american ideals that this country was founded on, there will come a day of judgment, and but for grace it would be a horrible thing. but we still have an obligation. to do the best we can, to meet our sworn obligations, and to let people like this in egypt know that we want to stand with free nations and be friends of free nations. there's another big banner that as there during the egyptian protest. egypt will remain a civil state. live, freedom, social justice. and then with an american in the
picture, the caption says, we .now what you did last summer they have gotten the wrong impression of the people of america, and it's up to the americans to demand our leadershipment give the people of egypt the proper impression that we do care about freedom-loving people. here's another one, it's hard to read, but obama and patterson support terrorism in egypt. we know that's not true. but there are masses over there that believe that. we have got to correct that. and the way you do that is supporting people that really do want to be free. and another picture that just came from egypt. i was told the egyptians said they love america but they don't trust our leadership. we have an obligation, our
obligation is to the united states of america. and this congress, our obligation is to our oath, to fulfill our oath. and those of us who are soistians to whom oaths mean we more we owe everything have, everything we can do to support our constitution and to protect people in this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to protect our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. and there are some who would say, well, the muslim brotherhood, they got pretty violent over in egypt, and they, and other places but are muslim brotherhood members in the united states. there's one egyptian article
pointed out with pride before morsi fell, gee, they can be proud, they have six brotherhood high level re appoint -- high level confidantes in this administration, in important really advice in this administration. the must william brotherhood -- the muslim brotherhood, members as i understand it here in america, they did not support the boston bombing because their position is, we are doing such a great job of infiltrating and getting key positions of advice monitor and an watch and talk people into doing done, believe should be we don't want to stir up
violence in the u.s. now, maybe at some point it will be necessary, but right now we are doing so well helping infiltrate take over nt and that we don't want violence right now. it may wake up the american people. but the truth is anyone in this country or around the world that wants to subvert our constitution to shari'a law is an enemy of the united states, whether they live here domestically or they live take abroad, if their allegiance is to subvert the u.s. constitution to shari'a law, they are our enemy. and they are our -- they are people from whom we took an oath to protect our constitution and this country. the people of egypt, god bless them, they have arisen and made clear, we don't want radical islamists running our country. e don't want to see christians
persecuted and killed and tortured as has been going on. those are the kind of people this nation should befriend and not try to rush in and shore up those who would persecute, torture, and kill christians and jews and secularrists that just want to be free. mr. speaker, we have an awesome obligation, we have an obligation to the people of the united states of america to get things right around the world so we do not put americans at risk. and for those who would try to put a racial label on anything, there is nothing racial about wanting right and truth and justice, and i wonder where they were when i was supporting alan keyes. it's not about race.
it's about truth, justice, it's about the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness with which e were endowed by our creator, but just like any inheritance, any endowment if we are not willing to -- if we are not willing to fight for it, we will lose it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield ack. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman, let me thank the gentleman from virginia for his courtesy. thank the speaker.
yesterday was the 95th birthday of former president nelson mandela. what a joy to be able to hear that the time of the celebration that we had here in the united states congress, president mandela, who had been ill for a period of time, had earphones on and was looking at television. the words that came from the minority and majority leader, republicans and democrats, the speaker and leader, republicans and democrats, and various leaders of the house commended and recognized that a man who d come from the tyranny of separation and apartheid, who had to be against his government in order to free his people, could be recognized and applauded because when he walked out of robins island, he walked without bitterness. and one of the greatest
opportunities that he gave to the world was the idea that there could be a democratic election in south africa. from that time he has been a man who has promoted peace, promoted love, but let his nation -- led his nation out of the devastation of separation, bit ners, with kindness and love. i'm delighted to stand on the floor today and say happy birthday, madiba, happy birthday, president nelson mandela, and if god's will, may you live forever onward in better health. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy the chair 3, 2013, recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, for 30 minutes. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i ask my fourth question in a series of unresolved issues surrounding
the benghazi terrorist attacks. with only eight more legislative days before the congress departs for august recess, i'm increasingly concerned that these questions will remain unanswered by the time we mark the one-year anniversary of the benghazi attacks the week we return from recess in september. that is why i continue to raise these questions to provide the american people of a better understanding of how little we really know about this incident, despite nearly a year of investigations and multiple committees. unless these questions are answered by the committees, or rather by a select committee focused on benghazi as i have advocated for more than eight months, the american people will never learn the complete truth. today i am pleased to share one piece of good news before i
raise the fourth critical unanswered question. at my request today, the house state and foreign operations appropriations subcommittee reported out a bill which prohibits funding from the millennium challenge corporation, the m.c.c., from going to the country of tunisia. last year tunisia detained the first suspect in the benghazi rrorist attacks after he was deported from turkey in the weeks following the attack. tunisia, despite being a beneficiary of more than $300 million of u.s. foreign aid by the american people, refused to allow the f.b.i. access to this subject for nearly five weeks. it was overwhelm after congressional threats that cut tunisia overnment of reconsidered its position.
ultimately the f.b.i. interrogation team returned to tunisia and was allowed just three hours to interview him. with his lawyer and tunisia judge present. not lang after, -- after the f.b.i. interview, he was released by the two nearbyian authorities and his release was celebrated by the terrorist group, ansar al shari'a. consider for a moment the tunisia government kept the f.b.i. interrogation team waiting on the ground for five they ultimately left the country. only under the threat of certain members of the u.s. congress did tunisia relent and allow the f.b.i. team to return to interview this suspect for a mere three hours. then when the terrorist is released there is a celebration. that's shameful.
we lost four americans in the attack on benghazi. and a number were wounded, and two were wounded very seriously. because the two nearbyians obstructed the f.b.i. investigation, the house has taken the first step today to send a signal to tunisia and other countries harboring the terrorists responsible for the death of four americans in benghazi, this is an important and overdue step. overdue because the obama administration could have long ago terminated its payments to tunisia or other countries that failed to cooperate with the f.b.i. in this investigation. this brings me to today's questions. the fourth in a series of critical unanswered questions, why has the obama administration not taken any steps to apply pressure to countries that have refused to allow the f.b.i. access to terrorists responsible
for the benghazi attack? after nearly a year of investigation, had the f.b.i. had access to any other suspects in any other country other than the brief interview, even more importantly nearly a year after the benghazi attacks, why has no benghazi terrorist faced any form of justice for the killing of four americans, including a sitting u.s. ambassador? reports indicate that upwards of 100 terrorists may have attacked the consulate and annex. we can't even bring one of those 100 to justice after a year. how is it that after nearly a year of investigation, and despite the full resources of the u.s. intelligence, defense, we law enforcement agencies are still unable to locate, apprehend, and bring to justice any, any of the suspected
terrorists? one can't help but ask whether the administration really wants a full, transparent accounting of what transpired on that fateful night. the administration's record certainly does not reflect it. the american people may wonder if the government really wants progress made in this fear it will no longer be able to hide behind the f.b.i. investigation as its excuse not to comment on what happened in benghazi. considered that in may the associated press reported, and i quote from the associated press, the u.s. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in benghazi, libya, last year and has enough evidence to justify , izing them by military force
as suspected terrorist officials say. but there isn't enough proof to try them in a u.s. civilian ourt, as the ballparks prefers. the men remain at -- as the administration prefers. the men remain at large. if this report is accurate, it represents a stunning advocation of responsibility on the part of this administration to allow known benghazi continue to walk free because the president refuses to use military force to capture or eliminate them. when will the f.b.i. be able to gather enough evidence to use in a civilian trial against them if they're denied access by countries because the administration refuses to use the tools of american diplomacy to bring pressure to bear on those countries?
additionally, there is a larger question of whether it is even appropriate if enough evidence is gathered to bring the terrorists to the u.s. for civilian trial. benghazi was a battlefield, not a crime scene. those responsible should face justice as enemy combatants, not as common criminals. as we mark the one-year anniversary of the benghazi attacks, how can any of us really say to the families of the victims or the wounded survivors -- and we should know who the survivors are because they are heroes that the u.s. has done everything it can to locate, camture and hold accountable those responsible. i want to credit representative kay granger, the chair of the appropriations subcommittee that blocked additional funding for tunisia. i hope this congress will hold
similarly accountable the other countries that obstruct the f.b.i.'s efforts to arrest or interview other suspects. it is increasingly clear the obama administration will not. how many years will it take until any, if not all, the benghazi terrorists face justice for killing four americans and seriously wound several others? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. wolf: i now move the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour debate.
it was the first women's convention ever. yesterday we proudly stood on the steps of the capitol with the women members and a few of the male members who joined us, building on our tradition of progress for women. women democrats unveiled economic agenda for women and families. when women succeed, america succeeds. there is no better way to commemorate the efforts of the pioneers of seneca falls then to continue their work to empower women and to advance the cause of equality. stronger agenda for women means moreonger middle class, success for small businesses, stronger families, and a stronger country. thatnted out yesterday congresswoman d laurel and her endless leadership on this subject informed me that at the seneca falls convention, the temperature was 90 degrees. this was before air
conditioning. and yesterday, 100 degrees, the heat index, so women are willing to take the heat to advance the cause. in the weeks ahead, we will be building on this, and we have the 20th anniversary of the limitation of the family medical leave. that will be on august 5. very, -- you know, over 100 million people have taken advantage of the family and medical leave act. now it is unpaid and we would like paid leave. the anniversary of the 19th amendment, august 26, that is a very important date for us. and the labor day, we will be celebrating workers and emphasizing the need to raise the minimum wage. this is really very important to women. it is about valuing the work of women in terms of equal pay for aual work, recognizing
balance of family and work and having paid leave for a certain amount of paid leave, sick , the issueof course that we have to make a national crusade, the issue of affordable, accessible quality childcare for america's families. because when women succeed, america succeeds. on the subject of immigration, yesterday speaker boehner and i, along with catholic members of congress, received a letter from 93 catholic university presidents and academics with a simple message -- our immigration system is broken, they said. it is morally indefensible. and it is our moral obligation to pass comprehensive immigration reform. this issue of the university leaders, catholic university readers, echoes the call of the catholic conference of bishops on the subject and is very consistent with the principle that the house democratic caucus
has put forth for years. secure our borders, that's our responsibility. protect our workers, unite families, and offer an earned pathway to citizenship. we are, by and large, as we all know, i nation of immigrants. our society and economy are invigorated by every generation of newcomers who come to our country with their hopes, their determination, their courage, and optimism that they can make the future better for their families. fundamental truth shared by the catholic university presidents and leaders. it is a reflection of their values as a country and values of the face, to respect and cherish the dignity of all human beings and to treat our brothers and sisters with respect. i again mentioned the beautiful statement by president george w. bush when he talked about us
having up benefits and attitude -- having a beneficent attitude i drive for cooperation with the in crafting the bill. majority in the house so that we can have a house built that honors these principles so we go to conference and weekend soon, certainly this year, have comprehensive immigration reform. yesterday i had the privilege to attend the president's meeting highlighting how the affordable care act is strengthening health and the economic security of the american people, and indeed it is. the president's remarks offered more evidence that the law is and nearly 13 million americans have received refunds last august, and 8.5 million will receive rebates this coming august. costs are falling and patients
are getting better care for lower costs. a new report from the department of health and human services found that competition will lower premiums i nearly 20% in the health insurance marketplace. earlier this week, as i'm sure you saw him in new york announced that health costs will .all 50% in 2014 democrats will continue to work with local businesses and families to make the implementation of this law success. we are very proud of the intensive involvement of our colleagues in this important subject. through our efforts, americans will benefit from better patient protection -- remember, it is the patient protection and affordable care act. patient protection, very important. expanded choices and more affordable care. i'm sure you have some questions on that. 04 you do though, i just want to observe that tomorrow will mark one year anniversary of the tragedy at a rock, colorado --
colorado. there will be a moment of silence on the floor to observe that. and our hearts and prayers continue to be with the families , the constantrora reminder, not that we need any, but the ongoing inspiration that we need to pass legislation for paccar checks -- for background checks to make our communities safer. that is a touch we take, to protect and defend -- that is a play today, to protect and defend. with that, i would be pleased to take any questions. [inaudible] >> it's up to them. they had the 30th time try to -- they for the 30th time try to repeal the law the land. ,ver six and a half months since this new congress has come
in, still no jobs bill. three months since the senate passed a budget dope it still no desire to go to conferences of that we can have a budget that can reduce the deficit, strengthen the middle class, promote economic growth, by creating good jobs, good jobs building infrastructure of america, keeping jobs here at toe, attracting jobs back our country. a budget is a blueprint for how we go forward. it should be a statement of our values, what is important to us as a country. the american people think it is important for us to be solving problems, getting results, and one very important way to do that is to create jobs. rather than waste their time, it would be important for us to use the time to work so that the american people can have more work to reach their fulfillment. yes, sir? , john mccaintion says that the opponents of reform are losing, and one way they can turn things around is
to have a campaign in august, a campaign targeting elected members of the house and get them -- targeting collective memories of thousand get them open to the ideas in the bill. you beinvolved -- will involved and will has democrats be involved in that campaign? what d.c. the prospects of getting support among house republicans to pass the bill? >> i am not aware of senator -- buts statement, by at i am aware of the fact that the senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill with a path to legalization that can lead to citizenship and i hope we can do the same in the house. i am all for the idea that the speaker wishes to have the house have its own bill. but the american people want to know why we can't just take up the senate bill. ok, let's have a shot, as i said, let's work together to bring our own bill to the floor. lincoln said public sentiment is everything. i say that too quite a bit.
they had their epiphany when 70% of the senate -- of hispanics voted for craddick in the last election -- and voted democratic in the last election. now have a bill out of the senate. i hope we can have one out of the house. i never underestimate the strength of the voice of the american people. so anyway they can make their voices heard in august, of course, would be very positive. again, overwhelmingly there is support in the country for comprehensive immigration reform. as the leaders of the catholic universities have stated, as the catholic conference of bishops, as the bbb -- you know what the bbb's are? ,adges, law enforcement, bibles and the business community all understand and know that it is good for our country to have immigration reform.
>> throughout the health care debate, the senate struck a deal on student loans, the bill to be voted on next week. when it comes to the house, speaker boehner insisted it will get a vote. >> our leadership on education have been engaged for a day and a half on the floor of the house in the rules committee on the education bill that is on the floor. it is a travesty and it has attracted the unitty and opposition of the business round table, the chamber of commerce, the education groups, the civil rights groups and the rest because the bill just really is pathetic and falls short of what we need to have the trained work force for the future that business and community activist know is important to educating our people. so they've been busy.
i look forward to hearing their evaluation on it and am hoping that this will be a solution. i haven't analyzed the bill fully. but it hasn't passed there. when it does, we'll see what it is. but it is a big improvement over what the republicans put forth here. >> if republicans as part of their piece mill approach that is similar to the dream act that has passed, do you think that you and democrats would be compelled to vote for it? >> it isn't a substitute for an immigration bill. what we're calling for is a comprehensive immigration reform. we passed the dream act when we had the majority at the end of 2010. the republicans were not supportive of that. i believe that some of the
dreamers are not supportive of the version of the dream act that the republicans may put forth. we haven't seen what that is. what we need to have is comprehensive immigration reform. >> one of your former california colleagues has admitted to inappropriate conduct with women and is facing allegations of sexual harassment. should he step down as mayor of san diego? >> what goes on there is up to the people. i'm not here to make any judgments or be fully versed on what happened there. my colleagues who represent san diego have made their statements on the subject but that's all i'll say about that. >> what moves do you think need to be made on the nsa and congressional oversight?
>> it's interesting. what i love about all of this is there is this debate and is important. we have to have the balance between security and privacy and that is something that has been a challeng to our country sings our origin. we as i've said are supportive of congress taking up legislation such as adam schiff has put forth that would have more transparency on the operation on fisa support and how the decisions are made and what the decisions are after the fact. mr. conniers bill which he's had for years is something that talks about what the term relevant means. that the information is relevant to our national security. well, that's a pretty all
inclusive word and how extensively should it be interpreted? we think the intent of congress was not to interpret it endlessly so let's have that discussion. the company -- some of the companies sent us a letter today or yesterday and i saw it this morning when i came in talking about an approach they had to information as to when . ey make it available director alexander said something yesterday about making the -- keeping the information at the companies rather than at the nsa. it's a healthy discussion for our country to have recognizing the possibilities that are helpful to us to protect the american people but understanding that privacy is important. and that is why i demanded and insisted that we have a privacy
and civil liberties board both as part of an early part of the discussion on the patriot act. but when we got the majority to strengthen that organization. and the president has already met with that board. i think that would be a good place to have this discussion to hold all of us accountable. but congressional over sight is important. we have to have the information in order to have oversight over it. accountability is important in the executive branch in how they protect and defend our country while protecting and defending our civil liberties. we have insisted in law -- >> we're going to take you live to the white house. the president speaking to reporters. >> the community is looking at this issue through a set of that nces and a history
.oesn't go away there are very few african-american men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store, that includes me. there are very few african-american men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. that happens to me, at least before i was a senator. there are very few african-americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. that happens often. and i don't want to exaggerate this but those sets of experiences inform how the
african-american community interprets what happened one night in florida. and it's inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. the african-american community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws. everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. and that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case. now this stont say that the african-american community is naive about the fact that african-american young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims
and perpetrators of violence. it's not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. we understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighbors around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country. and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history. and so the fact that sometimes that is unacknowledged adds to the frustration. and the fact that a lot of african-american boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuses given that there are statistics given that show
that african-american boys are more violent. using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain. i think the african-american community is not naive in understanding that stathically someone like trayvon martin was stathically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. so folks understand the challenges that exist for african-american boys. but they get frustrated if they feel there is no context for it. and that context is being denied. and that all contributes i think to a sense that if a
white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that from top to bottom both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different. now the question for me at least and i think for a lot of folks is why wr do we take this? how do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? i think it's understandable there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests. and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through as long as it remains non-violent. if i see any violence then i will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to trayvon martin and his family. but beyond protests or vigil it
is question is are there some concrete things we might be able to do? i know that eric holder is reviewing what happened down there. but i think it's important for people to have some clear expectations here. traditionally these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code and law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels. that did you want mean though that as a nation we can't do some things that i think would be productive. so let me just give a couple of specifics that i'm still bouncing around with my staff so we're not rolling out some five point plan but some areas where i think all of us could potentially focus. number one, prosizely because law enforcement is often
determined at the state and local level, i think it would be productive for the justice department, governors, marries marys to work with state and local government to reduce trust that cunchtly exist. when i was in illinois i passed racial profiling legislation and it actually did two simple things. one it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. but the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on w to think about potential racial bias and ways to furlingt profession lies what they were doing. and initially the police departments across the state
were resistent but they came to recognize if it was done in a fair straightforward way it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and in turn be more helpful in applying the law. obviously law enforcement has a very tough job. that's one area where i think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. and i think a lot of them would be and let's figure out ways for us to push out that training. along the sime lines, i think it would be useful for to us examine some state and local is designed f it cause a way to
potential at indications like we saw in the florida case rather than diffuse at indications. the stand your ground laws in florida were not used as a defense in the case. if we are sending a message as a society in our community that is someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if here is a way for them to exit . om a situation those who resist that idea that we should think about something like the stand your ground laws i'd like people to consider if
trayvon martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? and do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting mr. zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? and if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous then it seems we might want to examine those kind of laws. number three, and this is a long term project. we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our african-american boys. and this is something that michelle and i talk a lot about. there are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. is there more that we can do to
give them a sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them? i'm not naive about the prospects of some federal program. i'm not sure that's what we're talking about here. i do really as president i have some queening power and there are a lot -- convening power. and there are a lot of good programs across the country. there are a lot of celebrities and clergy and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young african-american men feel that they are a full art of this society and that they've got pathways and
avenues to succeed. i think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was a tragic situation. and we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. and then finally, i think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul searching. there has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race? i haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. they end up be politicizeded and folks or locked into the positions they already have. on the other hand, families and churches and workplaces, there is the possibility that people are a little bit more honest and at least you ask yourself our own questions about am i
bringing as much bias out of myself as i can? am i judging myself as much as color of d on not the their skin but the contents of their character? that would i think be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy. let me just leave you with a final thought that as difficult nd challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, i don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better. each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. it doesn't mean we're in a post racial society. it doesn't mean that racism is eliminated. i can't i talk to mali
and scioscia and i listen to their friends an see them interact, they are better than we are, they are better than we were on these issues. that's true in every community that i've visited all across the country. and so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. but we should also have confidence that kids these days i think have more sense that we did back then and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did. and that along this long
we're lt journey perfect union, not a perfect union but a more perfect union. thank you guys. >> have you talked to the martin family? >> wait one second. i'm here to take your questions. traditional briefing. i would understand if folks need to go file. that's fine and i leave it to our friends in the front row to tell me how brief we can keep this. >> keep it short. >> can you tell us a little bit about the process of having
that several months happen why does the president do it now? >> the process is far less important than the words the president spoke. he wanted to say something and he came out and said it and he's obviously mindful of the discussions that have been going on. i think some of us had discussions earlier this week that he was certainly prepared to take questions on this issue when he had some interviews earlier in this week and would have answered them in probably similar fashion. but he felt like today was a good day to speak about it. there any type of federal response or federal assistance
that the white house deems appropriate in this situation? >> you have heard leaders in michigan say and we believe they are correct that this is an issue that has to be resolved between michigan and detroit and the credit tors when it comes to the insolvency of the city. we are, of course, engaged in conversations with about policy options and other ways that we can be of assistance to detroit and that includes gene sperling and john don van, the secretary of housing and urban development, all of whom have had discussions with the leadership team in detroit and michigan. but on the issue of insol vens si that is something that local leaders and credit tors are going to have to resolve. but we will be partners in an
effort to assist the city and the state as they move forward. >> is there any talk of a bail yut for detroit? >> i would point you to what we have said and what leaders in michigan and detroit have said which is on the matter of that i know insolvency, that is something for the city and the creditors to resolve. >> how worried are you about the impact on the u.s. economy? >> well, i don't have anything concrete to say about that. we're concerned obviously about the citizens of detroit and of the state and continuing to assist detroit in moving forward. and there has been obviously, especially when it comes to the automobile industry, remarkable
progress since the depths of the great recession at which me there was the prospect of liquidation or elimination of the automobile industry in this country. and this president said that was unacceptable to him and he took action to prevent that from happening. and now we see month after month and quarter after quarter robust sales and some of the best cars made coming out of detroit. that was part of an effort to revitalize a recon i can american industry but one that is also linked to this city. >> would he like to see florida stand your ground law be repealed? >> i think you heard from the president and i will point to what the president said on that issue and the other issue that is he talked about. >> i think he made a good point
about his views on that and it reflects or rather in reverse what i have said earlier this week about state laws and that law is that i think reflects what i knew the president felt which is that we ought to be examining these and judging them by the standard of whether or not they contribute to or make worse the problem of gun violence. and i think that is consistent with what the president just said. >> the president's statement seemed [inaudible] first of all, how hard was it for you guys to put this together to make this happen because he came out with some words and things that we have not heard him say before even
first term obama with a little more depth into issues of race, particularly the african-american community. how hard was that? and did people come to him, stevie wonder, who is he talking to about this? what kind of bombardment if there was on him about that? >> i don't have any internal deliberations or outside conversations to report to you. this is not hard at all. the president wanted to say something and he opened the briefing today so that he could say something. that was pretty much it. and when it comes to issues like this, obviously he has conversations with a lot of people as he does on every issue. and i don't think there is any question and you can judge by what he just said and how he said it that he knows what he hinks and he knows what he
feels and he has not just in the past week, but for a good portion of his life given a lot of thought to these issues. i think that's reflected in his prepolitical life with the book that he wrote and throughout his career in the public world. >> also on detroit, during the first term the obama administration had detroit and new orleans in a certain type of pot if you will because they had different issues than the average american city. later on in the administration they became a regular city because they were dealing with regular issues like every other city. but now detroit is in bankruptcy. are they viewed in that special pot again because they are having financial lows and how do you deal with detroit now? > well setting aside cat
gorization, i would say clearly the situation in detroit is unique at this time given the declaration and the size of the city and the size of the challenges that detroit faces. and you can see based on what i told you about the conversations and meetings about detroit here in the white house and broadly in the administration that we're paying close attention to the challenges that detroit is facing and looking for ways that we can be of assistance. being clear, as i have been and others have been, including leaders in michigan and in detroit, that the issue here of the insolvency and dealing with that is one that detroit and detroit's creditors will have to resolve. we of course will be of assist innocence general both in terms
of policy as well as just being a partner with detroit as detroit finds it way and moves forward in the coming weeks, months and years. >> and has the president talked to the martin family? >> i don't have any conversations to read out. >> [inaudible] . jar hink i said valley ret, gene sperling, secretary shawn don van, the secretary of housing and urban development, those are the three that have been in conversations with leaders in detroit and michigan. >> how about the president? >> no. >> lindsay graham and chuck proposed a resolution that is calling for moving location of g-20 out of st. peter'sburg if there are changes regarding the situation of edward snowden.
does the white house have any thoughts or given any consideration -- >> the g-20 is a body of 20 nations. russia is of 20 nations, russia is the host this year in st. petersburg. it is the president's intention to travel to russia for the meeting. exactly what that proposition is meant to suggest. on the issue obviously that's of mr.t, the disposition snowden, our message is what it has been, that he ought to be expelled and return here to the united states where he will be afforded all the significant rights given to defendants in this country as he faces charges related to the ,nauthorized publication leaking of very sensitive
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on