members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the internal revenue code allows individuals who feels they aren't taxed enough to make voluntary contributions to the u.s. treasury. unsurprisingly, this provision is seldom used. my democrat colleagues should have considered this fact when drafting obamacare. the public is beginning to take note of what republicans have been pointing out for years. young people who sign up for obamacare are taking on what ounts to a voluntary stealth tax in order to subsidize older enrollees. as the initial numbers come in, this will fair no better than the optional taxes already in law. mr. speaker, obamacare will crumble and should crumble, not because of bad website design or because republicans don't like it, but because it's a flawed law built on a foundation of unsound policy presumptions. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair would now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. . quigley: mr. speaker, next week we will commemorate the life and accomplishments of dr. martin luther king jr. a revolutionary civil rights leader, dr. king's movement combated the systematic discrimination against african-americans. but dr. king fought hard, not only for equal rights for african-americans, he fought for equality for all in this great nation. so it is altogether fitting and appropriate that we honor him and his extraordinary life. but as equally appropriate to honor him by ending what is still legal discrimination in this country, discrimination against the lesbian, bay, bisexual, transgendered community, because denying civil rights based on a person's orientation is equally inherently wrong. we are all americans regardless of who we love. why does someone's orientation affect his or her legal status in this country? every day we continue allowing discrimination against the lgbt community is another day that justice is delayed. i'm reminded when lincoln spoke at gettysburg, he said, we formed a nation based on the notion that all is created equal. and they were in a war in determining whether a nation could long endure, but what we can take from that is the realization we have to ask ourselves every so often, did we really mean it back then when we said that all were created equal? this is one of those times when we have to ask ourselves, is everyone in this country equal? mr. speaker, we can end workplace discrimination against gay men and women today. the employment nondiscrimination act has 200 bipartisan co-sponsors, and identical legislation has passed already in the senate. yes, our colleagues in the other chamber have already taken this small but important step. when will this body step up and defend the rights of the lgbt community? when will the house majority join us in the fight against inequality? dr. king said, the universe is long but it bends towards justice. yes, the journey may be long but i believe we can accomplish equality for all in this country. i ask my colleagues to find the courage to stand on the right side of history. mr. speaker, bring enda to the floor and allow a vote on equality for all americans. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, for five minutes. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today because, like many of my 700,000 bosses back home, i am frustrated with the broken washington. prior to joining this house just over one year ago in my work in the private sector and in my personal life, deadlines mattered. if a client needed to start a contract by january 1, that contract had to be negotiated and signed by that date. every april 15, my western pennsylvania bosses and myself have to make sure that all of our tax forms are filed on time. on the first day of school, my neighbors and i make sure our kids are ready to start the year. and every year on may 27, i better remember that that is the anniversary that the best girl in the world and i exchanged wedding rings. getting things done on time is important. it's the value we teach our children. mr. speaker, there's an annual deadline that the house and senate have failed to meet with embarrassing frequency. the united states of america operates on fiscal years that begin on october 1 and end on september 30. congress and the president are responsible for enacting the annual appropriations bills before each new fiscal year starts. that's how it's supposed to work. unfortunately congress, led by both parties, has only finished its work on all regular appropriations bills before this deadline four times since 1977. that's simply unacceptable. 26 years ago, the president of the united states delivered a state of the union address from the podium just over my right shoulder. during that address, ronald reagan noted that the government had just completed another broken and inefficient appropriations season. in seven years, the president then stated, of 91 appropriations bills scheduled to arrive on my desk by a certain date, only 10 made it on time. last year, he continued, of the 13 appropriations bills due by october, none of them made it. instead, we had four continuing resolutions lasting 41 days, then 36 days and two days and three days. president reagan then held up three stacks of paper totals 45 pounds which authorized the spending of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and reminded the congress that it had only three hours to review the documents. after recounting this dysfunctional history, president reagan pleaded, congress shouldn't send another one of these. some may argue that process is not important. it is the policy that matters. mr. speaker, process is important because inside the process the policy happens. our constitution gives congress the power to tax and spend. exercising this spending power requires due deliberation and should allow for individual members on both sides of the aisle to challenge expenditures, including whether any particular expenditure is too much, too little or should be made at all. those challenges should come in the form of amendments that will be debated on this house floor. this is a process by which the people of this country have the opportunity to say -- to have a say in how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent. more than three months into the fiscal year, we are now heading toward a vote on what is known an omnibus. this bill puts all 12 appropriations bills into a single behemoth. we are at this point today because the house and senate did not complete the regular appropriations process on time. instead of voting 12 times on individual appropriations bills and hundreds of times on amendments to those bills, members of this house will only vote once. under this arrangement, important and necessary spending is held hostage to questionable and wasteful spending. last year, the house only passed four spending bills on time, and the senate passed none. this must stop. congress must get its work done on time. today, i'm introducing the congressional pay for performance act of 2014. this simple bill will hold congress accountable and force us to comply with deadlines, just like the people in the real world do outside of washington, d.c. this is how it would work. each house of congress must pass a budget resolution by april 15 or have its pay withheld. then, each house of congress must pass all 12 appropriations bills by july 31 or have its pay withheld. it would then have two months to reconcile the bills between the two houses. if congress is not performing its core constitutional duties in a timely matter, it should not get paid until its work is done. let this year's omnibus be the last one, for congress shouldn't send another one of these to the president. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. speaker, we live in the richest country in the history of the world and yet hunger is a problem in the united states of america, a very costly problem. a recent report published in the journal of health affairs shows that four people are getting sick because they are running out of food at the end of the month. hunger increases the likely heed that people will get other ail -- ailments. poverty may be the reason for increased health risks due to dangerously low blood sugar. we know that poor families prioritize which bills they pay and that food, grocery bills, often falls behind other responsibilities like rent and utilities. i ask unanimous consent to insert an article from "the new rk times" titled "study ties diabetic crisis to dip in food budgets," into the statement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: this marks the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, one of the key programs in our attempt to reduce and eliminate income equality is the supplemental nutrition assistance program or snap, formerly known as food stamps. snap is a lifeline for 47 million americans, 47 million of our fellow citizens rely on this program to help put food on the table for their families. but snap has become a major target in this congress by those who believe it is simply a government handout. snap is many things, but it is not a poorly run government handout. to the contrary, it is a program that is among the most efficient and effective, if not the most efficient and effective of federal programs. despite this fact and despite the fact that millions of americans turn to snap precisely because they saw their incomes drop or disappear because of the recession, snap was cut by $11 billion on november 1, 2013, and on top of that, we were told that the farm bill that is still in negotiation would cut another $8.5 billion to $9 billion above that november 1 cut. these cuts have real impacts. some families who already saw a cut of $30 a month on november 1 will see their snap benefit cut by another $90 a month if the farm bill passes with these cuts. that's a cut of $120 a month for a family of three in a state like california or massachusetts or new york, for example. according to a study conducted by the robin wood johnson foundation and the pew charitable trust, a cut of $2 billion a year in food stamps could trigger an increase in $15 billion in medical costs for diabetes over the next decade. the insistence of many in this congress, republicans and sad to say some democrats, that snap be cut will have serious long-term impacts on the health of poor people who are just trying to get by. and any cuts will cost us more. they will save us nothing. being poor is hard. it is expensive. we should be making the lives of those who struggle -- we shouldn't be making the lives of those who struggle harder by cutting programs like snap. and not make people sicker while increasing spending for the defense department or giving corporate welfare in the form of crop insurance or other farm subsidies, many of these excesses are contained in the farm bill that we may see in the next couple of weeks. i oppose the snap cuts included in the farm bill. they are misguided. they are hurtful and they are wrong. they will do real damage to real people who just want to earn a paycheck and provide for their families. i urge my colleagues to stand with me and oppose this farm bill if in fact it contains these $8 billion to $9 billion in cuts in snap. i would remind my colleagues that behind all these numbers and behind all the statistics and behind all the rhetoric, there are real people. these cuts have already -- that have already been made actually hurt people. let's not pile on. anti-hunger advocates have warned that further cuts to snap will increase hunger in america. go to any food bank in america. they are at capacity right now. leading economists have told us that further cuts to snap will undermine our economy. snap is actually a stimulus. people get snap actually have to spend it on food. it helps our economy grow. and doctors and medical researchers have documented time and time and time again with a gazillion studies that further cuts to snap will cause avoidable health care costs to millions of our fellow citizens. sometimes i wonder when we have these debates whether anybody's paying attention. my question to this congress is -- is anybody listening? . . why with anyone cut this program more and more and more and more. why so many in this chamber so indifferent to the problem that affects 50 million of our citizens? i plead with my colleagues to say no to any further snap cuts. i appeal to this administration to work with congress to develop a plan that -- so that nobody in this country knows hungry. the silence on this issue on this congress and administration is sad and it is a missed opportunity to do something meaningful or positive for millions of our fellow citizens. we can do more. we can do better. we can end hunger now. but not by coldly, callously, and arbitrarily cutting snap. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, for five minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. speaker. for the past month since september 11, 2012, we have learned a great deal about what happened in benghazi that fateful night when chris stevens, sean smith, glenn dawetry, were murdered in our facility. they worked to build peaceful relationships met with brutality. while we have some answers, i grow weary of asking many questions over and over again in hearings, letters, and on this floor to get some very basic answers for the families and the american people. let me some of those questions past us again. it was known within the state department that at the highest level that neither facility in libya -- neither facility in libya, one in tripoli, or benghazi met the minimum physical security standards set after our embassy was attacked in kenya in 1998. who made the decision to put so many american diplomats in facilities that did not meet that standard? that same question is asked yesterday by a senate committee against report asking the same question. who made the decision to put people in facilities we knew did not meet the minimum security standards? the embassy had access to additional military personnel for security and training. they had been there for a long time of the the regional security officer and ambassador requested to keep the additional security on the ground. that request was denied in august of 2012. and in september of 2012 there was an attack on our facility and we did not have the manpower to repel them. what was the reason for the decision to remove the existing security force from libya and leave only a small security team there? in fact, the security force was so small when the ambassador traveled in tripoli, it took the entire security team just to travel with him of the for long stretches during the day, the american diplomats were completely exposed. so exposed that diplomats asked the security forces to train them how to use a gun so they could defend themselves in the moments they were left with no defense. in a country that's just gone through a brutal, long civil war and no strong central government or national police force, why were diplomats left to defend themselves in tripoli? multiple intelligence reports from the c.i.a., ambassador, and regional security officer all noted increasing violence in benghazi in terrorist training camps nearby. there were more than 20 security incidents in that area in the previous month. every other international facility in benghazi closed in the previous year because of security risks. their facility or personnel was attacked, they made the determination of one of two things, either increase security or pull out. they chose to pull ow. -- out. we he we had the same option but instead we chose to stay and decrease our security. who made that decision and what information did they use to make that decision? we have a joint operation called the foreign emergency support team. to assist during and after state department crisis. they never mobilized that night. because no one ever sent them. apparently they were too far away, they were stationed in the united states. can someone tell me why we have a foreign emergency support team if not for events like this? what level of attack is required to mobilize that team? if they are too far away to make a difference, why are they stationed in america? we are not worried about our embassies in america being attacked. we spent millions of dollars training the team to stand down in an emergency. why? on spetch, our american embassy in egypt was stormed about :00 local time. the mob climbed the walls, put up the al qaeda flag, i would assume it's an event to warrant some sort of status change in our military preparedness, but no one from the state department asked it. so when the country next door was attacked four hours later, the military still was not prepared. there are millions of questions about what happened that night. why were we overwhelmed by -- let me say that again, were we overwhelmed by highly organized military force? was it a street protest that went violent like the administration first claimed? the administration claims the attack was so overwhelming additional american security forcers would not have made a difference. i know how we can resolve this issue. release the video of that attack that night. for some reason the administration cannot identify the killers that night because none of them have been brought to justice a year and a half later. i have an idea, if the administration cannot identify them, show the world the video of the attack and let everyone see it and let the world help identify who that is. if there is a bank robbery, the next day the video footage is on television so everyone can figure out who that person is and can be brought to justice. that's standard practice for the f.b.i. here. why is the video of the attack in benghazi being withheld. if you cannot figure out who attacked the compound ask cnn, fox news, or new york sometimes? they all interviewed the people who attacked the compound. the administration can't find them. many americans have not even heard there is high quality, multiple angle footage of that night, both on the ground and from the air in drones. there's only one reason why the administration will not release the video, they do not want the american people to see what really happened that night and to see that two additional security personnel would have made a huge difference. we need to release the video, allow the american people to see what really happened, let's get these questions answered. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognized the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, for five minutes. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, the political standoff between the two main political parties in bangladesh has rocked that country and threatened its democratcy, its stability, and economic progress. throughout 2013 and the run-up to elections last week, a series of general strikes paralyzed bangladesh and hundreds were killed in clashes between rival political factions. opposition leaders and human rights activists were arrested. and bangladeshi courts were used to target opposition figures and sympathizers. it fits the leader of the ruling party against a former prime minister who is the leader of the opposition bangladesh nationalist party or b.n.p. the leaders known to their countrymen as the two ladies have dominated bangladeshi politics since democracy was restored in the mid 1990's. when sawami positioned itself as sec lieu claar and social democratic in ideology and the other nor religious. tensions were further inflamed last year when a third party allieded with b.n.p. was barred from participating in the elections and the government declined to dissolve itself in favor of a caretaker government that would exist only to supervise the elections. this had been the custom in bangladesh in prior elections. prime minister asina's actions convinced mazia that the b.n.p. would be better served by boycotting the polling which they did in the hopes the government would be pressured into resigning before the vote. when the government did not accede to the b.n.p.'s demands, the opposition took to the street, but the government held firm and amid diminished voter turnout and widespread violence, alami swept last week's vote deepening the crisis. born from a brutal civil war in 1971, bangladesh has faced enormous challenges in its 43-year history, and poverty one of the densist populations in the world, and unpredictable weather that both sustains and destroys the country's year-round agricultural production. governance has been a challenge with it being ranked one of the world's most corrupt. nothing has come to symbolize the failure of governance like the garment industry and horrific record on worker safety, a record that threatens the cornerstone of bangladesh's economy. despite these and other challenges, bangladesh has made remarkable strides. according to a report issued by the world bank last june, from 2000 until 2010, they experienced steady growth of nearly 6% per year on average in g.d.p. growth. even so about a third of them live in poverty. economic hardship is especially prevalent in the rural parts of the country. given the country's history, its recent progress and the hurdles remaining, if bangladesh is to reach its coal of becoming a middle income country by 2021, the question of of governance is central and makes the political standoff that has gripped the country even more tragic and counterproductive. bangladesh's middle income aspirations are contingent on a significant rise in g.d.p. growth and broad reform agenda, neither of which is possible under current conditions. fortunately, there is a precedent that could allow for an exit from the impasse through new elections. in february, 1996, elections were boycotted by awami and other opposition parties and the b.n.p. took nearly all of the seats, touching off a crisis of legitimacy, similar to that now gripping dacca. four months later new elections were held under the auspicious of a caretaker government and outcome favored awami. now as then the time has come for cooler heads to prevail and a new election to be called that will give all parties the time and space needed to organize and campaign. the recent recess of mazia from house arrest should be followed by the release of others detained for political reasons. there should be a mutual pledge of nonviolence, guarantees of noninterference and political campaigning by police and security forces, and a pledge to respect the people's mandate. the people of bangladesh who suffered mightily and who have also risen to every challenge over the course of more than four decades deserve better than to be caught between two stubborn matriarches. new elections should be scheduled and bangladeshi voters given a free and fair chance in determining their country's future. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. cclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, the house is scheduled to take up the omnibus appropriations bill for 2014, and i rise this morning to outline my objections to this measure. this is not the regular order promised to the american people in which each of the 12 appropriations bills is painstakingly vetted. it's all 12 bills rolled into one with no opportunity for a meaningful debate or amendment. true, it adheres to the budget that was passed in december, but that's nothing to brag about. that budget destroyed the only meaningful constraint on federal spending that we had. one member said he's surprised by opposition because, quote, this bill for the fourth year in a row cuts discretionary spending, unquote. well, it only cuts it by washington math. last year the discretionary spending of the united states government was $986 billion. this measure appropriates $1,012 billion. that's an increase. and it is $45 billion more than the sequester would have allowed. after all, they didn't blow the lid off the sequester because they wanted to cut spending. now did they? what's this money going for? it increases funding for head start by $600 million despite the fact that every credible study has concluded that this program provides no lasting benefit for children. it continues wasteful tiger grants which under the guise of transportation puts money into projects like a six-mile pedestrian mall in fresno and streets that actually discourage automobile traffic. it continues funding for the scandalous essential air service that pays to fly empty and near empty planes across the country. it continues to throw money at all manner of immensely expensive and failed green energy programs and other forms of corporate welfare. we are told to be grateful that it doesn't fund other wasteful programs like high-speed rail. but when we vote for these appropriations, we are responsible for the money that we waste not the money that we don't waste. the regular order would at least give the house a chance to exam -- examine and debate these questionable programs before we cast our votes. but not this process. i do not believe for a moment that they won't be debated after we have cast our votes. this measure will face the full light of public scrutiny in the days ahead, and that may prove to be very harsh indeed. true, the measure makes some cuts, but in many cases it makes the wrong cuts. for example, although this bill resources the cuts made to disabled military veterans pensions, it maintains the pension reductions for all other military veterans, about 82% of our military retirees. according to published reports, over a 20-year period, a retired enlisted service member will lose an average of $72,000 of promised pension payments and commissioned officers will lose $124,000. . in payments in lieu of taxes are not funded at all. that's the program that makes up a small portion of the revenues that the federal government has cost our rural communities as it's appropriated vast tracks of their land. and to add insult to injury, this bill adds roughly $200 million to pay for more federal land grants which will cost more of their local revenues and economic activity. we're promised that pilt funding will be restored in the farm bill which is little consolation. that's the bill that continues to provide massive subsidies to agribusiness at the expense of both taxpayers and consumers. now, i'm not unmindful of the challenges that face the appropriations committee, not the least of which is that the measure must ultimately have the consent of the senate and the president, which is responsible for the most fiscally irresponsible period in our nation's history. i understand that. but under our constitution, a dollar cannot be spent by this government unless the house says it gets spent. the buck literally starts here, and as long as we continue to increase spending on frivolous programs at the expense of working families and at a time when our accumulated debt sinks what's left of our economy, we're clearly moving this nation in the wrong direction. i appreciate the fact that this is a bipartisan agreement, but a bipartisan agreement that moves our country in the wrong direction is still wrong, and with all due respect, i must dissent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for five minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise to pay tribute to a dear friend and colleague who passed away a few days ago. trying to describe erlene was not very businessy. she was not quite old enough to be my mother although she was mother-like. she was like a big sister. she and another would look after me at confences and conventions, make sure i ate lunch, had some milk and not drink too much alcohol. i got to know her family, her children and grandchildren. i want to thank them for inviting me to participate in her funeral services. they know that erlene and i were confidants. we were like family. she was my boss for about 15 years during a period that i worked as executive director of the west side health planning organization. she was the board chairman. she was my running buddy and traveling companion. we went all over the united states of america, helping to organize and implement program concepts and initiatives of the war on poverty, which grew out of the civil rights movement, the marches, the demonstrations, the johnson era. he was with ernie and gloria reeves, warner sommers and i when we organized the west side organization for community action. erlene was steeped in her church, her family. she believed in god and in education. erlene was the education leader for what in the mid 1970's and 1980's we called district eight and district nine in chicago. in a way she was responsible for a black west side resident,ing with appointed to the chicago board of education. erlene was one of several black women on the west side that we called our leader. women like rachel ripley, beatrice ward, ida fletcher, nancy jefferson who headed the mid west community council. julia fairfax, bernetta barret, rose marie love, rosa lee betts, vivian stewart tyler, reverend janice sharp, martha marshall, congresswoman collins, all the women, deborah graham and emma mitts, representative camille lily, viola thomas, senator pelt, commissioner mcgowan. ms. lillian drummond, mrs. wear, mrs. irene norwood, representative collins. mrs. davis. mrs. boone. deeds, olph record of mayor perkins of maywood, illinois. ms. barbara miner, ms. gus cunningham and countless other women who have provided leadership and have been actively involved in the struggle for self-direction, community improvement and self-determination. erlene went to city hall, the state house and the white house. through her interactions, she walked with kings and queens but never lost the common touch. erlene's two main issues were health care and education. she was a founding member of the mile square health center and the national association of community health centers. i remember meeting we were having at the university of illinois school of public health and its people introduced themselves, they'd always be introduced as doctor or they'd say john smith, m.s.w., or joy jones, fach. when it came erlene's time she said, i'm mrs. erlene lindsey, csta. there were a group of medical students present. one of them raised their hand and said, could i ask mrs. lindsey a question? erlene said, gladly. she said, can you tell me what your degree stands for? cfta, i've never heard of that one. erlene said, common sense, talent and ambition. and that is who erlene was and ne has been, erle bossy, sensitive, caring, tireless, fearless. long live the life and long ive the legacy of erlene lindsey. and if she was here right now, i'm sure she would join with representative jim mcgovern and say, don't cut snap. erlene, may you rest in peace. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. mr. holding: mr. speaker, at a time when the national debt is over $17 trillion and growing by the second, the government continues to borrow and spend money that we simply do not have. and each day that we do not address this problem, the american people continue to lose faith in washington's ability to spend their tax dollars wisely. mr. speaker, one of our jobs as members of congress is provide aggressive oversight as to how our tax dollars are being spent by the federal agencies. the american people already see the government take far too much of their hard-earned paychecks and they have a right to know how these dollars are being spent. people across the country are struggling to find jobs and make ends meet. now, imagine how frustrating it is for them to find out that some public officials are making extraffic get salaries d receiving -- extraffic get salaries funded by the dollars that they, the taxpayers, are sending to washington. what kind of message does that send? it makes the public lose faith in their elected officials and it's morally wrong. reports in "the raleigh observer" indicate in my home state of north carolina that executive director of the raleigh housing authority is paid over $280,000 annually and is allowed to take up to 11 weeks of compensation time. it is funded largely by federal taxpayer dollars doled out by the department of housing and urban development. the practices at r.h.a. certainly raise a red flag of how federal dollars are being spent by local agencies. last week i requested a federal audit of the r.h.a. to make certain they are adhering to the law. i also joined with senator chuck grassley, who's a longtime advocate for oversight of public housing authorities, to send a letter to h.u.d. secretary donovan requesting more answers and documentation regarding the questionable salary and compensation practices at the raleigh housing authority. h.u.d. needs to ensure that taxpayer dollars brg spent appropriately by the r.h.a., and housing authorities across the country. h.u.d. funds are intended for affordable housing for those in need, not for excessive compensation packages. the r.h.a. needs to justify their compensation and salary practices. the audit should publicize how the r.h.a. has spent federal money, how much is wasted and what, how it can do to eliminate further wasteful spending while continuing to fulfill its mission. mr. speaker, government transparency at the r.h.a. is not just important to my home state of north carolina but to all of our government agencies. we are already spending federal money at an unsustainable rate and we need to eliminate areas where taxpayer dollars are being used. if we do not ensure government transparency and cut wasteful spending, we will not only lose the faith of the american people completely but our economy will continue to spiral downward. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, for five minutes. mr. levin: as we meet, 1.5 million americans are out in the cold. long-term unemployed and added each total, 72,000 week. and estimated, if we don't act, 3.6 million by the end of this year. why is this? partly because of myths, and i want to address them. myth one, the need for these benefits is over. the truth, nearly 38% of the jobless are long-term unemployed, twice the right when the emergency programs started. the highest ever recorded efore this recession was 26% of the unemployed were long term. myth two, unemployment insurance creates dependency. as senator rand paul claimed, it's creating -- or it is a disservice. the long-term unemployed in these eyes need to get off their doves. it's this congress -- their duffs. it's this congress that needs a get off its duff because research rebutts this notion. indeed, unemployment insurance helps people look for work. people have said, we need gas oney to go and look for a job. recipients must actively look for work under the rules within their states. and by the way, the average benefit is $300 a week. myth three, jobs are there. get off your couch, it said. look. l-mart came to d.c., had 600 jobs available. 23,000 people applied. a dairy in hagerstown, maryland, reopened. 36 jobs were available. 1,600 job applications. there are still one million fewer jobs today than when the recession began in 2007. myth four, north carolina shows if you end unemployment insurance, the unemployment rate goes down because people go to work. that's a myth. the unemployment rate in north carolina went down primarily because people stopped looking for work. they gave up. this isn't america. it should not be north carolina . myth five, 99 weeks is far too many. actually, the program hasn't had this emergency program, 99 weeks, for over two years. last year the longest was 73 weeks, and only throw states had that level. the average nationwide is 54 weeks. and now just one of four unemployed receive unemployment enefits, the lowest on record. myth six, you need to reduce the program as the unemployment rate goes down. that's already done. we have four tiers, and already the amount of available benefits goes down in a state as the unemployment rate goes down. the next myth, an extension must be offset. this is an emergency program. none of the five u.i. extensions signed into law by president bush, none of the five was offset. . people don't need it is the next myth. in 2012, this is a census bureau information, this program lifted 2.5 million people out of poverty. the next myth, what we need, and we hear this all the time, is economic growth not unemployment insurance. well, the g.o.p. has stymied every key program to assist recovery, infrastructure, whatever and the fact is that unemployment insurance helps economic growth. c.b.o. estimates 200,000 fewer jobs this year without extension. as we fight in this institution over issues of economic growth, let's not punish the long-term unemployed. i was reading a statement by the president of the conservative think tank the american enterprise institute. this was an interview with him in october. is my five -- minutes up? the speaker pro tempore: yes, sir, it is. mr. levin: i ask the remainder of my statement be placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from nebraska, mr. for then berry -- fortenberry. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fortenberry: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we so often use the word unemployment that we lose an understanding of its deep social impact. when a person who is really trying hard, trying very hard to not find good work, it causes much curest. not only to that person and their family, but society as a whole. work is dignity. and good work unpleeshes the creative potential of the person. unemployment or underemployment so often creates a spiraling effect on a person's well-being. part of our job as policymakers is to create and support the conditions for dynamic economic opportunity. yet washington continues to deal with the unemployment problem through political sound bites and simplistic solutions. these are not getting to the heart of the problem. across the country, many small businesses are not creating jobs. part of the reason is the government itself. the burden of the health care law, for instance, and other regulations has dampened entrepreneurial spirit and create add great deal of uncertainty in the economy. this serious problem cannot simply be fixed by an extension of unemployment benefits. if we want to be further forthright and honest about it, this problem is deeper than governmental solutions and business structure alone. it is a fracturing of our society. many people have been left abandoned and have had not the -- have not had the gift of a formative community around them. they are alone. mr. speaker, all persons are made for community. and if someone is cast out into the world and loses the little bit of security they have, well, the best we can do is say goodbye, good luck, here's a little check to tide you over, hope it gets better. no, mr. speaker, the deeper problem is a social problem, the fragmentation of our culture. i also realize in many places in america there are not the same economic conditions as where i live in nebraska. we have abundant natural resources, a long tradition of stewardship of the land, and a strong agriculture and manufacturing economy. my state has also been very fiscally prudent, and that's the same way businesses are run and the same way families run their households. and this has contributed to vibrant economic conditions. in lincoln, for instance, one company has more than 150 job openings. in columbus, the manufacturing capital of nebraska, the community has gone so far as to go to michigan to try to find families with technical skills so they could move to our state. mr. speaker, part of our policy deliberations here should be to try to understand this disconnect between persons who are trying and have a real need for work and the opportunities that are out there. yes, to demand accountability and responsibility but also to forthrightly attack this problem of isolation in our culture. if we don't, we can just plot along and perhaps slowly get better as a country in the aggregate sense in the world, but much damage will be done to unrealized dreams and the potential of persons to find meaning with the creative gifts they have been given. mr. speaker, i just will end with this, in all fairness, i think we must do better. we must do better here. we must do better as a country. than just emotional political rhetoric and find constructive solutions that are fair for all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clay burn, for five minutes. - mr. clay burn for five minutes. mr. clay abouts burn: did -- mr. clyburn: thank you, very much. the poverty rate in the richest ountry on earth was 19%. the great society legislation, the continuation of president roosevelt's new deal, and president harry truman's fair deal, launched a plethora of programs and priorities to serve and protect the neediest and the most vulnerable among us. at the time president johnson cautioned that the war on poverty would be long and difficult. t by 1973, only nine years later, the poverty rate had been brought down to 11%. we were definitely winning the war on poverty. unfortunately many politicians found success, created myths about the poor -- creating myths about the poor and invented fan thoms like the so-called welfare queen. they poplarized in narrative that the war on poverty was not worth fighting. but nothing could be further from the truth. for example, medicare and medicaid, both war on poverty initiatives, have made a tremendous difference in the health and security of older americans and all americans of modest means. for these two very successful anti-poverty programs when they were initiated, the poverty rate among seniors was over 30%. today the poverty rate among seniors is under 10%. by what measure can one conclude that these two programs are failures? in addition to medicare and medicaid, president johnson signed into law the economic opportunity act of 1964. this law launched vista, volunteers in service to america. head start, trio, and a slew of other very successful community action programs. trio it not fail. in fact, many members of this body on both sides of the aisle would not be here today were it not for upward bound, talent search, and the special students concerns programs. forget, rget-lest we about -- lest we forget, congress responded to the law and passed the civil rights act of 1964 and a year later the landmark voting rights act of 1965. these two vital laws created educational and employment opportunities for women and minorities, that allowed many of us to fulfill our dreams and aspirations. and then the communities, many of us grew up in, many americans were able to vote for the first times in their lives. there is no better way to wage a war on poverty than their freedom to choose and unfettered access to the franchise. dr. martin luther king jr., whose 85th birthday we celebrate today, once famously said, of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane. the record is pretty clear that in recent years the number one cause of bankruptcies to american families has been health care expenses. that is why i often call the affordable care act the civil rights act of the 21st century. this groundbreaking new law is already having a positive difference. it's given all american families the security of quality, affordable health care. but we still have much work to do. persistent poverty continues to be a serious challenge and we in the congressional black caucus are serious about meeting that challenge. our 10, 20, 30 initiative targets communities of need for effective economic development through infrastructure investments, that create jobs, and lay foundations for long-term economic growth. the 10, 20, 30 approach which this body authorized in the rural development section of the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 proved highly successful. this effective poverty fighter should be expanded to other sections of the budget as we continue the long and often torturous search of a more perfect union. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from florida -- the gentlewoman from florida ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, each year the united states taxpayers are on the hook for over $7 billion in contributions to the united nations. while some of this money is given by the united states on a voluntary basis and goes towards funding some helpful agencies at the u.n., a large portion of these funds are compulsory payments over which we have no oversight. without the ability to perform oversight and mandate transparency and accountability, we have seen entities within the united nations drift far away from the ideals and objectives it was designed to achieve. one need look no further than one of its main bodies, the human rights council, where just this past november the u.n. general assembly selected china, russia, and my native homeland of cuba where my family and i were forced to flea castro's communist -- flee castro's communist regime and where terrible human rights violations have been occurring for over half a century. this is the same organization where a rogue regime like iran that had no less than six u.n. security council resolutions against it for its illicit nuclear program, iran was actually selected to chair a disarmament conference. only in the u.n. would this happen. it is the same organization that spends a great deal of time and effort adopting resolutions against our friend and ally, the democratic jewish state of israel, while ignoring the brutality of the assad regime and the crimes that it commits against the syrian people. perhaps nowhere is this agenda more problem at the u.n. than unesco where in 2011 that entity allowed a nonexistent state of palestine into its anti-american and anti-israel organization. this move triggered decades-old law in the united states that prohibits us from funding any agency at the u.n. that admits palestine or any other nonrecognized organization into its membership. by recognizing palestine at unesco, that entity is attempting to grant the palestinian authority a de facto recognition as a state before it works out a peace settlement with israel, and it actually undermines the israeli-palestinian peace process. the powers at unesco knew what they were doing when they did this and they knew there would be repercussions, yet they chose to test our mettle and willingness to do the right thing, stand by our ally, and stick to our principles, and stick to our u.s. laws. for a time it appeared as though they may have been right. the administration has made no secret of its desire to seek a waiver to this prohibition in order to turn the money spigot back on for unesco. not only does it wish to pay nearly $80 million in dues this year, no, but because it chose to remain in unesco rather than doing the prudent thing and withdrawing our membership, we have piled up hundreds of millions of dollars in arrears, late fees. there has also been an appetite by some here in congress to partially fund unesco and in effect turn a blind eye to this troublesome agenda, all for a designation that studies have shown has a minimal if at all economic benefit to the local sight. lugly, mr. speaker, we have managed to stave off such a calamitous position, reversal of u.s. law on this issue would have set a dangerous example, and it would shown the world that the u.s. lacks the courage of its convictions and will only do the easy thing when it comes to helping our allies, israel. . i would urge my colleagues to not allow any partial funding or any waiver that would undermine our u.s. laws. i would like to thank my house colleagues who did the right thing and prevented this grave mistake from occurring. we must fully enforce these laws and we must seek ways to leverage our assistance to the united nations to force the reforms that it needs or we have to seek ways to change the way in which we fund the united nations. enough is enough, mr. speaker. i thank you for the time, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne, for five minutes. mr. speaker, last week we marked the 50th anniversary of president lyndon johnson's war on poverty which began to pave the way for many of the programs that provide basic human dignity that every american deserves. 50 years ago, this congress began to work together on the war against poverty. unfortunately today, some of my republican colleagues had led a different kind of war. instead of a war on poverty, to eliminate the war on poverty, it has grown into a shameful war against those living in poverty. these attacks are numerous. from slashing nutrition assistance to cutting unemployment insurance, to attacking social security, medicare and attempting to dismantle health care. fighting the war on poverty should not be a democratic or a republican idea. not only are we all in this together, but poverty does not discriminate between political parties. according to the brookings institute, there are more than 21 million people living in poverty who live in republican congressional districts. equally, there are over 21 million people -- 21 million people living in poverty in democratic congressional districts. so the burden is on both parties equally, to recommit ourselves, to creating solutions. the gap between the rich and poor is wide and it is growing at an alarming rate. nowhere is this more true than in my home state of new jersey. in my district alone, the number of households at the top 1% have doubled while the poverty rate has grown to 28%. this is no way for the world's greatest country to lead. we can do better, and we must do better. we must return to the values that have always and will make this country great. we must make investments in education and job training because how can a man find work if he does not have the skills to enter the work force? we must make investments in nutrition assistance, because how can a child learn if he or she is too hungry to focus? we must make investments in health care because how can a mother provide for her children if she can't afford to pay her medical bills? and most importantly, we must make investments in our fellow americans to provide them with the opportunities to fulfill their own potential. my colleagues focus a discouraging amount of energy on cutting the very safety net programs that have lifted millions out of poverty, both in our urban centers and our rural areas. but these programs work. without our safety net programs, poverty numbers would be doubled. so although there is still much more to do, we have come a long way. turning our backs on the millions of americans living in poverty is simply not an option. nothing is more important to the people i represent in new jersey than having a decent job that pays a decent wage. my republican colleagues are kidding themselves if they ink these people are lazy or content. believe me, no one is content living in poverty. no one. these people want to work. they want economic security. and more than anything, they want to create a better life. not only for themselves but for their children, so they -- that they can ever be free from the clutches of generational poverty. so mr. speaker, we must remember that the war on poverty declared 50 years ago is an unconditional one. as president lyndon baines johnson said, our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty but to cure it, and above all to prevent it. congress must renew this commitment by extending unemployment insurance, strengthening social security and medicare, raising the minimum wage and investing in education and above all creating jobs. let's work together so that one day we can say that we have won the ultimate war of our time, the war on poverty. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on this coming sunday, january 19, communities and churches across america will be celebrating the sanctity of human life sunday. sanctity of life sunday is a call to defend the sanctity of human life. since 1983, americans have observed the sanctity of human life sunday as a day to celebrate the intrinsic value of human life. this day provides an important day of pregnancy center to bring live-affirming resources to their communities and to empower women and men to choose life for their unborn children. sanctity of human life sunday is held on the sunday in january that falls closest to the day in which roe vs. wade and doe vs. bolden decisions were handed down by the supreme court on january 22, 1973. i look forward to celebrating this sunday in an area i proudly serve and represent. for that same week on wednesday, january 22, the march for life will be held here in washington, d.c. what began as a small demonstration has grown to being one of the largest pro-life events in the world. the peaceful demonstration will be attended by hundreds of thousands of americans, including many from pennsylvania's fifth congressional district. mr. speaker, our founders who penned our declaration of independence recognized the first principle, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life. mr. speaker, today we continue to live out this principle, and for all of us protecting the unborn is a value system, it is a cause, it is a distinct understanding that every child, every human life has a purpose in this world and that life is sacred and it must be protected. the only way to offer a voice for those who have no voice is to ban together, and by educating our children and effectively communicating with our communities about the importance of life, this is how we'll successfully lead this fight. both sanctity of life sunday and march of life are doing that, celebrating life and spreading our message. mr. speaker, as for the right to life, americans, born and yet to be born, deserve as much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and the chair will recognize the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. mr. speaker, it's un-american that house republicans are refusing to hold a vote on extending benefits for americans who have worked and are now unemployed. it is particularly astounding with a speaker from ohio where unemployment has just ticked up, that the republican party refuses to bring up a vote on extending unemployment benefits. since 1948, this is the first time that congress has allowed extended unemployment benefits to expire with unemployment rates as high as they are. long-term rates, especially among older workers, people who have worked their entire lives, re at the highest levels and doggedly resistant to -- and more than 1,300,000 americans, including 30,000 ohioans have lost benefits because of house republicans. if house republicans get their way, by the end of this year five million americans and their families will have been denied unemployment benefits. people worked their entires lives. speaker boehner, that includes ore than 128,000 ohio families being denied benefits they have rightfully earned. my office has been receiving call after call from constituents who don't know why they lost their benefits and asked what they can do now. in one particular case, a woman put in the required years for her job and was ready to retire. she believed in work. she valid work. she spent her life doing it. unfortunately suddenly just before she put her papers in to retire she was laid off. she lost her job as a result of cutbacks through no fault of her own. her husband is disabled and unable to work, and extended unemployment benefits were helping the family make ends meet. republicans in this house took away this family's ability to pay their bills. she's now begging friends and relatives to help pay their heat bill, to keep the lights turned on and to pay their medical bills. the uncertainty and stress this family is now facing is unfair and completely un-american. extending unemployment benefits to people who work is not only the right thing to do, it actually is better for our economy. the economic policy institute estimates if we do not extend unemployment benefits it will cost our economy 310,000 more lost jobs because people who aren't able to hold their homes together any more don't buy as many groceries, right? they can't pay their gas bills, they can't pay their mortgages and they fall into poverty. why would we want millions of more people in this country falling into poverty and creating more job loss in the nation? creating jobs and growing our economy should be our first priority here in congress. as paul krugman put it in a recent "new york times" article, no matter how desperate you make the unemployed, their desperation does nothing to create more jobs. so let's come together to strengthen our economy, to stop offshoring millions and millions of jobs in this country and let's extend unemployment benefits to the people in this country who have earned them. until then, i urge republicans to come on, at least allow a vote on restoring unemployment benefits to those americans who have worked for a living and deserve the respect of this congress. mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a great american hero, specialist terry k. dontez gordon, who was among six u.s. soldiers who passed away due to wounds suffered hen their blackhawk u. uh-60 helicopter went down in afghanistan's, the bull region, on december 17, 2013. specialist gordon was born in mississippi on september 21, 1991. after graduating from high school, he enlisted in the army in 2011, fulfilling his basic training requirements in fort jackson, south carolina. he then went on to complete his advanced individual training in virginia where he became a mechanic. he was later trained as a door gunner and attached to bravo company, third assault battalion. there specialist gordon was tasked with firing and maintaining manually directed armament during missions, protecting the helicopter's crewmembers and passengers throughout the deployment to afghanistan. dontez gordon loved helicopters. he knew very early on he was meant for the army because that's where he could fly in a blackhawk. his family said they were surprised first he wasn't going in the marine corps like his father, but it became quite apparent that his interests were centered on going up in a helicopter. . his family members were nervous yet they realized he loved what he was doing and he was not afraid. dante loved his family, friends, and country. he was fortunate in that he loved what he was asiped to do and he would talk about it any chance he got when -- assigned to do, and he would talk about it any chance he got when he came home on leave. he's remembered by closest to them as always being happy. he was a practical joker and loved to make people laugh. his family and his community saw him as an all around, very devoted, humble, smart, and respectable young man who lost his life way too soon. he lost his life fighting for our families and for our country , an for this our country -- and for this our country and particularly the state of mississippi will be forever grateful. like ripples in the matter, his aunt said, dan at the gordon affected people he may never have met adding that the world is a better place because he was there. in an article that described the moment when specialist gordon's flag draped coffin was taken off the plane in myrrh ridian, mississippi, on his final journey home a family member observed as i quote, as they unloaded him off the plane the sun peaked through the cloudy gray sky and as they put him in the hearst it closed back up. it was as if the skies opened up to pay tribute to its native son. he received many medals including the national defense service ribbon, afghan campaign medal with campaign star, the global war on terrorism service medal, the army service ribbon, the combat ack badge, and the aviation badge. specialist gordon was post he'llously awarded the bronze meritorious service upon which no greater honor can be demonstrated by this ultimate sacrifice and he will always be remembered for these actions. dantez gordon is survived by his his sister, ell as stepfather, and two half brothers. i was so moved at his funeral service to see what was really a celebration of his life. mr. speaker, i would like to leave you with a quote from dantez's father. he was my hero long before joining the military. but now he's america's hero. how true that statement is. dantez's love for his country and dedication to protecting our freedoms took him from chi beautya, mississippi to afghanistan. christ said in john 15:30 greater love hath no man than he who gives his life for another. and his final sacrifice will never be forgotten. thank you for this opportunity to place focus on a true american hero. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez, for five minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to lend a voice to the 1.5 million workers who have lost their federal unemployment benefits. imagine a choice before you where you had to either put food on the table or have a roof over your head. this is the decision that millions of workers, including 53,000 people in l.a. county alone, will face. all because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to extend unemployment insurance benefits. last week i had an opportunity to talk personally with constituents who were affected by the loss of these benefits. their message for me to send to my colleagues was clear. we are not lazy or unmotivated. we want to work. but as we continue to navigate a tough labor market, we need these benefits in order to provide for our families and to pay for the gas and phone bills that help us talk to potential employers and get ourselves to interview. mr. speaker, unemployment benefits are not handouts. these are benefits workers have earned. they paid into the system to help them precisely during times like this. it's time to stop disrespecting these people who are continuing to try work by mischaracterizing them as lazy or somehow fat and happy living on unemployment benefits. one of my constituents in particular, anthony, wanted me to make chris cal clear the fact that he resents those who say that he is not trying hard enough to find a job. he has a bachelor's degree in finance from cal state long beach and has worked as an accountant in the private sector. in his 47 years on earth, he has never once been unemployed until now. and he's been trying everything he can to find work but hasn't found anything yet. he told me that every morning he gets up and goes to a work senttory search the online listing. and that the 20 computers at this particular work center are always full and every single person at one of those computers is actively looking for work. mr. speaker, unemployment insurance benefits are a lifeline to families who are struggling. please don't cut off this critical lifeline. give unemployment insurance the vote that it deserves. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers, for five minutes. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to raise awareness of an ongoing humanitarian crisis in southern russia and call on the state department to respond to that crisis. in 2003, the united states state department responding to a humanitarian crisis against hiska turks in southern russia designated them as a special humanitarian concern for p-2 processing. as a result between 2004 and 2007 roughly 12,000 ahiska turks arrived in the united states as refugees and settled in over 25 states, including a sizable community in my home state of ohio. ahiska turks discriminated against, belittled, and persecuted in russia are model citizens in the united states. in less than a decade they have been able to fully integrate into american society. they have learned english, adapted to their new environment, educated their children, and helped revitalize our neighborhoods. they live the american dream and strengthen american society by investing in their people and our cities. it's proven that this group is an asset to our community as seen by the fact that over 50% of them are entrepreneurs and create jobs for others, including many americans. ahiska turks have shown that refugees can thrive and live the american dream and help us grow our communities and our country. it's puzzling to me why the state department abruptly ended this successful program. there are roughly 80,000 ahiska turks who remain in southern russia in difficult circumstances. the latest report by the european commission against racism and intolerance cites the adverse environment for human rights organizations to even monitor the discrimination being suffered against ahiska turks in southern russia and acknowledges that the situation is very bad. i call on the state department today to restart the p-2 program and respond to this ongoing humanitarian crisis. i urge my colleagues to contact the u.s. state department to restart the p-2 program for ahiska turks in russia. this is a bipartisan issue where congress can stand up for human rights and stand up for a persecuted group. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, for five minutes. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i'm here today to speak about legislation that will create jobs, grow our economy, and reduce our deficit. this legislation has already passed the senate and the american people are still waiting for the house to do its part. i'm speaking about comprehensive immigration reform. the nonpartisan congressional budget office predicts that over the next 10 years, fixing our broken immigration system will promote job creation and wage increases, cut the deficit by nearly $158 billion, and increase america's g.d.p. by over $800 billion. this bill will be an economic benefit and is also the right thing to do for the 11 million immigrant families living in the shadows. think about what this legislation means for those families who are facing many challenges, not unlike the difficulties earlier irish, italian, portuguese, and french immigrants faced when they arrived in this great country. diversity is a great strength of this country. we are a nation of immigrants. our laws should reflect our values. if you work hard and contribute to society, you can provide a life for yourself and your family. it's time to enact comprehensive immigration reform so we can create jobs, grow our economy, secure our borders, and ensure that the american dream remains a real opportunity for all future generations. the american people deserve a vote on this critical legislation and i urge my colleagues and urge the speaker to bring this bill to the floor so we can fix our broken immigration system and act comprehensive immigration reform that will make a real difference not only in our economy but in the lives of millions and millions of people. i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on january 15, 2014, at 9:47 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 3527. that the senate passed senate 1434. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1rk the chair declares the house to be in recess until noon today. >> we'll have live coverage here on c-span. some news from the house today, virginia democrat, jim moran, won't seek re-election at the end of the term, making him the third democratic representative to make a similar announcement in the past three days. the 12-term congressman was first elected in 1991 after serving as mayor of alexandria, virginia. and news from the administration today, president obama's going to nominate maria suite to head the small business administration. she's the founder of a latino owned community bank in los angeles. the president will make the noument this afternoon at the white house. meanwhile here on c-span, we are going to take you live to hearing on capitol hill looking at threats to homeland security. among those testifying on your screen, former senator and former chairman of the homeland security committee, joe lieberman. >> sit back, frankly it can only get worse. there are two bad results here. one is that assad wins, which is a win for iran, incidentally. and the other is that the al qaeda groups win. so we still have -- still, believe it or not, pro-american element there. a group that we can work with. they are angry at us, they are disappointed with us, but they still need our help. if it wasn't for the saudis pouring money in there, they would have been out already. not too late. we have a lot on the line. if we don't act, syria will become a base for future acts against the american homeland. >> congressman king, i have lots of positive things to say about the nypd in addition to the fact they keep my kids and grandkids safe, and i think ray kelly's service was impressive. as you know now the new chief is bill braton who came from new york then he went to los angeles where his skills improved as head of the lapd. now we sent him back. a sleeker, better version. you'll love him. on syria, it's a humanitarian catastrophe. this could be worse in the end than rwanda and some of the -- certainly it's the humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century as john kerry just said. i think we should have acted years ago. joe lieberman and i agree. we didn't do it. i do think there is still room to act but we have to be quite careful about what we give to whom. wouldn't it be terrible if manpads surfaced and were used against israelis by hezbollah or something of that nature. d because, again, pay that these terror groups morph and unmorph and disburse, there is that risk. the intelligence committees here and in the senate looked at this and were pretty cool to giving them military weapons. that said, however, i think the fact that bashar has surrendered his chemical weapons should not be a permission slip for him to continue as head of the country. i do think we need and i think we are doing this through john kerry, to focus on geneva 2 to getting the opposition there, including some of the more scary elements. and i think the goal has to be to provide humanitarian assistance, maybe in some way find a way to build humanitarian corridors so that assistance can get to people who have been without food for sustenance for a long time but to shore up the opposition so that it can feed the transition to a stable government without bashar in it. >> we certainly squandered a huge opportunity to be able to assist them. the fact of the matter is there was even in the central intelligence agency, when i was having discussions with general petraeus, they were pushing back early on, the rebels were fragmented, unreliable, and just too much risk associated with harming them. but then by the summer of 2012 actually the institute had some impact on the central intelligence agency, because we had some real evidence that the groups could be vetted properly. and the c.i.a. did that. and as a result of that, the central intelligence agency, then led by general petraeus, gave briefings in washington, obviously classified at the time, that the rebels could be armed and they could vet them. and secretary clinton agreed with that. and that briefing went to the white house in the summer of 2012. and the president said no. that i think was strategic on our part, as a result of that the rebel organization, syrian free army, while still receiving weapons from saudi arabia, the fact of the matter is they know as a result of the last initiative dealing with chemical disarmament, they are probably not going to get help from the united states and that group is less homogenous than what it was. the modern islamists that were associated with the syrian free army have broken free of them because they don't think they are going to get the weapons. the fact of the matter is there's still opportunity there. and it's overstated about weapons falling into the amkide -- al qaeda's hands. the saudis have been i giving these weapons now for two-plus years. some anti-aircraft weapons. the best of my knowledge, we stay pretty close on top of this, none of those weapons have found their way into the al qaeda, and the vetting the c.i.a. has done and leaders they vetted are still there. i do think there's opportunity, but we certainly did squander a huge opportunity a couple years ago to truly make a difference. >> this is a fundamental question. you have been mill tipple hearings, congressman king, being on top of this issue. thank you for continuing to bring it up. in my view it's not too late. we should have acted earlier. it's not too late. i would actually argue if we wait f. we continue waiting on this one -- wait, if we waiting on this one the trends will continue to get worse. i think there is a incentive to do a couple of moderate things. i will note i was in europe in brussels, both to visit our partners, european partner agencies, intelligence agencies in december on the syrian threat, and i have never seen the amounts of concern among the european, number of europeans that have gone to syria to fight, well over 1,000, with, if they don't get on watch lists, will have visa waiver access to the united states. and numbers into the -- around a hundred or so americans that have gone to either fight or otherwise participate in syria. the control of territory that groups like the general have had, have grown and i think the more we wait, the more -- the bigger problem we have. what i would argue is -- there are two, i think, useful trends. one is the amount of support for the jihadist ideology in syria is very small. as we have already seen recently with the pushback against isil or isis depending on which acronym you use, the al qaeda affiliate of the west, there has been active fighting against them because they have been involved in brutal killings. they have been involved in harsh reprimands against local populations. i do think there is an opportunity. at the very least to provide nonlethal communications equipment, information, intelligence and information could actual -- actually be quite useful in their military and civilian strategies. i think, again, that the longer we wait to act, the bigger this problem will continue to get. >> i ask the chairman, 10 seconds at the end. in answer to the question why the sacrifices were continuing, and every american death is absolutely tragic and profound, keep in mind, less than 2 hours we lost 3,000 people. it's important to realize that. factor in again why these sacrifices are made, how vital they are, and what are the consequences if we ever again let our guard down. 3,000 in less than two hours. i yield back. >> i thank the chairman. one quick comment and that is with respect to syria, i'm very concerned this is a culmination of the sunni-shiia conflict and it's becoming one of the largest threatening terrorist training grounds globally. every day jihadists are pouring into syria. i agree, general, we squandered an opportunity two years ago when these forces were more moderate. i am concerned about the growing infiltration of the rebel forces by more restrict groups. and the boil back that could present to the homeland. with that, i want to say given the time and number of members left, that the chair's going to stick very strictly now i think to the five-minute rule. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. >> let me thank the witnesses for their presentation today at a hearing that i hope in its conclusion will emphasize that there is no partisanship in the issue of domestic and national security. i want to thank the witnesses for their thoughtful presentation and in particular to thank senator lieberman, congresswoman harman, and general cane for their service to the nation. i think it is important to note that i hope in the course of the discussions about the issues of national and domestic security that we will quickly have before us the newly sworn in secretary of homeland security, which is a crucial issue, and that we will, like my ranking member has indicated, pursue the question of how you balance privacy and security with the question of the gathering of the megadata. as a member of the house judiciary committee under the business section, 215, that was not the intent of congress. i as a member of this committee truly believe there should be a balance. my questions will be along those lines of balancing. i thank you very much for your presentation. let me also say that i know commissioner kelly as well, and certainly now commissioner branton. commissioner kelly served in the homeland security department and respect his work. you can have security in new york and, frankly, we know the challenges it faces. houston faces challenges because we are the epicenter of energy, but we can balance challenges with not having racial profiling. i want to make sure i put that on the record because that is very important to us. it's important also to note that president bush had a series of homeland security strategies that he offered in the 2000s. when president obama came in, he integrated national security and domestic security. and i frankly think that was a very smart approach because national security is interwoven, meaning security beyond the borders, making sure this country defends itself from foreign enemies, is the same, i think, of having domestic security. and that kind of struck -- structure is what i think we should be looking at. i have never conceded the point that al qaeda was dead. and i use the term rather than decentralizing is franchising. franchising was the shoe bomber. franchising was the christmas day bomber. certainly in meetings that we have had we know that al shabab, although they have a pointed issue, they are after kenya, but they are also reckless as it relates to americans as well. what goes on outside of our border impacts inside of our border. and frankly this committee has worked hard in particular under h.r. 1417, a border security bill, that has allowed us to work. -- work together. let me ask this question to everyone. in the chairman's comments he commented from peterbergman about the idea of an immediate threat at home. peter says that al qaeda controls much of the arab world and therefore what is its impact here? my question is, understanding that adjusting our approach to fighting terrorism from a broad perspective, can anyone identify areas of immediate need where the u.s. homeland is vulnerable. let me start with general cane and let me ask senator lieberman. my other question is is there any evidence that suggests scaling back of u.s. involvement and presence such as countries in afghanistan and iraq may reverse the efforts of the last decade to eliminate terrorist groups. might i also say and your answers might also say that we wanted to pursue and stay in iraq but they had to protect our soldiers and refused to do it. general cane. >> yes. certainly the engagement we have currently with senior al qaeda leadership in pakistan is critical to american security. to continue to be successful at that, two things have to happen. one is we have to continue our involvement with the pakistani military and assisting them to conduct counter insurgency. in other words, unconventional operations against that force. as well as the thing that they are most interested in is the taliban that's threatening their regime. so our presence in afghanistan as stated by my colleagues here is very important to us to be able to continue to have the intelligence we need and also the means to be able to execute operations against them. that is crucial. secondly, in my view the developing situation in syria and iraq will become the largest al qaeda sanctuary, and it will threaten the region, to be sure. we have to start now dealing with the harsh reality of that. and the sooner we get on top of it in terms of intelligence, the better we are going to be with dealing with this reality. this is what al qaeda wants. they seize territory, gain control of people so that they can become predator in nature in that area, and also they have never given up on their desire to cause more harm to the united states. i think that is major area. i disagree with you, congresswoman, on iraq. the fact of the matter is the immunity issue was not a serious issue. it was false issue presented by malicy as face saving because -- rlicy -- maliki, as face saving because the americans recommended 24,000 soldiers, mlicki knew that was not a serious proposal. the immunity issue got brought up at the end and it was more face saving for him inside of iraq than anything else. the fact of the matter is that is a significant strategic blunder not leaving forces there. much as we did post-world war ii. not for security reasons, but for influence. and we lost this influence over maliki, even further than that, it was more than the troops, we disengaged geopolitically with iraq. in terms of partnering with them which they wanted very much so. they forced a strategic framework agreement on us. we wanted to have a status of forces discussion about troops and they said no. maliki said we are not doing that until we agree to have a strategic partnership that will last for 20 years. that was their idea. we walked away from that as well. and now we have this debacle on our hands. that's the second most critical area i think that we have to pay attention to. without getting into the details of it, what's taken place in northern and northeastern africa also is potentially threatening to us. in principle in my judgment what you deal with, you cannot let sanctuaries take hold. we should be using partnering with other countries to deal with those sanctuaries. i'm not talking about bringing u.s. troops to bear. i am talking about some cases in helping people with training the system so they know how to deal with this problem and we may actually help them with equipment and intelligence to deal with it to be sure. but we cannot let these sanctuaries take hold and fester because they will be predator in nature on their neighbors and then eventually potentially dangerous to the mesh people -- american people. >> i just briefly answer congresswoman your very good question which is is there any evidence that our pulling out of countries creates a threat to our homeland? i'm fair phrasing but i think that's what you asked. i look back first at afghanistan during the 1990's, when as i said earlier, the general feeling in this cointry -- country was that was someone else's civil war when the taliban took over and al qaeda nes t'd there. that led right to the 9/11 attacks against us. iraq today is another example of that. we pulled out all the reasons that have been given here, and now al qaeda's back in and they will use that as a base against us. i will summarize this way. my reading over the last 15 years tells me that the reason that we -- the reason that we so diminished and degraded core al qaeda in the mountains between pakistan and afghanistan is not because of a whole government approach. we used the u.s. military. i believe in a whole of government approach, but that has to in these cases include the u.s. military because al qaeda's not a social organization. it has an ideological motivation to it, but it is a brutal military organization, and we are only going to stop it by helping the heroes in each of these countries who don't want al qaeda or the taliban to control their lives. and want to fight for something better. they need our help. they want our help. and if we give it to them, it will protect our homeland. >> let me just say i respect the testimony of the very fine witnesses. many of us would disagree, but agree that we have issues in both of those places, iraq and afghanistan, that maybe now need to collaboratively come together. and i know the american people wanted out of the iraq wars. they want out of afghanistan. but they also want those countries to remain strong, collaborate with them, to use resources, and as well they want us to have a strong national security policy that protects the homeland as well. i think this is a very important hearing. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee, mr. meehan, from massachusetts. mr. meehan: i thank again this very distinguished panel not just for your presence today but across the panel. your tremendous work on these issues on behalf of our nation in so many different capacities. congresswoman harman, it's indeed a pleasure to once again have the capacity to share a moment in this room with you. you'll be pleased to know, and i thank you for raising the issue of cybersecurity, because it remains a remarkable focus. and in the aftermath of the incident which just occurred with target, that's one kind of a cyberincident. criminal enterprises likely wholly separate fra the state sponsored activity may take place. i want you to know we have made great progress and we'll be marking up this afternoon a cyberbill. but i am worried as well about the concerns that we may have in this nation as we deal with a narrative in this moment that appropriately reflects in the aftermath of the n.s.a. revelations and other kinds of things. we have a better understanding, but there is a narrative that may be taking place which is privacy versus security. it's so easy for us to move so quickly away from attention to the security. so i am going to ask if you would give me your sense of where we are in the form of the cyberpreparation to deal with this issue of paying attention to protection of privacy but not surrendering in some kind of a knee-jerk effort our responsibility to protect americans in so many different capacities. >> thank you, congressman meehan. it's very good to see you, too. as i think about privacy and security, i often say they are not a zero sum game. you don't get more of one and less of the other. they are reinforcing values. things that we have worked on together in congress, like the intelligence reform law of 2004, senator lieberman, senator collins, congressman hoekstra and i were the so-called big four on that one, not only find ways to reorganization our intelligence community so we leverage the straints of all the agencies, but also -- strengths of all the agencies, but also sets up a privacy and civil liberties board which was supposed to be stood up then. unfortunately hasn't just finally was stood up last year. but but at any right the point of that was to have at the front end of policymaking the group of american worried about the privacy of americans. we did do both. it applies obviously to cybersecurity and people are genuinely worried now that they see that there was a theft of i guess it's 70 million pieces of crucial information on individuals. that's large number. but they also need to be worried it seems to me about the purchase of exploits by bad guys, which are very inexpensive. these are back doors into our grids. our infrastructure in this country. and so it's not just personal information, it is pick one. something very serious that could generate a life and death problem for our communities. so how to think about this? i think this committee has an opportunity, and i know you're doing it, to talk to the private sector, which controls most of the cybercapacity. .nd persuade them to come on in and a cyberbill, senator lieberman knows this better than i do, has to grant immunity to those who come to play. and has to respect the fact that personal information about companies is being shared and so on and so forth and make sure that, again, it's a win-win. i think this is the climate to do it in. i just add on surveillance because that has come up, too. same issue. there's not a zero sum game here. there should be tweaks, mind you, to the laws that we have. i think the public debate is healthy and the tweaks should assure the public that their privacy is protected, but we should never compromise on the basic parts of the system that lead us to find bad guys before they attack us. >> i thank you for that answer. you'll be pleased to see i think we have made remarkable progress in the form of bringing together not just the private sector but our governmental entities in the kind of framework that would be effective. but the one place we haven't been able to touch, you put your finger on it, is the kind of thing that will incentivize that sharing between the private and public sector which gives some kind of security, really, in the form of liability protection, to those entities which are touched first. no better example than a target who finds out weeks ahead of time that they are being impacted. we need to encourage that sharing in real time. i thank you for your focus on this very, very important issue. look forward to working with the entire panel as we move through these issues in the future. thank you, i yield back. >> let me commend the gentleman for your leadership on thisish sh -- on this leadersship on this issue, your dedication, to get the privacy groups in support of your legislation is not an easy task. it's an uphill battle. you were able to accomplish that. i just want to thank you for that. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. higgins. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i just want to play a little bit more on this zero sum game contest. the one thing you know in a zero sum game is that the sum will always be zero, but in game theory there is also a variable sum game where there can be multiple winners. there can only be multiple winners in a pluralistic society when the rights of minorities are protected. i know the debate here last year about -- last couple of months about military intervention in syria. we certainly did not support the assad regime. the justification for authorizing the administration's use of military force, all be it ot troops on the ground -- albeit not troops on the ground, was assad had murdered thousands of people. the rebels were beheading people. in that part of the world and conflict, i think the concern is not thaur' supporting assad, but as a minority you are afraid that all will be murdered. marwin just release add book called the second era of awakening. he identifies the middle east as being a pluristic society of sunni, shiia, kurds, christians, and a lot of tribes. he also says that 500,000 american troops in iraq and $1 trillion couldn't implant a lasting pluralism or peace in iraq. and therefore no outsider can. what's going on in the middle east today is a continued -- the chairman said there was a culmination of sunni-shiia conflict. it's the continuation of it. what's going on is shiia and sunni are continuing to litigate a conflict that goes back to the seventh century to the rightful successor to the profit. this is not about peace, this is not about democratcy, this is about control. and so long as you don't have, as za cara would say, in the book "the future of freedom" in the constitution to protect minority rights you are always going to have these conflicts. in northern ireland, george mitchell was sent over there for five years. the last iteration was 202 months. he -- 22 months. he didn't think peace was possible in northern ireland. he says in his book, "making peace" that the great intangible of solving conflict is exhaustion. not only at the negotiating table, but also on the battlefield. the warring factions have to realize that their commitment to the fight, commitment to the culture of violence, has not produced any kind of lasting peace and therefore they need to move in a different direction. so what were the two sides in the northern ireland, what were they required to do, the catholics and protestants? they were required to denounce violence and actually participate in the destruction of their arms so that the culture of physical force to achieve political ends was over. both sides had to give something in order to achieve that. you may say how request you compare northern ireland with the middle east? guess what? when george mitchell was finished negotiating the good friday accord. he was dispatched where? to the middle east, because the conflict is very, very similar. i just think that american presidents certainly can do more to keep leaders in those countries from going to extreatments. -- extremes. there are only so much we can do. our american military has been extraordinary. tammping down violence in iraq. tammping down violence in afghanistan. to what end? we can't impose a political solution. we can only provide a context a. breeding space within which the -- context, a breeding space within which the warring factions -- there are no good allies of the united states in that part of the world. not maliki in iraq, not karzai in afghanistan. we have to bribe his brother to help promote a lasting peace in afghanistan. we don't have good allies there. what we can do i think is what we have already done. and i think we are limited. i'm sorry i went too long, just interested in your thoughts about that. >> congressman higgins, don't know if i should be first but i very quickly would offer, too, i think we have some allies in the region. one of which is israel, which is a pluralist democracy and under threat. i strongly favor the peace process. i think it's in israel's interests and the palestinian people's interest, but that's one. i also think think there is another good news story, maybe, that's tunisia, where an islamist party, the anada party won the first election and has now in peace deal with other parties surrendered power to a coalition. and just maybe that can show some success. i think a lot of what you said is very true, but i think there are ways and our vigil lance and focus will be necessary -- vigilance and focus will be necessary that progress can be made. >> i'll just add briefly, thanks for your statement, it was a thought provoking statement. in my opinion we do have friends notice countries throughout the middle east who essentially hare our goals that what's happening -- we won't have any friends if we just pull back. they are not asking, as general cane said, for the u.s. army or military to be on the ground, they are asking for our help. what's happening now after the so-called arab spring is really a remarkable historic development in the arab world, which is an uprising against dictators, autocontracts by the people they want freedom and better opportunity to make more money for their families. and almost every case these revolutions have been led by the under or unemployed children of the middle class who are well educated, who understood how much better things could be. and what's happening now in some these countries and the conflicts that the revolutions have unleashed, is not dissimilar to what has happened --fore >> they will pass the omnibus spending bill. yesterday they passed the short-term spending measure. that's on the senate floor. vote coming up shortly. now live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend gary grogan, stone creek church, urbana, illinois. the chaplain: let's pray together, please. heavenly fathe

Related Keywords

Alexandria , Al Iskandariyah , Egypt , State House , Illinois , United States , Turkey , China , Illinois School , Portugal , California , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Libya , Cuba , Chicago , New York , Gettysburg , Pennsylvania , North Carolina , Texas , Iran , Afghanistan , Raleigh , Rwanda , Rhode Island , Florida , Columbus , Ohio , Virginia , Tripoli , Tarabulus , Michigan , Urbana , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Mississippi , Pakistan , Tunisia , Fort Jackson , Oklahoma , Dacca , Dhaka , Bangladesh , Kenya , Iraq , New Jersey , Nebraska , Israel , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Saudi Arabia , Houston , Capitol Hill , France , Italy , Palestine , Italian , Americans , America , Pakistani , Turks , Afghan , Israelis , Bangladeshi , French , Portuguese , Israeli , American , Saudis , Syrian , Palestinian , George Mitchell , Al Shabab , Vivian Stewart Tyler , Jones Fach , Ronald Reagan , Gus Cunningham , John Smith , Chris Stevens , Harry Truman , John Kerry , Irene Norwood , Chuck Grassley , Al Qaeda , John A Boehner , Julia Fairfax , Warner Sommers , Paul Krugman , Nancy Jefferson , Jim Moran , Lyndon Johnson , Ray Kelly , Gary Grogan , Karen L Haas , Los Angeles , Joe Lieberman , Gloria Jenkins , Martin Luther King Jr , Berry Fortenberry , Lyndon Baines Johnson , Deborah Graham , Jim Mcgovern , Rachel Ripley Beatrice , Martha Marshall , Sean Smith , Jackson Lee , Rosa Lee Betts , Lillian Drummond ,