tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. 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 each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, beginning this week literally hundreds of thousands of civilian workers are being furloughed and particularly at the defense in maryland's fifth district, across the street, and around the country. that means as of monday morn -- more than 650,000 hardworking middle-class defense employees are being forced to take a 20% pay cut for the remainder of the fiscal year. now, it isn't because they're not doing their job well. they are. it isn't because they don't have enough work. they do. and it isn't because we don't need their talents, their experience and their dedication to service. now than m more ever. congress has failed. congress has failed to achieve deficit reduction in a balanced and responsible way. in fact, we passed a budget through the house of representatives, the united states senate has passed a budget but the house of representatives and the republican leadership refuses to go to conference. refuses to follow regular order for which they call so frequently. refuses to try to bring a compromise agreement back to this floor. this congress has failed to achieve deficit reduction in a balanced and responsible way. instead we now have the equester, a senseless, stupid, irrational policy. that's a real shame, mr. speaker, that partisan politics is keeping some of our country's best and brightest from doing their jobs supporting our war fighters as they serve in afghanistan and around the world. last tuesday, i met with some of the outstanding men and women who work at civilian defense jobs at packs river naval air station in my district. when you go there you often see uniformed and civilian personnel sitting side by side working with the same dedication, partners in making our government stronger and making our defense stronger, each complementing the work of the other. now, as a result of these furloughs, one of them will get a 20% pay cut. one of them will be told to go home. one of them will be told you can't even volunteer to come back and get the job done. and the other will get one day a week of having to carry out the mission alone. at that meeting i heard from members of the packs river community who are deeply concerned about the effects of ese sequesters, department morale and on the local economy. they were concerned about themselves, but they were mainly concerned about the job that was going to be left undone, finished late, undermining our security. one person scheduled to be furloughed this friday told me, and i quote, i have a strong work ethic and i want to get the job done whether it's late nights and weekends and i'm worried someone will come to me on a thursday and i'll have to say i can't get the job done until monday because we are telling that person you can't come to work. another employee who was there last tuesday emailed me afterward about the upcoming furlough and i quote, trr many people in this -- there are many people in this organization who stretch themselves day after day and parenthesis, want to do so to get the work done to help the department of defense and the war fighter. i tell you many on both sides of the aisle have met these folks, not those specific folks, but those around the country who are patriotic, hardworking and want to make sure that their can you be is strong and we serve our people. one constituent quoted, i've already started to see these same people give less of themselves because they feel our congressmen, that's meaning all of us, and our country no longer puts value in what they do. we are undermining the morale of the american workers. we are undermining the ability of the american government to be as effective with respect to national defense as it needs to be. mr. speaker, this sequester is harming morale and may lead skilled employees to go to the private sector just when we need them most. the effects of the sequester affect entire communities with local businesses standing to lose as a result of belt tightening of families experiencing squesters. another one, 97% of civilian personnel will be furloughed. that's more than 1,870 people. mr. speaker, there's no reason why our civilian tofe workers should be kept from doing their job just because congress hasn't done its job. as long as the sequester remains in effect and as long as republicans refuse to compromise on a balanced approach to deficits that can end it, i'll keep coming to mind them and re exactly what it takes. i call on speaker boehner to end the unnecessary delay on appointing budget conferees which would be the significant step towards beginning negotiations in earnest that could lead to a big and balanced compromise on deficits. we need to bring deficits down. we need to get our country on a fiscally sustainable path, but we need to do so in a rational way which does not undermine our national security, does not undermine the services of being rendered to the people who are relying on them and that does not send the message to our employees and those whom we need to recruit in the future hat we're a good employer, we're a caring employer, we're an effective employer and you ought to work for us, you ought to work for your country, for your fellow citizens. mr. speaker, we need to go to conference, we need to get rid of the sequester, we need to put america on a rational path to fiscal responsibility and effectiveness and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, for five minutes. mr. coble: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, benghazi mattered and the american people deserve answers. on the evening of september 11, 2012, terrorists successfully attacked americans in benghazi, libya, and they torched our consulate and killed four americans. early in the morning the following day, they attacked another one. secretary clinton's response to the american people these attacks were in response to a video posted on the internet. the following sunday on september 16, u.s. ambassador to the united nations, susan rice, repeated secretary on five assertion separate television talk shows. mr. speaker, today is july 10, 2013, and we now know without question these attacks were strategically planned but had no relation to secretary clinton or ambassador rice's initial assertions. the investigation into our failure to protect those four americans who were killed, our consulate, our annex and the administration's abysmal explanation for informing the american public must continue. mr. speaker, secretary clinton days ago appeared before a senate hearing and was asked about certain facts surrounding the attack. she replied, what difference does it make? i suggest secretary clinton may want to consult with the survivors of the four americans that were sleighed and ask them what difference does it make. i think it was done at a rather uncaring and very impersonal way. investigating this scandal, mr. speaker, is our duty and obligation as representatives of the american people and protectors of the public trust. to date, congressional hearings have raised far more questions than answers. we have to look no further than to testimony of mr. gregory hicks before the house committee on oversight and government reform. mr. hicks is the former deputy chief of mission in libya and his testimony, mr. speaker, is replete with contradictions from what secretary clinton, ambassador rice and others have old the american public. this is a cover-up and we must continue to pursue -- to develop answers and explanations as to what happened so we will ultimately know what really did occur on that faithful night and ensuing days. mr. speaker, as i said at the outset, benghazi matters and we must continue thoroughly to examine this until the truth ultimately surfaces. it matters to the american taxpayers and they deserve a final resolution to this episode. i suggest we continue to keep our eye on the ball. otherwise this is going to disappear into the wind and that would be inexcusable. with that said, mr. speaker, i'll return the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, for five minutes. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, president obama's call to action on climate change is another reminder of the large and growing threat posed by the warming of our atmosphere. yet, instead of taking a leading role to address the problem, congress has been held hostage by those who would deny the science altogether, and every day that we delay, we're losing ground to develop new sources of energy that can protect the planet and break the grip of our dependence on fossil fuels. this past year was one of the most extreme years for our nation's weather. it was the warmest year on record for the u.s. and droughts, wildfires and floods were far more frequent and far more intense. in fact, nine of the 10 hottest years since 1880 have been in the past decade. in 2012, 9.3 million acres of land across the country burned in wildfires, more than double the annual average and the second highest ever. rainfall was far below the average and it was one of the driest years in memory. droughts, heat waves and wildfires are now the norm rather than the exception. the extreme weather was also a significant drag on our economy. superstorm sandy cost $65 billion. western wildfires cost over $1 billion. and losses from drought cost $30 billion. greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity are e biggest drivers of climate change. that is a fact that's accepted by virtually every scientist around the world. we're only beginning to understand the impact of a global temperature rise on a nation's long-term environmental health and the health of the world. but with each new report by nasa, by the u.n., by universities here and overseas, we see that the threat grows and the possibility that we can avoid catastrophe and can roffic consequence consequences. floods and climatic variations have been observed for centuries, often recalling noah and his arc. but the speed of the changes we're witnessing is the effects of human activity on the climate. we must act now. first, we have to die verseify our energy -- diversify our nergy resources. we should be investing in new and renewable energy resources. second, we must work to reduce our emissions. power plants are the single largest source of emissions in the u.s., accounting for roughly 40% of all domestic greenhouse gases, and the e.p.a. must put in place federal standards that will regulate both new and existing power plants. third, we must build a 21st century transportation infrastructure, a system that will support a growing economy and population. this means we needs to invest in mass transit systems, and car makers must continue to improve fuel economy standards. and fourth, we need to work with the international community, not against it, as many in this body have tried to do. america must take a leadership role. we need the cooperation of china and india, but we should not let their foot dragging prevent us from taking actions that will protect our future. prime minister took a step when called for action at the federal level to curb carbon pollution, just as we limit other toxic chemicals like mercury, sulfur, and arsenic. he also wants to allow wind and solar energy companies to use government-owned land to generate good power. these are good ideas, but a major effort on climate change depends on congressional action, and so far we have allowed this important issue, one that will affect our children and grandchildren, to become a partisan wedge issue. this country did not become great by ignoring problems or wishing them away. we did not become great by mocking scientists and those who would rely on cold hard facts or in this case, long, hot, endless summers. we did not become great by ceding leadership and new technologies and new markets to our competitors like china. the time to address climate change is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair wreck newses the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. america is a nation of immigrants. we are all either immigrants ourselves or the sons an daughters of immigrants. america's motto is, from many one. from many nations he we have created one great nation, the american nation. there's only one way to accomplish this remarkable fete -- feat, and that's the process of assimilation. unlike other nations, our immigration laws were not written to keep people out, they were written to assure those who come here demonstrate a sincere desire to become americans. to acquire a common language, common culture, and commom appreciation of american sthrule principles and american legal traditions. illegal immigration undermines that process of legal immigration that makes our nation of immigrants possible. if we allow illegal immigration, then legal immigration becomes pointless. the process of assimilation that our immigration laws assure breaks down, and the bonds of allegiance that hold a country like ours together begin to dissolve. there is a recent article in the national review which points out earlier immigration bills included a provision calling for, quote, patriotic integration of prospective citizens into the american way of life by providing civics, histories, and english with a special emphasis on attachment to the principles of the constitution of the united states, the heroes of american history, and the meaning of the oath of allegiance. then director of immigration policy objected to this language, writing that, quote, while it doesn't overtly mention assimilation, it's very strong on the patriotism and traditional american values language in a way which is potentially dangerous to our communities, end quote. that language is pointedly missing from the senate measure, suggesting a purpose fundamentally different from past immigration laws. it raises the question of why groups supporting this bill find the mention of assimilation objectionable and consider patriotism and tradugsal american values not only disagreeable but in their word, dangerous. now, to those who say we need a path to citizenship, i must point out we already have such a path, it is followed by millions of legal immigrants who have obeyed all of our laws, who have respected our nation's sovereignty, who have done everything our countries asked of them to do, including waiting patiently in line and now watching millions of illegal immigrants trying to cut in line in front of them. the 198 immigration reform act promised a balanced approach. the combined legalization of the then immigrants in the country with promises of employer sanctions and tougher border security. as we all know legalization occurred instantly, but the promise of enforcement were first ignored and later actively resisted by the presidents who followed. the current administration for all its rhetoric is unlawfully suspended endorsement of our existing immigration laws and actively obstructed states from assisting in their enforcement. if this administration will not enforce our existing law, why should anyone believe its promises to enforce even stricter laws in the future. a common tactic of those on left is blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigrant, and paint those in opposition to amnesty as anti-immigrant. this is simply dishonest. legal immigration is the very he ns of our country. it sets us apart from ever other nation in the world. the fact that citizenship is open to you will who have a sincere desire to understand, adopt, and revere those ue nookly -- uniquely american rinciples enshrined in our declaration of independence and in the constitution. they do so by the thousands every day. by obeying our immigration laws, renouncing foreign loyalties, and embracing american principles. by doing so as lincoln said, they become the blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that declaration. illegal immigration destroys all of that and any measure that encourages more of it by granting special privileges to those who defy our immigration laws is a direct affront to every legal immigrant who has become an american and it is a direct challenge to the process of immigration that build our nation. to those illegal immigrants who seek citizenship out of a sincere desire to become americans, i ask only that they respect our laws and i invite them to begin the process of legal immigration that's already available to them and has been followed by the millions who come before them. i yield back. jimplee. -- joip the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, nearly every week that this house has been in session this year you have come to the floor to talk about the need to end hunger now. 14 speeches later i still hear from some of my colleagues that -- who doubt that hunger is a problem in the 21st century here in this country, the richest, most prosperous nation in the world. mr. speaker, i hope that anyone who doubts that we have a hunger problem in america has a chance to read the article by eli saslaw in sunday's "washington post" titled, driving away hunger, subtitled, in rural tennessee, a new way to help hungry children. a bus turned bread truck. mr. speaker, this is a heartwrenching story of hunger where children of all ages have trouble getting enough food in the summer months in rural tennessee. it breaks your heart. smallticle may focus on a area in rural tennessee, but it really tells the story about the 50 million hungry americans in this country and more specifically the 17 million kids who are hungry in this country. and the blame shouldn't be cast on these poor americans who are doing their best to make ends meet. consider the lagran family portrayed in this article. every, a mother of five, works as a cook in a nursing home. her kids don't have enough to eat because she overwhelm makes $8 and hour. snap helps during the school year when kids get to eat two meals a day at school. combined these five kids raging from 14 to nine months, ate a total of 43 meals and snacks at school every week, but there is very little help during the summer months when school is out of session. while the $593 food stamp allotment lasted throughout the month during the school year, jennifer only had $73 in food stamps left with 17 days to go in the month that she was interviewed for this article in the "washington post." if that weren't enough to convince people about this ugly side of hunger, consider this heartbreaking paragraph from art uckle, i quote, desperation had become the permanent state. defining each of their lives in different ways. for courtney, it meant that she had stayed rail thin. with hand-me-down jeans that fell low on her hips. for taylor, 14, it meant stockpiling calories whenever food was available, ingesting enough processed sugar and salt to bring on a interest's lecture about obesity and the early onset of diabetes. for anthony, 9, it meant moving out of the trailer and usually living at his grandparents' farm. for hannah, 7, it meant her report card had been sent home with a handwritten note of the teacher's concerns, one of which read easily distracted by or people eating. for sara, the 9-month-old baby, it meant sometimes being fed mountain due out of the can after she finished her formula. a dose that kept her up at night, end quote. mr. speaker, this is all taking place in rural tennessee. that's right, mr. speaker. hunger doesn't just exist in urban areas, according to usda statistics, rural areas are poorer than urban areas. according to the latest usda data, households in rural areas were more likely to be food insecure, while 14.9% of all households were food insecure in 2011, 15.4% of households in rural area were food insecure. let's look at the snap statistics. while 16% of all americans live in nonmetropolitan areas, 21% of snap beneficiaries live there. 10% of the rural population relies on snap, compared to 7% of the urban population. children under 18 make up 25% of the rural population, but they are 40% of the rural population using snap. these statistics show empirical that hunger is a problem in rural america. sunday's article paints a terrible and disturbing picture about hunger in rural america. together they show why we must commit ourselves to end hunger now. that's why it is so disturbing to me that so many of my republican friends seem hellbent on cutting huge amounts from the snap program. lirmly throwing millions of americans off the program. it shows a stunning ignorance of real reality, and callousness that's beneath this institution. during the recent debate on the farm bill, i heard a number of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle demean the poor in this country. and diminish their struggle. i heard rhetoric from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle characterizing these americans who are struggling in poverty in inappropriate and demeaning ways. it was offensive some of the rhetoric spouted here on this floor. i urge all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, to reject any assault on the snap program. mr. speaker, we have an opportunity to end hunger now. but we must take it. we need some leadership. we need leadership in this house, but we also need leadership from the white house. we need the white house to host a conference on food and nutrition. we need the president to bring the best and brightest minds from every corner of this nation together, lock this many in a room an direct them to come up with a plan. it is not hard. we need the political will to end hunger now. this issue needs to be more over priority. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, senate majority leader harry reid stated, if we do nothing, student loan rates go to 6.8%. as reported by politico. in case you forgot, interest rates doubled to .8% last week. the house acted to prevent it. the senate did not. today "the washington post" editorial board writes, i quote, the senate is set to consider on wednesday the keep student loans affordable act in what could be the chamber's only reaction to the recent doubling of a low student loan interest rate. lawmakers should reject this pathetic, nonsolution. end of quote. the editorial continues, and i quote, with the president and the house in near alignment on student loan issue, the senate has no excuse to fail. mr. obama should press democrats hard and work with republicans to strike a deal. not to vote for dead end policy. again, end of quotes. unfortunately rather than solve problems, the senate is wasting the american people's time and moving forward with another dead end policy. what today's post refers to as another campaign gimmick. the people deserve better. our students deserve better in this country. mr. speaker, the senate has no excuse. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega. for five minutes. mr. faleomavaega cloverpb mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, it's time for the national football league envelope and the nfl commissioner, roger goodell, face the reality that the continued use of the word redskin is unacceptable. it is a racist, derogatory term, and patently offensive to native americans. native american community has spent millions of dollars over the past two decades trying earnestly to fight the racism that's perpetuated by this slur. the fact that the nfl and commissioner goodell continue to deny this is a shameful treatment of the mistreatment of native americans for so many years. it is quite obvious that once the american public understands why redskins is so offensive, they will know the word should never be used again. the historical practice of trading native american indian scalps as boundies and trophies. for example, in 1749, the ation in maine and nova scotia to be paid upon producing such savage taking or his scalp. just as devastating was the proclamation issued in 1755 by spencer fipps, lieutenant governor, commander in chief of the massachusetts bay province who called for the whole extermination of the penobscot indian nation. settlers were paid out of the public treasury for killing and scalping penobscot people. above the age of 12 years was 50 pounds and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. the bounty for a female, female, mr. speaker, penobscot indian of any age and for males under the age of 12 was 25 pounds while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. these scalps, mr. speaker, were called redskins. the question is quite simple. suppose that redskin scalp was not for payment, was the scalp of your mother, the scalp of your wife, the scalp of your daughter, the scalp of your father, the scalp of your husband or your son? the fact is, mr. speaker, native americans are human beings, not animals. the current chairman and chief nation, obscot recently declared in a joint statement that redskins is not just a racial slur or derogatory term but a painful reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of ethnic cleansing ever committed people. he penobscot it is the most despicable and disgraceful act of genocide. recently i and members of congress explained the violent history and nature of the term redskins in letter to mr. dan snyder, owner of the washington football franchise. similar letters were also sent to mr. fredrick smith, president and c.e.o. of fedex, a key sponsor of the franchise, and to mr. roger goodell, commissioner of the national football league. as of today, mr. snyder has not yet responded. mr. smith ignored our letter as well. opting instead to have a staff member cite contractual obligations as fedex's reason for its silence on the subject. mr. speaker, mr. goodell, however, is in a dismissive manner declared the team's name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect. give me a break, mr. speaker. in other words, the national football league is telling everyone, native americans should, that they cannot be offended because the nfl means no offense. it is absolute absurdity. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. today i'd like to highlight two very important topics -- real ustice and military justice. as a recent case of sexual abuse illustrates, they are far from one and the same. last fall, lieutenant colonel james wilkerson was convicted of sexual assault by a military jury. the assault took place in wilkerson's own home as his wife and child slept upstairs. the all-male jury, four colonels and one lieutenant colonel, was unanimous in their ruling, guilty. wilkerson was sentenced to one year in prison, less than honorable discharge, and a loss of benefits. , general hs later craig franklin, a three-star general, who had originally alled for the court martial, overturned the punishment. eneral franklin has no legal training. wilkerson was free and clear and reinstated in active duty. now, that's quite a reversal, you'd say. there must be some ironclad, water tight, slam dunk evidence for a general to negate a jury of five officers, right? some silver bullet testimony? sorry, no. in this case, the reasoning for the general's stunning was, quote, character, unquote. the general simply felt that wilkerson was a doting father and husband. you know, a family man. ok, you say. maybe the general considered solid evidence that caused the entire night into question. sorry, nope. turns out general franklin relied on evidence that was ruled inadmirable in court. evidence -- ined a missible in court. evidence of support from wilkerson's wing man who had his back. he ignored the polygraph test that wilkerson failed. maybe this terrible act was an isolated incident, horrible as it was. sorry. nope. earlier this month the air force acknowledged that wilkerson had previously fathered a child through an extra marital affair. ultery is a crime in the military. this crime is no longer punishable and was kept quiet by the air force. why? because, they say, the privacy act prevented the disclosure of those actions without wilkerson's permission. can you believe that? those are the facts of the case. currently wilkerson is slated to receive full military benefits including a pension and health care for life. and this is what military justice currently looks like. if the uniformed code of military justice allows for such negligence and obstruction, then the code is more than just outdated and ineffective. it is broken. it is a damaging effort, and the military is damage itself. it's also obvious to any legal expert that general franklin was out of his steps and overmatched in this situation. is he a lawyer? no, he's not a lawyer, but you keep these proceedings in the chain of command and you get bias, you get traffic vessey, you get -- travesty and you get no justice at all. i call on the air force to convene an involuntary discharge board for wilkerson's gross misconduct, the secretary of the air force should also do a grade determination and assess whether wilkerson should be demoted to his rank at the time of his first offense. i sent a letter to the secretary demanding these actions, and 25 of my colleagues in the house have joined me and signed the letter. we heard repeatedly how bad this problem is. 26,000 cases of sexual assault a year. a tiny fraction of those are reported. it's rare that a case like the wilkerson one ever gets to this stage, and when it does, look what happens. zero tolerance evaporates and becomes zero accountable. -- accountability. the military continues to look inept, incompetent, arrogant and unjust to everyone but to themselves. in the meantime, we are left to describe this ongoing problem in any number of ways, a plague, a cancer or simply a national embarrassment. should we even consider this type of justice, this sham of military justice worthy of our country and our values? i say no, and i believe the american people would say a resounding no as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the rudy giuliani is set to testify before the house homeland security committee which is continuing its investigation of intelligence failures leading up to the boston marathon bombing. this is live coverage on c-span. >> the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the great state of texas, ms. jackson lee. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i want to thank you and the ranking member for your cooperation and commitment to the security of this nation. i'm reminded of my premise for serving on this committee, mayor, since the heinous tragedy of 9/11. those of us who were in the united states congress had the humble but awesome challenge of coming to view the aftermath, as you well know, many members of congress came to ground zero . sobering, emotional experience. many of us early enough to see the remnants of recovery. it is a scene that will never be forgotten by those of us who served but more importantly the american people. and my inquiry of the chairman on the issue of security to the witnesses and recognition of civil liberties is that i'm always reminded of those words that were said in the aftermath that we would not allow ourselves to be terrorized and we will not allow ourselves to deny our citizens their civil liberties and civil rights. i maintain that as a duo responsibility of this committee. i'm glad to see witnesses acknowledge the importance of that. let me, as i thank the mayor and all the witnesses for their service just make an inquiry of a line of questioning that i'm glad that mayor indicated that both president obama and president bush both said that our challenge is to be successful 100% of the time for if that's not the case we're obviously vulnerable. i'm curious and interested in your line of reasoning about leadership from the top and certainly we know among other things our presidents speak around the world. they interface with many of these leaders. president obama, of course, spoke in cairo, and it was all under the premise of making the nation more secure. i hope, mayor giuliani, you're not suggesting that those kinds of outreach would intimidate our law enforcement officers, because i want to do everything i can to let them know as a member of congress that believes in engagement i am however not suggesting that my behavior of engagement is to instruct them not to do as you have just laid out for us. that is not -- i'm just trying to clarify the record. >> what i was saying is does not relate to the statements the president makes internationally or his engagement against terrorism or his desire to try to work things out with some of these countries. i was really being more specific about major hassan, because i think it is exceedingly damaging to engage in this fiction that the attack at fort hood was workplace violence. and i think -- i know many, many law enforcement offices, new york city police offices, f.b.i. agents, other agencies -- and there is a certain reluctance to describe someone as an islamic extremist terrorist for fear you're going to make a mistake, and if you make a mistake the consequences are going to be very, very heavy. and i don't know that that played a role in boston. i'm not sure of that. i'm not sure we'll ever know that. but it certainly played a role in the case of major hassan, it was so obvious this man was a possible terrorist. now, some of this goes back -- to be fair -- to before president obama. hassan was being evaluated in the military also during the bush administration where there was a similar kind of reluctance. and i think it would be very helpful and very healthy if the hassan situation were described correctly, and i think it would leave us with our law enforcement offices and intelligence agents having a correct sense that -- which is very, very difficult -- but we want them to protect us not from possibly making a few mistakes about how you classify people. >> thank you, mayor, very much. i ask the chair's indulgence, i want to raise two questions. i see my clock is ticking. i think that was an important clarification. i tell you, mayor, many civilians were impacted at fort hood. i champion the cause that it was in no way workplace violence. it was after the fact noted, and those officers who were the supervisors of major hassan should have detected the erratic behavior. i call that connecting the dots. and i argue vigorously that we have to improve our connecting he dots. and if we have after aftermath of assessing the major we have to indicate the dots are now connected. there are lives impacted at fort hood. let me go to the other two witnesses. want you to expand on, one as the mayor has indicated, what we can do to law enforcement to let them know that connecting the dots is not going to drive an attack on their determination if they fairly connect the dots on individuals who have erratic behavior that suggests that they are self-radicalized or they are terrorists, if you could talk about that in how we spent our money. and if i could get a question in to mr. hoffman just to indicate, what are we doing right or wrong with a review of our own self-appointed, anointed terrorists in the united states? where are we missing the boat on that? >> congresswoman, i do want to make one note which is the day after the fort hood attack, the national counterterrorism center entered the attack at fort hood in the worldwide incident terrorist database. the day after. so i'm not disagreeing. i think certainly some of the army reviews -- failure to report that. but the nctc called it terrorism the day after the attack. to your question of how we're spending our money and how we improve the ability to detect this, we have spent a lot of money on state and local fusion centers. in my view we have not done it smartly. we have to make sure that the state and local fusion centers are, a, trained. we don't have people who actually recognize radicalization. we saw that in fort hood. we had agents and task force officers who were looking at the behavior and didn't recognize radicalization in the same way people that study radicalization would at the nctc or headquarters. that not only applies to state and hokal fusion centers but to the f.b.i. as well. we need to give them good training so they are not being forced to be politically correct. we have to tie the fusion centers and the jtcs closer together. the best places they're could he located, they -- co-located, they talk to each other. they play two roles. first, they take the pieces that the f.b.i. can't investigate or need help on and they help parce that out for follow-up investigation. second, they take those pieces that are coming up from the state and local officials when they see things and say that's a little funny and then they coordinate to see who will investigate that when the information is bubbling up. obviously in my experience, state and local fusion centers are not doing enough of that. they're looking at screens, they're waiting for a big event. they have to be more involved in the investigative work upfront to allocate scarce resources. >> well, i think mr. leiter was correct when he began his testimony to point out the series of successes and certainly our counterterrorism capabilities have evolved in recent years. where i see is the constant problem and the counterradicalization process or interdicting radicalization. this goes back to the somali americans in america in 2008 and 2009 where they were radicalized and recruited and sent to somalia and we see it occurring with the others. there is two dimensions of the problem. one is two distinguished witnesses said tightening up the federal, state and local law enforcement nexus. i think this is critical because in almost all these cases what you find is these individuals navigating between jurisdictions. naji went from new york city to colorado and drove cross-country back to new york. in another he lived in suburban connecticut and then crossed into new york. as mayor giuliani said, they were based in the suburbs in cambridge. that's one dimension is tightening that up. the other one, perhaps my colleagues can comment on this. they probably know more than i do. whace always alluded me is who is responsible for counterradicalization in the united states today. we're talking about a phenomenon where a crime hasn't been committed. certainly it receives high level direction from the white house and the national security council. that is no doubt. it was a priority especially under mr. leiter's tenure under the nctc. but beyond those two more coordinating functions and policy functions, who in the federal government is responsible for it? is it the department of homeland security? is it the f.b.i.? well, a crime hasn't been committed. this is why i think it's so important to enles local police forces, as we've heard, because at least they have the access and the knowledge of the street that can at least facilitate the identification of the radicalization process. there has to be some direction or some federal agency that actually takes ownership of this. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. chairman mccaul had to leave temporarily to a science and technology markup. >> let me thank you for the time and i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady. it brings back memories when i was chairman and the gentlelady was always extremely eloquent. sometimes overly eloquent. but in any event i recognize the subcommittee chair, mrs. miller -- >> good to be back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank all the witnesses for being here. appreciate your service so very much. all of us do to the country and what you've done. especially to the mayor. i'd like to just -- you know, i didn't know you at 9/11. i was still michigan secretary of state that day. we were having an election in detroit as you were in new york. but i remember, as we all do, where we were that day, what happened that day, what happened afterwards. and i think that's where you picked up what i think is your greatest title and that's america's mayor, because you were more than the president, more than the governor, more than the f.b.i. director, more than the c.i.a., more than the department of defense. everyone seemed to look to you what had happened, why it had happened, what was the path forward, what could america think about from that day forward. i guess my question, mr. mayor, how does the american people perceive this war on terror? how do we actually prosecute these enemy combatants, these terrorists, as well? because obviously we do face such a new type of enemy. it's not like the battlefields that are clearly drawn, everyone has -- each side has their colored uniforms on. you're able to very quickly identify who the enemy is. and you spoke about identifying the enemy and how important that is for us. but now you get a new type of enemy that sees the battlefield asymmetrically, really. the battlefield, whether it was the finish line at the boston marathon, they saw that as the battlefield. i want to talk about one -- obviously the christmas day bomber in 2009 over the skies of detroit, that terrorist, enemy combatant, in my mind, saw the battlefield that particular day at seat 19-a. at that time that northwest flight. and, you know, what happened then -- and we learned some lessons from that, as we always do. mean, the plane actually taxied up to the gateway rather than should had been held out on the tarmac, really, but we learned from that. then they arrest him, take him off to the university of michigan burn center where he received the very best treatment known to mankind. immediately lawyered up very quickly. lawyered up. lawyered up and so i'm certain we lost all kinds of valuable information at that time with that particular terrorist. and then he was of course tried in detroit at huge expense to the taxpayers for the enormous amount of security that was necessary there, etc. i guess my question is, i said actually that day, this guy is enemy combatant, should not be mirandized. my question is, how do you think we should be treating these individuals? now, he's serving a life term. that's fine. but what about all the information that we lost by not turning him over to a military tribunal or what have you? i guess i'm just questioning as we look at these individuals and how this administration, this department of justice is proceeding, whether that's the right path forward in an effort to really put into the american psyche, we are in a war with these individuals. this is not some law enforcement thing. >> i think it's a very, very good point that the reality is that these -- we keep referring to these individuals as isolated acts, single individuals. that's true. they're isolated and single individuals, but they're also connected. it's not as if these completely independent of each other. they're connected by exactly the same motivation, exactly the same cause tif -- causitive factors. they're driven by the same ideology. and if you recognize that it makes it easier to catch them. it makes it easier to find the clues and the things that would lead to who they are and why they're doing what they're doing. i also -- i certainly in both cases, the detroit case and the boston case, if it were my decision, i would have treated them as enemy combatants for the purpose of questioning them endlessly. the fact is -- particularly with boston, you had more than enough evidence to convict the brother. if you needed more evidence than that i wouldn't hire you as an assistant district attorney. if you needed more evidence by the time they caught them, you shouldn't prosecute a case. there was no reason, we didn't need his statement as a think it dmitted -- i would be a much wiser thing to deny him for an enemy combatant for three, four, five weeks and question him to get every bit of information out of him. same thing is true in detroit. we need to recognize about the detroit situation that -- it seems to me we only prevented that by luck. nobody should be taking credit for what a great job in preventing that bombing. he just was incompetent and we can't count on that. i always have found in my life that i learn a lot more when i lose and fail than when i succeed. and therefore i think you shouldn't feel any kind of guilt about going back and examining these situations where we fail with excruciating analysis because that's the only way we're going to prevent these things in the future. and our goal -- our goal is a very difficult one here. protect lives we have to be right 100% of the time. so maybe we can't reach that standard, but the more analysis you do of these incidents after they happen, the more we're going to learn so we fix it in the future. and why we'd ever want to deprive ourselves of information i can't figure out. i mean, there was no -- there was no tactical reason to give either one of these people miranda warnings. in either case you would be able to prosecute and convict because you had enough to do it. you certainly have -- enough evidence to do it. and you certainly have the right to say they had a conspiracy against us. one, they voluntarily joined on their own when they decided to undertake these acts. many of them announced to us their motivation when they commit their crimes, like major hassan did. we're not talking about the bombing in london that took place, you know, just a short time after boston. but that bomber went on television to tell us in case we didn't get it right that he was doing this in the name of allah. so we get an idea that he joined the same conspiracy. so you certainly have enough basis to describe them as enemy combatants. when you have enough evidence to convict it seems to me you should subject them to long periods of questioning so you can be sure you get everything out of them that's useful to us in the future. and then you can move on and prosecute them in a military court or you can send them back to a civilian court and prosecute them there after you've gotten out of them everything you can get out of them. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. thanks, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts who is great in this matter, mr. keating. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, as mentioned by the chair that there's judicial proceeding in massachusetts going on today but there is another judicial proceeding going on and james whitey bulger. they have a common threat what happens when information is not shared among law enforcement offices and how they can butt heads and actually hurt the effort. that's what this committee's responsibility is. that's what my responsibility is as congressman, too. through an oversight function, not a blame function, find out what went wrong so that we can save future lives and i think we can. now, my involvement has taken me to russia. first, i sent to staff person to russia, and then followed up personally where i met with the deputy director of the f.s.b. and i met with the director of counterterrorism and while i as in russia upon my questioning, first questioning why they didn't respond to the f.b.i.'s three requests for extra information. and having those top officials say they didn't know anything about the requests, never heard about them. they said to me, get me the names of the people that -- the request was made to under them. and get me the dates of when that was sent. so there's a gap. they wanted to get the answer to that. . in my questioning them they referred to a piece of paper, finally i asked them, they said it was a march 4, 2011 correspondent they sent to the f.b.i. and the c.i.a.. and i asked them for a copy, they said, can't you get one from your own people? i asked them for theirs and kept prodding because i wasn't sure if i could. i still don't. and this committee has requested that and still doesn't have a copy of that as a matter of fact. but they read to me that document of march 4, 2011, and it was amazing in its teaching dealing with za nigh yeff. that's what prompted the interview by the f.b.i. and joint terrorism task force hortly thereafter. he was put into the database, but shortly thereafter, i think about a three-month period, from what i could gather, that file was closed. case closed. now, nine months later, after that date of that letter, tsarnaev was in russia. we had reports that our office was able to get that he was meeting with a known terrorist, insurgent. someone already on the radar screen in russia. had they known this. yet there was another gap where that could have been closed. e came back to the u.s., after the person he met with, reportedly, was killed, and the other person known to him was killed. he beat feet and went home, i think. when he came home, he applied for citizenship. there is a f.b.i. background check that went into that, that's my understanding. now, he's already on those databases. and in the course of doing that, they still -- they probed him for the background check to go ahead and proceed with the citizenship. it wasn't picked up then. if they were in the database and you have gone through that, why wasn't that picked up as well? the department of homeland security, we asked them, we said despite being on those databases, why was he able to pass the f.b.i. background check and at least receive the citizenship interview? and d.h.s., department of homeland security, said, yes, they communicated that to the f.b.i. but the case was closed. part of our oversight has to deal with this case closed process. because something's wrong. the answer that we keep getting back is, well, it wouldn't have mattered anyway because the case was closed. his activities didn't stop. we have to find a way, i'm suggesting this is a question to any of us, we have to find a way to get through this bureaucracy where case closed stops everything. in fact, became an excuse for why other things weren't done. with different agencies. -- agencies of the u.s. government. what can we do about this? our obligation is oversight, our obligation is to look at the process and there's obviously things that were wrong. help us, if you could, with your expertise, how can we crack through some of these things so we don't have a future case closed roadblock that just stops everything from happening? makengressman, i think you observations that are right. let assume the f.b.i. did everything right up to the moment of closing the case. there was nothing sufficiently suspicious, they interviewed him and said it was closed. his life goes on. he continues to evolve. we've got to have a system for both the state and locals after the f.b.i. and homeland security, that that information is getting added back into that closed case so people go back and say should it shill be closed or should we reopen it? if that's not happening, in some cases it's not, that's bad. but i'm going to turn around a little bit which is we all -- you also have to tell the f.b.i. and state and locals how long should they keep going back and looking at these people? now let's take it out of the extremist terrorists, and let's put it in the domestic terrorism case. somebody gets a tip that their neighbor in texas is stockpiling guns and the f.b.i. goes and interviews him and says, are you kidding me? i'm not violent. i just like shooting guns. they close the case. how long should the f.b.i. go back and look at that case, how long should the state and locals look at that case wondering about that person and still in some way or another keep them under suspicion? >> let me ask you one question. how common is it a country like russia, get that specific, i know you haven't read it, that specific kind of information to a country -- if that's the case, wouldn't you go back to that country? part that have, by the way, as i recall, a reference to the fact he might change his name slightly in trying to come back, which either it was a scribner's errrory, has been reported, not personal information, that that -- his name is slightly altered, too. >> it's not common, but i have great sympathy for an organization when they go back to an intelligence agency and get stiff-armed three times in a row. >> i don't know if that's the case. that's my point. >> i think it is relatively common, but, again, whether it's this case or another case, there are going to be cases that the f.b.i. closes. how do we spread that responsibility, share that with the state and locals, so other resources can keep an eye on it and how long? right now the fusion centers, frank lirks aren't doing a great job of picking that up because we haven't trained them to do that. the jttf rules make it difficult, not impossible, but difficult for that information to be shared. so the mayor of new york for ray kelly or ed davis, or the cambridge police chief can decide, you know what, this is worth my time and energy even if it's not worth the f.b.i.'s. we don't want the f.b.i. making that decision. we want the state and local authorities making that decision because they know if they want to guard against that or robberies or anything else. you've got to make sure that information is shared systematically with oversight and then put that burden on the state and locals in the fusion center to do with it what they want and make sure that that information is being refreshed with any other information. >> it clearly should have come up with trying to get the citizenship again. that's after he returned from kazakhstan. something still should have been in the system internally. we are not talking civil rights. we are talking about something internally in the system that would have red flagged that. i don't think there are any clear answers. that's going to be our job here to do these things. but when we talk about information sharing, i want to give this one comment, part of the information sharing better be with the members of congress as well. we are not getting that information to conduct our proper oversight. and i'm glad to hear the chairman say we are not going to stop until we get it. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i apologize to the witnesses, i got called on a vote for nasa re-authorization and had to go over there. director leiter, it would be interesting for you to give recommendations on the fusion centers, as you mentioned. i think they have a role heemplet i don't think they are doing -- the texas fusion center works really well, but not other places in the country, and that would be helpful. >> if i could, i don't mean to put all the blame on the fusion centers, either. this has to be relationship between the f.b.i. and fusion centers. the f.b.i. has to provide the information to the fusion centers so they can do this and support the state and local authorities in that follow-on operational mission. >> mr. keating, i think we heard repeatedly in boston, case closed. with that i recognize mr. meehan from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks again to this very, very distinguished panel. i want to follow up a little bit on my good friend mr. keating's inquiries. it goes to the degree to which there is an ability to pursue investigations, at what point in time do you discontinue an investigation? mayor, it's been a while since you have blown off your old u.s. attorney's manual. >> i don't think they had manuals in my day. >> it might have been fair to act. that's part of the issue. mr. leiter, as a former prosecutor, i know you worked very, very closely with the -- in your prior capacity with the rules and some extent the constraints, we had senator lieberman before us who spent a great deal of time looking at these issues as well. in the aftermath of boston one. things he was concerned about were attorneys generals got blinds which may of themselves allow even the agents themselves to ask questions to a certain point. then political correctness, you only ask so long. which would never happen in a murder investigation. those were the days when we used to look traditionally at crimes that were committed and we asked questions until we had resolution. now the dynamic has changed. we are being asked to investigate matters before a crime commits. so there's some tension about how deeply you go. do we need to revisit guidelines? do we need to be more aggressive at pursuing this these? where is the right place for us to keep cases in some kind of status in which new information, particularly you have touched on it, the information that comes over the internet, becomes the kind of thing that allows us to reopen the inquiry? >> congressman i think you -- congressman, i think you nailed t this is where the mayor is right. political correctness comes in to being. and you have one overarching issue. congress passes a law, maybe it's the privacy act, the fisa act, whatever it might be, then the attorney general has guidelines. and usually they push the bar down a little farther. then you have the f.b.i. create their domestic intelligence operations guidelines. and they make everybody a little bit more nervous. and you wanted to let them do this, and suddenly they are doing a lot less internally. i think the role congress has to play is to make sure that those attorney general guidelines and the f.b.i. internal regulations about what they can do are really consistent and aren't being risk adverse in asking those questions. as you yourself know, these sorts of investigations are different for a bank robbery. they are different because there hasn't been a crime, and they are also different because they implicate the first amendment and the freedom of religion in some cases in the way a normal bank robbery doesn't. it's a riskier area. you have to make sure you got good alignment between how people are operating in the federal government in the fusion centers and jttf, so it's within the maximum authority of the law. after they do that, you need to give them top cover. because i sat in this chair when i was an official in the u.s. government and i was getting yelled at by people in your seats about how dare you watch list my constituent. my constituent never did anything and every time t.s.a. stops them at the airport, and three months later after the christmas day bombing, the very same people, not suggesting members of this committee, were saying how dare you, mr. leiter, why aren't there more people on the no-fly list? everyone should be on the no-fly list. you have to set that bar, make sure that the executive branch is honoring that bar to its fullest, and then be honest after the fact that people in the executive branch are doing really hard jobs. did it with your blessing, as long as they are doing what you are explicit about allowing them to do. >> i think you're right. obviously those were members of a prior congress you were talking about. but the n.s.a. issue is a perfect example of how it's had a tremendously chilling effect on the ability of us to pursue where we need to go as a nation in terms of protecting the homeland. maybe it's an appropriate time to be asking those questions as well. mr. mayor, do you have any thoughts on the comments mr. leiter made? >> i think he's absolutely right. i think that the reality is that hese are just natural concerns that people who are doing high-risk investigations have. and the atmosphere you create for them means they are going to go further or they are going to back off. if they think they are going to be criticized if they make a mistake, they are going to back off quickly. if they think they are going to be supported, if they make a mistake, then they are going to go further. but there is a second issue i think -- when i was listening to mr. keating's question also comes up. i don't know it is just a matter of political correctness or fear or -- i also think it's a matter of resources. the f.b.i., as i pointed out, is only 12,000, 13,000 agents. that's a very small law enforcement agency. new york city police department? 35,000 police officers. when i was the mayor, it was 41,000 police officers. 800,000 police officers nationwide. in a 12,000 person organization, you have to have some degree of discipline and economy about what you can investigate. you can't investigate everything. even things that should be investigated, you can't investigate. you don't have the resources to do it. i think the suggestion, which either came from mr. keating or mr. leiter or both, that one of your recommendations should be if the f.b.i. doesn't want to pursue it, and if they can be honest about it because they don't have the resources to do it, which they don't, then they should turn it over to philadelphia police or boston police or the new york police or chicago police to further investigate. then they can make the decision with a larger resource pool available, if it's something worth pursuing or is it? i think in this situation, as least we know enough about it, this would have been something if you had more resources, this is something you would have kept after. particularly i find his going back to russia a startling event , particularly since he sought asylum in the united states. i dealt with thousands of asylum case when is i was the attorney general, because it was during the boatlift and the haitian migration, you get asylum in the united states if you prove that there is a valid fear of persecution if you go back to your homeland. so he proved to our satisfaction , his family did, that he would be persecuted if he went back to russia. and all of a sudden he gets up and goes back to russia after the russians told us he was a suspected terrorist. alarm bells should have gone off when that happened. something strange is going on here that this guy is going back to the country from which he was persecuted which seems to me you put him back on the list and you watch him more carefully. there was plenty here. if the f.b.i. had come to the conclusion we have done the best we can, we don't have the resources to go any further, then you've got this very large local law enforcement agency, give them the chance at least to go forward. something should be built in whatever protocols exist so the f.b.i. is encouraged to do that. if they have to straighten out a local law enforcement agency, get the local law enforcement agency to make itself more responsible, less likely to leak, then raise that issue and get that straightened out in advance. >> i know, mr. chairman, as i yield back, that one of the -- that is one of the concepts that was behind the creation of the fusion centers was just that principle, that they would be the follow-up force to pursuit that which could not be done. the fact it isn't happening appropriately is i think another weakness that we ought to be observing and putting in as part of the analysis that is included in your report. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. certaiwithe chair now recs hill from texas. >> yesterday, a subcommittee of this full body led by chairman duncan of the subcommittee had a hearing about the influence of iran in the western hemisphere. understanding thaters may enter this country through many other ports of entry, i'm curious about your thoughts on what we can do more in terms of a relationship with canada and mexico to prevent these terrorists from coming into this country. >> i think congressman, we have at least two examples already. iranian influence or sponsor terrorists using both of those countries. the plot against the saudi ambassador, sponsored by iran and involved the southern border. and as professor hoffman noted, you have al qaeda inspired plot in canada which involved leadership -- al qaeda leadership in iran. we know both those borders are vulnerabilities. they pose they different challenges. in the southwest bosheder -- border it's mass and volume. but frankly, if you have iranians coming through that border, they tend to stand out. on the northern border obviously there's still lots of mass and volume, but it's a very diverse population coming across that northern border, in that case it can be harder to capture these people. all going to ensuring that d.h.s., f.b.i., c.i.a., are sharing information about travelers in a seamless way so you can detect these people. it also goes to another point, which is as a general matter of the past 12 years, iranian sponsored terrorism in the form of hezbollah has not gotten the same focus as al qaeda inspired terrorism in the u.s. appropriately so. but if you're going to free up the f.b.i. to pursuit iranian sponsored terrorism, which i think is a real and growing threat in this country, then you have to have them shed some other mission. one of the ways to do that goes right back to what the mayor was saying about ensuring state and locals are being fully leveraged. iran is a real threat on both borders. we have seen it over the past two years. and the f.b.i. has to have the resources to pursue that threat and you can do that in part by leveraging state and locals for these lower level threats like what eventually became the boston bombing. >> so do you view the degree of risk in the standpoint of entry of iranian terrorists as equal? >> congress bhan, i view it as different. it is a real threat that iran, especially were there to be a conflict between the west in iran over its nuclear facilities, there is a real threat of iran using hezbollah to attack the u.s. there are hezbollah operatives in the u.s. today. we have seen kurds force plot u.s. attacks. and the vulnerability. if there is a shooting war, to some extent the iranians already think they are in a shooting war with us, we will become increasingly vulnerable. >> i guess what i meant as equal. the threat of entry by either border being as virtually equal. >> congressman, frankly i wouldn't diminish the possibility of either of those entries, northern border, southern border, nor any port of entry. iran and hezbollah are spicted enough to get operatives in this country through any of the three. and they'll use anything to get people inside. >> my next question was, in terms of our relationships with both countries, what more can we do to avoid those threats? >> congressman, i wish i were a greater expert on our current relations with mexico and canada on this. i know mrs. miller has left and there is pressure to keep both these borders open for very good economic reasons. at the same time having worked more with canadians, i think they are very focused on this issue. on the mexico border, southwest border, fragely i think that from the government of mexico perspective there are bigger issues than iran. and that is the general insecurity of the border and the flow of drugs, guns. i think in that case probably continuing to focus on this with the government of mexico would be critical. >> you mentioned with respect to the "new york times" bombing that there was -- due to the type of fertilizer that that particular bomber had used and -- because there were mechanisms in place that were able to detect other more dangerous versions, what information do we have about the materials that were used in the boston bombing in that regard and if you have that information, could you elaborate why maybe we were not able to identify those materials? >> we learned from the oklahoma ty bombing that nitrogen nitrogen based -- fertilizer is an effective explosive device. after that event the f.b.i. started to control that. if you buy 1,000 pounds, the next day agent smith will probably knock on your door and say, how come you are buying this. that's why shazad didn't buy the right fertilizer. in the case of boston, the enemy got smarter. the enemy got smarter in part because they were trained through things like al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. and they bought things that really can't be controlled very well. you can't control the purchase of pressure cookers. you can't control -- you can, not technically, control the purchase of firecrackers. you can't control the purchase of small bb's and things like that. they were smart enough to buy things that aren't controlled. and that regrettably, i think, as the mayor and the professor said, when you are a part of this ideological group, you learn from each other's mistakes and get smarter about it. they were smart about it. the good news is they couldn't build bombs that were nearly as big and powerful as we have seen in the past. big enough and powerful enough to kill three, wound many others, but not catastrophic death at boston we might otherwise have. >> thank you, i yield. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> mr. chairman, thank you so much. i want to just thank the gentleman from texas for following up on yesterday's hearing about the iranian threat in the western hemisphere. i want to thank the director for your comments in recognizing that there is an iranian threat and hezbollah, all the iranian proxies and actual paramilitary groups are trying to infiltrate this country. have operatives in this hemisphere, and your comments sort of contradict the state department who i hope is taking note of those comments when they say that the iranian threat is waning in this hemisphere. i think that's taking a very narrow view. that's sort of like focusing on the row you are plowing and not the field. i appreciate the frankness and openness on the iranian threat. murdock ought to slow down on recognizing and raising awareness for america about that. i want to take a moment and thank the mayor for continuing to talk about political correctness. and director, you may disagree with some of that, let me tell you where i'm going. i have talked for the last three years about the disappearing language of terror. the fact that the 9/11 commission report used words that really identified the real threat. whether it's the words jihad or al qaeda or muslim brotherhood or identifying the state sponsors of terror or terrorist organizations themselves, these are identifiers. when you see the use of those identifiers are discouraged or those words themselves are stripped from the lexicons of some of the law enforcement agencies as we have seen over the last four, five years, that concerns me. because i do believe that you've got to be able to identify your enemy and talk openly about your enemy. when i hear that the d.o.d. and pentagon discourage the use of certain identifying words within our military apparatus, they discourage those officers from talking about those type threats, then you do, i believe, have a fort hood type situation where maybe military officers that saw something happening were fearful of identifying that as jihadist type threat because they were fearful about future promotions or assignments. i understand how the military works there. i don't think we need to back away from being able to talk about the threats that we face. so i appreciate the frankness that we are seeing today and from the mayor. so just a seguing in and let me just say that mayor giuliani and hours and days and weeks after the september 11 attack, your even keel, trustworthy leadership became both a symbol of new york's and our nation's resolve. and i have reason to believe that in the competence of our government's ability to respond to acts of terror and mass disaster came about from your leadership. i thank you for that, because i was sitting in south carolina and i was watching it from afar. i was inspired. i was inspired to the point to get back involved in public service. let me expound on that and ted poe from texas and i were on a boat if the philippines, a p.t. boat with a navy youngman in the navy, manning a .50 caliber gunfighting the war on terror in the southern philippines. as far away from new york as you could think. as far away from afghanistan as you can envision. we asked him, why did you join the navy? he said, sir, i'm from new york. he said, my best friend and i went down on september 12 and we joined because we never wanted to see that happen again. he was inspired from your leadership, i believe, as well, and he's serving our nation in that. when we talk about political correctness, talk about your leadership, you helped really, i think, start the ball rolling on the see something, say something. inspire americans to actually watch your surroundings and be cognizant of what's going on. see that backpack laying there? when we talk with the d.h.s. about their communication with america, they seem sort of antagonistic. it seems to me on a whole host of issues from t.s.a. screening to d.h.s. ammunition purchases, the department does a horrendous job communicating its mission and policies to the american people. mayor, how would you recommend the d.h.s. could better engage the american people rather than continuing that antagonism? i do believe that see something, say something is part of the answer to involve the american people. if you could address that. that will be my last and final question. >> thank you, mr. duncan. the reality is this is a very difficult balance, right. want an alert citizenry who are reporting to us information that they see that's suspicious. we want police officers who have been trained on the precursors of terrorism. i recommend to you an article written by commissioner braten, about four years ago now, which he describes the train egg put the los angeles police department through, to look for the warning signs of a terrorist act. you want a citizenry that's alert to that. you want a police department that's sensitive to it. at the same time, we don't want to trample on people's civil liberties because if you have a citizenry that's very alert to that, and you have a police department that's very sensitive to it, they are going to occasionally make mistakes. they are going to see something suspicious, it turns out to be innocent activity. that's a very, very difficult balance. it's a very difficult balance to strike. we have to attempt to do it. we always had to attempt to do it. we now have to attempt to do it if in fact we have finally recognized that we face this threat of one off terrorists, self inspired terrorists because -- self-inspired terrorists, because the only signs of them are probably going to be the things you see in the community by the police or citizens. i think that being honest about what we face will make that citizenry more willing to come forward and make that police department more willing to take a risk in our favor. if we engage in this fiction that there is no war, there is no war against us, that's absurd. they believe there is a war against us. it's just a matter of whether we recognize it or not. it's absurd to say that there isn't a correction between these things. within a couple weeks of each other there was a connection between boston and london, right? the bombers in boston were inspired by jihadism. islamic extremism. the guy in london went on television to explain to us, he was inspired by exactly the same thing. i couldn't think -- don't think we are insulting anybody or offending anybody, if we just recognize reality. if we don't do that, we are going to lose a lot of these hints. before september 11, i saw my city save interested terrorism several times by an alert police department that wasn't afraid to come forward. there was an incident that occurred about two years before september 11. a young new york city police officer, i think a rookie police officer, was patrolling a subway station in brooklyn. he noticed two men that looked middle eastern. suspiciously looking at a train station. i don't remember what the suspicion was, but they looked suspicious. he went to his sergeant at the desk, brooklyn precinct, he said, you know, i saw this -- these two middle eastern looking guys, they look suspicious. the sergeant could have said, forget it, kid. there are plenty of those situations in brooklyn and get lost. the sergeant said, i'll check with the jttf. so he called in the jttf. this was about 10:00 at night. a:00 in the morning the jttf broke into a row house in brooklyn and shot this man as he was about to hit the toggle switch of a bomb that would have blown up that entire building. they were planning to blow up this subway station. this is what we want to happen. we want a police -- we want rookie police officers who are alert enough to pick out things like that because it prevents -- they can't happen every time, but this is what the f.b.i. needs if it's going to help us prevent these kinds of things from happening. and maybe we have to err on the side a little bit of telling them don't be afraid to act on your instincts, because every once in a while when they act on their instincts they are going to make a mistake. the question is, on what side do we want to err? do we want to err on the side of making sure we never make a mistake and falsely identify someone as a terrorist who isn't, or do we want to err on the side making sure we don't have future boston bombings? i think that's a political choice not in a partisan sense but in a legal sense. that's a political choice that has to be made as to which we want to do. i know which one i think we should do, but i think that's something that's a little bit confusing right now. >> let me just end saying, god bless you guys and everyone that's working to keep this country safe. i believe, mr. chairman, that if we are honest with the american people and have an adult conversation about the real threat and real terms, i believe we'll be better off in the long run. i yield back the balance. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond. mr. richmond: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll just pick up where the mayor left off. that is talked about giving our law enforcement officers the reassurance that if it's a good faith effort and it's wrong or mistake, we are going to support them, because we want them to se their judgment and to trust their instincts. what, in your opinion, do we need to do to send them that message that you think would reassure them and give them the confidence to take that chance? >> i think the f.b.i. engaging them more would be enormously helpful. the f.b.i. developing, now with a new director maybe this is one of the initiatives that could take place, the f.b.i. to really think in terms of a potentially 800,000 additional law enforcement agents are available to us, probably isn't going to be all of them because they all can't be trained, but maybe the f.b.i. should undertake to train them in what they should be looking for, will the house suspend the rules and pass they should conduct themselves. even how they should conduct themselves in trying to strike the balance between how far do we go and when do we violate somebody's civil liberties? that would be a very valid thing for the f.b.i. to do. i have always found, here's the thing that breaks down these institutional barriers which i saw in the federal government and i saw in new york city government. some of our agencies in new york city government as congressman king knows don't get along all the time. the more these people get to know each other and the more it becomes a personal relationship, the better it works. the first joint terrorism task force was set up in new york city in the late 1970's between an f.b.i. director named ken walton and new york city police commissioner named mcgwire. they were good friends. and they were facing bombings that have nothing to do -- they were facing -- they were facing ombings that -- it was a cuban terrorist group. so they were facing all these bombings and they decided they were going to do a joint terrorism task force, make the cops and the f.b.i. agents partners. so they sit down and investigate the cases together. this only came about because of their personal relationship. most of the cops probably thought this was a terrible mistake, you can't work with the f.b.i. most of the f.b.i. thought the f.b.i. would be compromised forever working with the new york city police department. but because these two guys got along with each other, so if you foster these relationship, then this information flows a lot etter. >> that goes into my next question, mr. leiter, i'll give you a shot at answering. do we leave this voluntarily up to the f.b.i.? or do we set some sort of protocols or rules whereby when something's -- a trigger is reached, there is mandatory disclosure or information sharing? >> congressman, i tend to think-dirnl' an executive branch guy. i was judiciary, now i'm executive, so i like a little bit of flexibility for the executive branch because i don't think that a congress wants to be in a position of figuring out when exactly something should and should not be shared. you can also set the tone for this. i have worked with this committee a lot. it would be great to have a joint hearing between this committee and the house judiciary committee and invite f.b.i. and d.h.s. to sit next to each other. and you have -- that's a same that here we are going to work together on this. we are going to resource the two organizations, justice and homeland security, in a way that forces you to work together. we are only going to have -- fund future fusion centers if they were co-located with joint terrorism task forces. that's a message to the executive branch that you will operate in a joint way. we are going to set the standards. and i think it is -- you can provide reporting requirements. rather than providing rules, figure out if you get 1,000 guardian leads, that's a tip to the f.b.i., tell us what percentage of those leads are provided to state and local fusion centers and then to state and local police departments. then you can make the judgment. if it's 5% are shared, that's a problem. if it's 95% shared, can you have that conversation. i think that's probably better methodology of legislating than trying to say you will share under these circumstances, not under others. >> thank you for that. i now we have had a lot of talk about political correctness today. part of the conversation also has to be about political courage. mr. mayor, we talked about the 9/11 commission report. i still think we are far too in not as a committee claiming our rightful jurisdiction so the department of homeland security is not spread out all over the place answering to 108 committees or subcommittees over the last couple years. it's one of the suggestions that has not been implemented. and i don't think it's a democrat or republican thing. i think it's one thing this committee could do in a bipartisan manner is to make sure that we bring enough attention to the fact that we still do not have the jurisdiction that we should have no matter if it's chairman king or chairman mccaul or former chairman thompson, that we do it. i any that -- and i think the more these things happen the more it highlights the fact that we have an interest, ability to do it, but we just don't have the jurisdiction so that we can get to where we need to be as a committee. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. that is a work in progress and director leiter, your religious is one that i have already been discussing with the chairman of judiciary to hold a joint hearing. not sure the f.b.i. will show up, but they should in a closed session, i would think. mr. that i now recognize berleta. >> let me just say i have a special admiration for italian mayors who are yankee fans. i believe our first priority in any type of immigration laws are one to protect the american people. i think that is first and foremost in my mind in what we should do. and obviously immigration is at the forefront of what we are debating here. i like to point out when we talk about border security, sometimes what's left out is visa overspace. nearly -- overstays. nearly 40% of the people in the country didn't cross the border. they come legally on a visa, overstayed their visa, and we can't find them. any state that has an international airport, i believe you are a border state. when we look at some of the attacks that we have seen, whether it be the christmas day bomber. whether it was tammer lynn going back to a country he was fleeing from and being able to get back in the united states with his buddy who got back here on a student visa when he wasn't even in school any longer. whether it was mahmoud who in 1986 was given amnesty when in reality he was a taxicab driver and involved in the 1993 attack on the world trade center. the only thing he planted in america was a bomb. whether it be the two of the pilots on 9/11 who had their student visas approved after they were dead. i think it's obvious to me we have gaping holes in our visa system here. my question is, with that, do you feel that it would be in the best interest of the american people that we fix that problem first since we know it is a national security threat? and would solve half of our problem as well as making cities -- no one knows bert than you what happens when somebody gets by. i would like your opinion. >> there is no question that our immigration system has to be fixed. your body has just passed a massive reform. some people think it's enough. some people think it isn't. you have made a good faith effort to try to fix it. which hasn't been done in a very long time to improve border security. i think that too often we think of border security just in terms of illegal immigration. we don't think of it in terms of -- if we are open to illegal immigration, we are also open to terrorists coming in. we don't know who they are. drug dealers coming in. criminals coming in. people who are mentally ill coming in. a civilized country controls its border. there's nothing unfair about that. there's nothing inhumane about that. it's actually humane to the citizens that are here that we make a good faith effort to figure out everybody's in this country and identify themselves when they come in. virtually every other democracy aboutpretty strict policy who they let into their country. you travel, i travel. we have to identify ourselves when we go into england, france, germany, italy, china. any place else. i think that to the extent we can have a system that allows us to get as close to 100% as possible of identifying everybody who comes into the united states, we are going to be a much safer country. we'll be safer against terrorism, safer against crime, we'll be safer against communicable disease. i think this is just one of the hings that benefits from it. if we don't have control -- if we don't have reasonable control of our borders, then everything else find of falls apart. i hope that with the bill that you passed -- not you, the senate passed, and the bill are you going to pass eventually, i hope what comes out of that is whatever happens on the other part of it, much more resources for border patrol. i always thought it was much easier than people think to control the southern border of the united states. that it is not as impossible a task as people make it out to be. i look at the size of the border, i think of how i reorganized the police department to reduce crime in new york city, and i know this sounds like a strange statement, but i think it would be easier to control the southern border to reduce crime by 50% to 60% than new york city. the scale is about the same. we have 77 police precincts. you need about 50 border patrol stations. we had about 40,000 police officers. you probably only need about 20,000 to 30,000 border patrol to do it. if we did it, we would end up with a much better -- end up with a much better economic system, too. if we had control over who was coming in legally and we know who they were, then we could expand the a sufficient number having arisen of people coming in legally. we could make it easier for them to come in legally. make it impossible for them. i think this will help reduce the risk of terrorism and helps in other ways. >> i think simply put you wouldn't replace the carpet in your home if you still had a hole in your roof. >> that's right. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. this committee did pass a border squrt results act unanimously, which is -- security results act unanimously, which is almost unheard of in this political environment. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell. >> hi, mr. mayor. welcome. welcome to our other witnesses. i was a congressional intern when september 11 happened, and i really appreciated your leadership. terrifying time to be in washington. even more terrifying to be on the ground in new york city. and you really led the city with your leadership. i remember reading your book when i was in college. it.ill recall i think you would agree even the congress came together. it was a moment of bipartisanship. the members sang on the house steps, god bless america, and the -- in the days, weeks, months after our country did really come together. you had really acknowledged president bush's role and you seem to have praised president bush and the role he played. would you agree that president obama since he took office, that he has increased the number of drone strikes he that the bush administration was conducting once he took office and actually went after terrorists more than president bush did? >> i think there is some -- very good things that president obama has done. i think there are things i strongly disagree with that president obama has done. i think -- i particularly believe that the drone program has been an effective program. i don't know the program in great detail. there is an awful lot about it that's classified. i don't know how the choices are made about who is targeted for attack and who isn't, but if you ask me in general do i think the drone program is a good thing? i do. i think it's a necessary one. >> i more point out the program certainly has escalated where president bush left off. >> i don't want to get contentious, but i do have one issue with maybe coming at it from where i come at it. there was such a tremendous amount of concern in capturing terrorists and subjecting them to intensive questioning, including the three or four that were -- were water boarded, and now of course we killed many, many more of them -- >> and also -- >> the one hesitation i have about the drone program is did we deprive ourselves of the ability to get information from people if we engaged in a little more of the dirtier task of capturing them and questioning them? i'm not an expert on this. i don't know what the right answer is. but i think that's a legitimate question to ask. >> you would also agree as far as foreign surveillance in the n.s.a. and data collection and prism program, that's escalated since president bush was in office and our efforts to identify foreign nationals who are participating in terrorists in their efforts to communicate in america, president obama taking heat, his own party has stepped up efforts. >> he certainly has stepped up efforts and continued some of the programs that president bush started. >> enhe -- and he participated in the ordering of the killing of osama bin laden. >> i have given him great praise and told him personally i thought it was a real act of leadership in doing that. >> there may be disagreements on some of the tactics used, i think you would probably agree president obama has continued president bush's efforts on the war on terror and has in some ways been more successful? >> in some ways he's been more successful and some ways less. i think he's been less successful in capturing people and getting information from them. my major objection to president obama's change has been his unwillingness to describe it as a war on terror. i think it sends the wrong signals o our bureaucracy and wrong signals to our enemies. i think they perceive that as a sign of weakness and almost irrationality that you would not describe us as being at paragraph with terrorists when they are at war with us. >> i want to shift topics. we have seen in the last few weeks a plane crash in san francisco, right near my district, we saw social media with the first on the ground to respond. before first responders. we saw in the boston bombings that was -- the f.b.i. working and collecting information from social media and using it and engaging a new audience to try to learn more about the bombers that helped their investigation. and ask you to go back in time. what role do you think social media would have played had it been around on september 11? what role do you hope to see it play or see it playing as we direct the terrorist threat going forward? >> social media has expanded exponentially since september 11. that's probably a hypothetical question that's almost impossible to answer. if a september 11 were planned today, the chance of picking it up through social media and other forms of communication, which we now have much more surveillance of as we found out, is much greater. again, no is00% chance you are going to pick -- no 100% chance you are going to pick something up. i forgot who made the statement, i think you did, about how long we have gone without a really massive attack like september 11. i think one of the reasons for that is it would be very hard to do to accomplish that today. the things in place today that weren't in place before september 11 give us a much greater chance of picking up a massive attack. on the other hand, that then leaves us vulnerable to these smaller attacks which in essence take place under the radar that we have set up. so we are safer against one but we are more vulnerable to another. and although the numbers are different, large attack more people die, small attack less die. both are destabilizing to a country that values every human life. we can say, 13 die here and 3,000 die there, and that does make a difference, but it's still very destabilizing, particularly if we have numerous acts like this. if we have numerous attempts to attack us. even the attempts that we stop are very destabilized. >> thank you. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tucson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this important hearing. to the three witnesses, thank you for being here today. mr. mayor, you received great praise as you should have. having been knighted i hope you are not offended we haven't called you sir. >> i appreciate it. i explained to mr. king i try to hide the fact. >> i hope mayor is sufficient. >> in brooklyn this would be perceived very poorly. >> as it would in my hometown as well. i would like to quickly no up on mr. swalwell's comments, recognizing to me the severe irony that most, if not all, of the policies of former president bush had in place and which our president campaigned so aggressively against are the very policies that he has kept and perhaps president bush had more than a few things right. i think history will prove that was the case. i have taken a lot of notes from you gentlemen on the things you testified here today. you use words common threads. we talked a lot about political correctness. one point, mr. giuliani, i think you said islamic domination. i would like to talk about some of those ideas. the big picture or bigger picture. specifically i would like to talk about the motivation for their actions. what motivates our enemies to do the things that they have done? it's been said that maybe the u.s. is to blame for some of their actions. and some of their vitriol and hatred against us. perhaps if we had not been so colonial or if we had not exploited developing nations, or perhaps if we didn't have u.s. personnel in certain parts of the world right now. i guess in its essence this idea of american exceptionalism, do you have faith in that or do you believe more in the idea of american relativism or cultural relativism? i think that's absurd, by the way. and that's a topic for another day. i think america is as abraham lincoln said, the last best hope of man. i think that's true not just for americans. i think that's true for people all over the world. it's hard, then, my question is this, is there anything that we can do that will eliminate or maybe at least lessen their motivation to bring us harm? or is it a greater truth that the reality is that as long as islamic fundamentalism exists, that they will always seek to destroy us? i appreciate your opinions. >> i have no doubt about the answer to your question. because i faced this in the days after september 11 trying to figure out why would somebody do what they did. the reality is what we do is only at the margins of what they o to us. their motivation, their motivation, even though it can be described as irrational, maybe even insane, their motivation is their perception of their religion. is it incorrect, or at least i believe it is, it's a completely deceptive kind of view of the major message of the muslim religion, but it's the message they have taken out of it. the only way we can stop them is if we stop being a democracy. if we stopped respecting the rights of women. if we subjected -- subjucated women. if we stop believing in god the way we believe in god. and accepted their belief about god. to a large extent we have to do away with our financial system the way it operates. essentially we have to -- we essentially have to change our values to fit their values in order for them not to kill us. that's why they are trying to kill us. it's not about israel and palestinian. that's an aside issue. it's not about our occupation of any place because we haven't occupied any muslim lands really. it's not like the dispute with communism over an economic system, and even a social system. this emanates from their perception of their religion and what their religion is demanding of them. now, they may get to that because of psychlogical problems they have, but then when they get to it they are all joined in the same motivation. if you're asking, gee, how can we in some broad sense stop that, we can't, but on a smaller level, we can try. on a smaller level we could try to engage more with moderate, sensible, mainstream members of the muslim and islamic community, which there are many. we could try to encourage them more to step out on this. i'm going to tell you a totally unrelated story but it's part of how i think about all this. when i was united states attorney, the first thing i egan pursuing was the mafia. after bringing my first case against the mafia, i was criticized for using the word mafia. not only was i criticized for using it, it was demanded that i be removed from office because it violated the justice department gines that you couldn't use the word mafia. it was a gine that -- guideline that had been put in at the behest of the italian american civil rights committee. the italian american civil rights league was headed by joseph colombo, head of the colombo crime family. -- >> this hearing continues live online at c-span.org as the u.s. house is about to gavel in. members will continue debating the energy and water projects spending bill for 2013. blessing upon we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon those who are given. we pray that your reconciliation and peace, goodwill and understanding will prevail on the hearts and in the lives of us all. encourage the members of this house, o god, to use their abilities and talents in ways that bring righteousness to this nation and to all people. ever remind them of the needs of the poor, the homeless or forgotten, and those who live without freedom or liberty. may your spirit live with them and with each of us and may your grace surround us and those we love, that in all things we may be the people you would have us be in service to this great nation. may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of thely a deas aproceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the journal stands approved. >> i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady rom hawaii, ms. gabbard. ms. gabbard: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the entleman from oklahoma rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today unable to understand why we stand by and watch as our country's future is threatened. it seems as though each week delivers a new disastrous element to the train wreck that is in obamacare. now that that implementation of obamacare's employer mandate has been delayed, more uncertainty has been created among business owners. mr. president, you cannot bargain with america's economy in hopes that your political philosophy succeeds. i find it ironic that the president has now conveniently chosen to listen to the american people when business owners like myself have been screaming for years. this administration is struggling to prove the merits of obamacare as initially advertised and now resorts to excuses. mr. mulvaney: delay after delay proves obama -- mr. mullen: delay after delay proves obamacare is unsustainable. we now know what's in the bill, now it's time to repeal it. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their comments to the chair. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: ok. my, my, my, mr. speaker. jade andreska is a palm beach state college student with big dreams and small bank account. a mother, a hospice worker, has solely supported jade while paying back her own student loans so she and her daughter could have a better life. well, mr. speaker, july 1 has come and gone and the federal loan rates have doubled, making college more expensive for millions of american families, including jade and her mom who now face two generations of loans. mr. speaker, it takes a simple fix by congress to do the right thing, reverse this excessive rate hike and clear the path to one of the most important pathways to american prosperity, a college education. my, my, my, mr. speaker, can't we all work together to get this done? i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, when i go to the grocery store on saturday mornings, i talk to hoosier moms and dads concerned with hike prices at the pump and the checkout line. according to reports last month, gas prices in the five midwestern states ranked in the top nine states nationally with some folks in indiana motorists paying $4 per gallon. mrs. walorski: a constituent wrote to me on the fourth of july and said, he canceled his holiday plans because he needed to save money for a tank of gas. he wondered what is congress doing about it. how can we help hardworking americans keep more money in their wallets and pay less for gas and groceries? the house passed two bills to address high energy prices. to create more jobs and move our country closer toward energy independence. i supported these commonsense measures for single parents, for families, college students, senior citizens struggling to make ends meet during these tough economic times. i urge the senate and the president to join the house and pass this legislation to open more offshore areas for the development of natural resources. a trip to the grocery store or a stop at the gas station should not be breaking the bank of americans. let's show the american people congress can work together on basic solutions to make their daily lives a bit easier. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: thank you, mr. speaker. so much left undone. our students are crying out. maybe they're saying mercy. to avoid this 6.8% increase in their rates, putting hundreds of thousands of dollars on debts on our college students. congress must act immediately and we must push and drive those who believe our students are not important. undone, the high unemployment of youth. in a meeting with the president yesterday, i mentioned the idea that we must construct a program that deals with underemployed or unemployed youth, particularly those high numbers in our minority community. and then of course prevention of youth violence. gun violence. that is a crucial issue for all of us. and the congressional black caucus will be working extensively with the president to help drive legislation that will pass reasonable gun violence prevention legislation. but more importantly as well, to keep our young people alive, keep them in school and, yes, keep them studying, understanding and preventing gun violence to make them a victim. this congress must act now and end sequestration to make sure that america is treated well by this nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> mr. speaker, the true cost of the affordable care act is being revealed day bidet. we knew from the beginning -- by day. we knew from the beginning that the law was double counting more than $716 billion in cuts to medicare to pay for the new entitlements. another $115 billion in implementation costs were left off the books. mr. pitts: then we saw the $70 billion in projected revenues evaporate as the long-term care insurance plan was proven to be unsustainable and abandoned. now the president is telling us he needs more than double the anticipated amount to pay out the law's subsidies. could this be because the administration will use the honor system to determine eligibility for subsidies, with no verification procedures in passing out subsidies? maybe we should use the honor system more often. we could trust that everyone paid their taxes. that would save us all money we spend on i.r.s. agents. we could trust that industries aren't polluting. that would save a lot of money we spend on the e.p.a. reagan used to say trust but verify. the byword for this administration is trust and hope -- hope you aren't being defrauded. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. chu: last month the senate passed historic comprehensive immigration reform and now is the time for the house to act. it is because of our family values that we cannot wait another year, another month, or another day to finally fix our broken immigration system. we must pass a bill that keeps families together and we must do the right thing, the humane thing, and bring 11 million immigrants out of the shadows and into society. we must ensure that all who want to call this country home have a fair and reasonable road map to do so. i urge the republican leadership not to choose the partisan path. instead, we should come together and pass bipartisan comprehensive legislation that will fix our immigration system and finally revitalize the american dream. the time to act is now. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom michigan seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate something. i'd like to take a moment to recognize a major milestone for the leadington pump storage unit that was built in michigan's second district four decades ago and continues to be a great success today. construction of the project, as the locals call it, began in 1969 and was completed in 1973 on the shores of lake michigan, south of luddington. today employees back there are celebrating the plant's 40th anniversary. the plant storage plant was the largest pump storage hydroelectric facility in the world when it was constructed. it is 842 acres and is 2 1/2 miles long and holds 27 billion gallons of water. there are six generating units at the plant that can produce enough electricity to power a city of 1.4 million residents. this plant is an example of successful co-ownership between consumers energy and detroit edison. dy displaying -- by display placing higher costs, they save customers millions of dollars each year. mr. huizenga: what makes the plant's 40 employees most proud are the national awards that they've been earning for safe operation of the plant, however. the future looks bright for the project. there's an $800 million investment that's being made on behalf of the customers for both utilities to overhaul and upgrade the plant, to improve efficiency. and we just want to congratulate this plant today as it works to fit into our all-of-the-above energy plan. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, after president obama's historic announcement of his climate action plan two weeks ago, we returned home to our congressional districts for a week and some of us saw record high temperatures and drought. others witnessed unseasonably heavy rainfall and tidal flooding and yet this week we return to a house that's heading in the wrong direction. the energy and commerce committee is debating a bill that would give the department of energy veto authority over e.p.a.'s public health rules. the energy and mineral subcommittee spent yesterday in a hearing on the wonders of subsidized coal production. fighting climate change is the biggest imperative of our time. the stakes are high. and ignoring it will not make the problem go away. president obama's plan is a step in the right direction. and i'm encouraged that e.p.a.'s moving quickly on meaningful standards for power plants. strong power plant standards are an imperative if we're going to avert the worst impacts of climate change. we've got a lot of work to do, mr. speaker, and it's time to get this house headed in the right direction on climate policy. mr. huffman: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from montana is recognized. mr. daines: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor dustin ded for, a 24-year-old montana native who was monday among the 19 hot shot firefighters who recently died while battling a wildfire in arizona. the son of reverend steve and up te deford, dustin grew in the smalltown in montana where he was well known for his joyful spirit, as well as his deep faith in christ. dustin also had a passion for community service at an early age. in fact, he volunteered for the carter county fire department as soon as he turned 18 and continued working as a county firefighter every summer from 07 until this year when he earned a position on the granite mountain hot shots in arizona. sandy and i join all the people of montana in mourning the loss of dustin and all the brave firefighters who lost their lives on june 30. we are keeping dustin's family and loved ones in our thoughts and prayers during this most difficult time. thank you and i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize san diego's lgbt pride parade and festival that will take place this weekend. messages of diversity and inclusiveness are at the heart of the lgbt community. i'm proud to stand with san diego's lgbt community and lgbt men and women across the country in commemorating their history and working for their future success. from that iconic night at stonewall to harvey milk, to the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, and the overturning of doma and prop 8, we've experienced uneven but unmistakable progress toward equality. as we recognize and celebrate our lgbt family and friends, we must also do the right thing and pass a transinclusive employment nondiscrimination act so that all americans are safe from the worry of being fired because their employers disagree with who they are and who they love. this weekend is san diego -- as san diego celebrates pride, i'm honored to stand with my friends and colleagues to honor of lgbt ibutions people in san diego and across the country. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? does the gentlelady seek unanimous consent? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, we're learning an awful lot about obamacare these days. and it seems like every week is bringing something new. we have learned that this program we have learned this program is too expensive to afford. we have learned that it is too difficult to implement. we have learned that it is too burdensome for business. that is why the employer mandate is being delayed. indeed, we are seeing these rdens on business lead to an unemployed number, the new number, 14.3%. where have the jobs gone? obamacare hold some of that answer. we are also learning that there are too many mandates, too many rules, too many regulations. we are hearing it from our health care providers. we are hearing it from constituents. we are hearing it from individuals who want to be able to make their health care decisions with their doctors. not a bureaucrat in washington, d.c. what my constituents are telling me is this -- let's day. let's defund. let's repeal. let's replace. this law is too cumbersome, too expensive to afford. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, it's safe to say that congress experiences more than its share of dysfunction. too often members engage in behavior that serves to produce partisan gridlock and very little else. but this week western new york's delegation has bucked that trend. last night my office worked closely with congressman tom reid to protect residents from leaking radioactive waste at west valley new york. later today congressman chris collins will join in our efforts that will clean of western new york's waterways. and congresswoman louise slaughter and our state's senators joined in our continued push for airline safety in the wake of the crash of flight 3407 in western new york. there is no disputing the fact that on some issues we have vastly divergent views. when you respect the positions of your colleagues across the aisle, tone down the partisan rhetoric, you create room to work together for the communities you are bound to serve. i am honored to work with these western new york colleagues, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week america celebrated its 237th birthday. as i spoke with constituents in parades and other events, the number one concern i heard was about jobs. the need for better jobs. 12 million americans are out of work, mr. speaker. 4.3 million have been out of work for six months or more. we are more than four years into president obama's recovery, yet his misguided policies have produced almost four million newer jobs than the average recovery. the american people deserve better. over 237-year legacy proves we can do better. mr. pittenger: americans deserve a got that lets our economy grow, doesn't kill jobs with overreaching regulations and mindless bureaucratic kingdom building. just last week president obama conceded that obamacare's employer mandate will hurt job growth. by delaying implementation of the mandate, he he recognizes this policy is a failure. now is the time for president obama to show true leadership. put aside his failed policies and work with republicans on real commonsense solutions. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. barrow: thank you, mr. speaker. just over a week ago the administration announce add one-year delay of the employer mandate in the affordable care act. while a temporary delay is a good thing for businesses, a full repeal would be even better. businesses in my district in georgia have made very clear that the employer mandate would prevent them from expanding their businesses or hiring workers. one of the main reasons i voted against this law in the first place because too many job creators in my district can can't afford the cost of the employer mandate under the act. we can fix this. i'm proud to be leading the efforts to repeal the employer mandate along with two of my colleagues from across the aisle. we know this can be fixment. we have the bipartisan legislation to do it. i urge my colleagues to swiftly bring up the full repeal of this mandate and make this delay permanent so businesses across the country can get back to creating the jobs we need. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> mr. speaker, every coin and bill we use bears the phrase, in god we trust, sadly today our trust tends to stop there. i don't recall hearing in government we trust very often. president reagan governed on the phrase trust but verify. this holds true to the founder's original plan. three branches of government working to safeguard the people from overreach or abees of power by anyone. current scandals fly in the face of the very principles we lead our lives by and the values we were founded upon. i can tell you we in southern and southwest ohio take pride not only in hard work but honest work. mr. wenstrup: we now face an executive branch so vast those in charge now claim full ability is impossible. they claim the government is too vast to be held accountable. mr. speaker, will i not give up on the goodness of the american citizen and the possibility of responsibility and trust that we should be able to have in our government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. speaker, after hosting a special screening of the dream is now, at the rose marine theater on the north side of fort worth, i can assure you the hundreds of constituents who attended the event represent a microcosm of undocumented immigrants in the u.s. who need the u.s. to act now. mr. veasey: the dream for 11 million to come out of the shadows and contribute to the only country they have ever known rests in our hands. in my home state of texas alone, immigrants paid $1.6 billion in state and local taxes. the economic contributions of immigrants demand an immigration system that responds to the rapidly changing 21st century economy. we all agree that our current immigration system is broken. the senate bipartisan bill was a start, but proof that a long-term practical solution on immigration can be achieved, i will continue to work with like-minded colleagues to ensure a practical and fair solution. we can no longer afford peace meal solutions that are -- piecemeal solution that is are debtal to our society. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from kansas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to thank a truly remarkable kansan, american, who came within inches of giving his life in the service of his country but made an unthinkable yet not unbelievable recovery. mr. yoder: i first met army sergeant trosher two years ago. he was with the 158th aviation regiment and set to deploy to afghanistan. after being in afghanistan for only 41 days, the chinook helicopter he was flying in crashed violently and he suffered a severe traumatic brain injury. defying all odds, he's made a miraculous recovery and walked into my district office yesterday. his recovery efforts are inspirational and also a reminder that we must always keep our commitment to our nation's veterans. there are over 530 veterans benefit cases on backlog at the v.a. this is unacceptable to me and the men and women willing to serve our country bravely and honorably, especially those that now need our help in return. to sergeant crozier and all those who served, a grateful nation thanks you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. in the coming days we will soon be taking up h.r. 5, the student success act, which is a long overdue re-authorization of the elementary and secondary education act. i'm rising today to speak about the need to include in this re-authorization the native hawaiian education act. i introduced h.r. 2287 which does just this and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its passage. last week when i was in hawaii i had the chance to meet with parents and educators in the native hawaiian education community on the islands of kaui, maui, and mole ky. i heard -- molmolky. and i heard about this program which has been in place since 1988. education is by part the best investment we can make in our economy and future. we are empowering and educating the next generation in communities that have largely been underserved. at the same time, preserving rich and unique culture, language, and values of our native people. native hawaiian education act has been serving our kids for the last 25 years. and it's critical that these programs continue. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the nhea and other programs that can enable and empower our underserved communities to thrive. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to address the he recent doubling of interest rates on federally backed need-based student loans. miss beatty: students deserve access not obstacles to higher education. these rate hikes will make college less affordable at a time when we should be encouraging not discouraging people to seek higher education opportunities. to grow our economy, and to create jobs. due to house republicans' failure to act, the interest rates on college loans have for ed from 3.4% to 6.8% some 7.4 million students. in these tough economic times, democrats understand he we should be making every effort possible to increase access to higher education for all americans. there is no time left. we need to act now to reverse the rate hikes and keep student loans' interest rates he low so more americans can have a fair shot at a college education. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from american samoa seek recognition? mr. faleomavaega: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from american samoa is recognized. mr. speaker, a: 1995 former washington bullets owner abe polin announced he would be change -- pollin announced he would be changing the name to the washington wizards. it didn't happen overnight nor was everyone happy about it. but he knew it was the right thing to do and did it successfully. given the high homicide and crime rate in the early 1990's in washington, d.c., mr. pollin became increasingly concerned about the bullets' association with violence. finally when mr. pollin's close friend, israeli prime minister, rabin, was cincinnatied in 1995, he made the final decision. mr. dan snyder, owner of the washington redskins may never come to the realization that is so evident to us all in the 21st century, that the term redskin is a racist, demeaning, derogatory, and offensive to native americans. but i stand today once again to make this appeal to mr. snyder. i am thankful for mr. pollin's brave decision to discern the times and change the bullets' name. i urge mr. snyder to have the courage to do the same. change the name of your football franchise. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. time has come for this house to address comprehensive immigration reform. mr. cartwright: if the senate can fashion a bipartisan bill, we can, too. follow the money. bringing 11 million people out of the shadows would increase our gross domestic product by $832 billion over 10 years. follow the money, the c.b.o. calculates that the senate bill will cut the deficit by $197 billion over 10 years. what is not to like about that? the plan that passed the senate would strengthen our borders, crack down on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, and let those who want to earn their citizenship do just that. mr. speaker, if the senate can do it, we can do it, too. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm certain doing this past district workweek you were asked as i was, about what the student loans? what people were asking is what are you doing in congress about the rates that are going to double on july 1? let's review what we know, mr. speaker. we know there are 7.4 million students that are affected. the rates are doubling from 3.4% to 6.8%. and this means $1,000 more in debt. we know that a college education can mean about $1 million more in future earnings over a lifetime. we know that we as a country need to build up our graduates, to continue to be competitive. we also know that 45% of americans hold student loan debt. mr. speaker, it is time to act now for america's future. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle regarding the urgency to fix the student loan interest rate hike that took place last monday. the inability of congress to come together and compromise on behalf of america's students is embarrassing. doubling interest rates makes college less affordable and the increased debt burden threatens the middle class and harms our economy. recent grass who should be putting away money for their first home are saving up -- or saving up to start their own business are instead spending upwards of $500 per month paying back loans for their college education. recent florida graduates left college with student loan debt equal to 54% of their annual income. just this monday i heard the concerns of students in my district on how this debt will impact their future. some students are even considering dropping out of college. mr. speaker, the american people deserve better. i once again urge the house of representatives to set politics aside and immediately take up legislation to right this wrong. mr. murphy: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peters: mr. speaker, it's time the congress get to -- mr. peterson: mr. speaker, it's time congress get to work. i'd like to remind my colleagues here in the house that our generation was able to graduate from universities and enjoy great success for the most part debt-free because the college costs were less and we were able to get a combination of grants and scholarships. what we're doing today -- to today's generation is unforgivable, it's unconscionable. mr. nolan: they're expected to graduate with $30,000 of debt on average. we were able to start building families and homes and businesses and buying cars. our generation that we're handing over to is expected to pay loans. we just simply cannot allow this to happen. it's not right. and we all have an obligation to pay forward. this country's been so good to our generation, it's time for us to pay back. let's step up, get to work and stop this increase from taking place. and last but not least, let's put it in perspective. for what we spent in the war in iraq, $1 trillion, we could have sent an entire generation of young men and women through college and let them graduate debt-free. let's get our priorities in order, mook are mr. chairman -- in order, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. mr. frelinghuysen: and include extraneous material on further , nsideration of h.r. 2609 that they may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 288 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2609. would the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, kindly take the chair. of. -- take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2609 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, july 9, 2013, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. titus had, been postponed and the bill had been read through page 60, line 12. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. burgess of texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. in this house, in 2007, a bill was passed called the energy independence security act. one of the features of this bill was to take away consumer choice when deciding which light bulbs that our constituents could use in their own homes. since that time i have heard from literally tens of thousands of people on the inequities of this provision. mr. chairman, they're right. while the government has passed energy efficiency standards in other realms over the years, they've never moved so far and lowered standards so drastically to a point where the technology is still at this date, over five years, the technology is still years off in making lightbulbs that are compliant with the 2007 law at a price point that the average american can afford. last year light bulb companies talked about their new 2007 law -compliant bulbs that are available now but they're available at price points of $20, $30, $40 and $50 each bulb. opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not ban the incandescent bulb. this is true. it bans the sale of the 100 watt, the 60 watt and the 45 watt bulbs. the replacement bulbs are far from economically efficient. even if they are energy efficient. a family living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to replace every bulb in their house at $25 a bulb. even if those bulbs will last 20 years. this congress, this congress should be on the side of the consumer, on the side of consumer choice. if the new energy efficient light bulbs save money and if ey're better for the environment, we should trust our constituents to make the choice on their own move toward these bulbs. let the market decide. we should not be forcing these light bulbs on the american people. the bottom line is the federal government has no business taking away the freedom of choice from americans as to what type of light bulbs to use in their homes. the columnist george will, speaking on a television program back in december of 2007, describing the efforts of the then 110th congress, was fairly disparaging. he pointed out the congress had not done much work in the calendar year, 2007. he went on to say that the sole functions of the federal government are to defend the borders and deliver the mail. but all the congress had managed to do was ban the incandescent bulb. this exact amendment was passed two years ago by a voice vote and both times was included in the legislation signed into law by president obama. it allows consumers to continue to have a choice and a say as to what they put in their homes. it's common sense. let's give some relief to american families, at least until replacement light bulbs can be marketed as prices that don't break the bank. thank you, mr. chairman, i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. kaptur: yes. mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the very distinguished member's amendment. dr. burgess. and simply say that his amendment would prohibit the department of energy from promulgating light bulb efficiency standards. it is a common misunderstanding that there is some type of ban on the incandescent lyle light bulb, that effectively requires people to have a limited choice of only a compact fluorescent bulb. this is simply not true. regulations require only that bulbs be more efficient. so, this debate really isn't about choice or energy efficiency for that matter, it's about endangering american jobs, specifically american manufacturing jobs. given that american manufacturers have commilted to following the law -- committed to following the law, regardless of whether or not it is enforced, the only benefit of this ill-informed rider is to allow foreign manufacturers, who may not feel a similar obligation to import noncompliant lye light bulbs that will not only harm the investment made by u.s. companies but place at risk the u.s. manufacturing jobs associated with making compliant bulbs. further, it is the equivalent of a $100 tax on every american family. at $16 billion across our nation, through increased energy costs. the performance standards for light bulbs were established in the energy independence and security act of 2007. and at that time the bill enjoyed the strong bipartisan support of both republicans and democrats, 95 house republicans voted for final passage and the bill was signed into law by president bush. as far as i'm aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not changed and i would argue have gotten worse. families are struggling every day to meet rising energy bills and there are real savings to be had by moving to for efficient light bulbs. further, claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes a great sound bite but it just doesn't reflect reality. as a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers already are making a variety of new energy-saving bulbs for homes including more efficient incandescent bulbs. these bulbs look light and turn on like the bulbs we have been using for decades but are upwards of 28% to 33% more efficient and that's good for everyone. this is amazing progress in a very short time, considering that previously the basic technology of incandescent bulbs had not changed substantially since they were first introduced over 125 years ago. phillips, g.e. are among those currently manufacturing efficient incandescent bulbs and one is making them entirely within the united states and the others are manufacturing the key components in their u.s. factories. so i urge my colleagues to please see the light and oppose this amendment and my dear colleague dr. burgess knows that despite fact we disagree on this issue, i have the highest respect for his service in this congress to the people of texas. thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 9 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. bass of california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. bass: mr. speaker, i rise to introduce a straightforward amendment that restricts federal resources from supporting hydraulic fracturing in the baldwin hills englewood oil field, the largest ush -- urban oil field in the united states. the location of the englewood oil field as well as the the area's suseptibility to earthquakes require unique health and safety consideration and precautions. the englewood oil field is nearly 90 years old, 1,000-acre oil field with over 350 oil wells in the center of los angeles. it is surrounded by thousands of homes, schools and parks. in fact, 300,000 residents of los angeles, baldwin hills, ladera heights and englewood live and work directly around the field. additionally the oil field borders a state recreation area, a park that welcomes thousands of families and visitors each year. not only is the area around the englewood oil field densely populated, it also sits on the newport englewood fault, making it very vulnerable to severe earthquakes. clearly the urban landscape and history of seismic activity in this area necessitates stringent health and safety reviews prior to any new oil and gas extraction. however, hydraulic fracturing or fracking is occurring in the englewood oil field. without proper regulation or even a comprehensive studdy of its safety and impact. during my time in the california state assembly and since coming to congress, i have heard numerous times directly from my constituents that they are fearful about the environmental health and seismic effects of fracturing in the englewood oil field and the impact it will have on their families and communities. they have discussed with me several concerns about fracking in the oil field like the impact on ground and drinking water safety, toxic chemical dispersion into the soil and air, and disruption of the newport englewood fault which could lead to major earthquakes or landslides. in fact, environmental conservation and health community leaders like lark gal way gillum, jim lamb and mary ann green, have continually advocated for increased assessment and regulation of fracking in the englewood oil field. in addition a man from culver city has also expressed these concerns and i believe these concerns are justified. the people of los angeles and culver city are entitled to an extensive long-term and transparent assessment of fracking operations at the oil fields, ensuring the health and safety of our constituents should be a top priority. that is why i rise today to offer this amendment which will ensure that no federal funds in this bill will be used to implement, administer or enforce fracking in the englewood oil field for the coming fiscal year. this is a small step in the greater fracking debate but i'm proud to amplify the concerns of my community with this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back, for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey- mr. floig: i move to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. the am would prohibit hydraulic tracking operations within the engelwood oil fields of los angeles. i appreciate my colleague's passion for this particular issue and obviously her desire to protect her constituents, but the energy and water appropriations bill is not the proper place for such a unique prohibition on tracking. ninglewood oil field is not federal land -- engelwood oil field is not federal land nor are there current projects that involve engelwood in its natural gas portfolio. currently the tracking activities are regulated both locally and by her own state of california. this is a complex, authorizing issue. we are still waiting to hear from the department's lawyers on what effect, if any, this language would actually have in the fiscal year 2014. therefore i must oppose the amount and urge other members to do the same. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. bass: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meadows of north carolina. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available -- the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is a simple and straightforward amendment. it prohibits the use of funds for the payment of salaries to presidential recess appointees until they are formally confirmed by the senate. in 1863 a law was passed that barred unconfirmed recess appointees from being paid. that law stayed on o the books until 1940. however, over time a number of broad exceptions were made that gradually eliminated the original intent of that law. and rendered the prohibition useless. this amendment reapplies the original intent of that law to further reassert the senate's authority in the confirmation process and prevent taxpayers from having to pay salaries of unconfirmed presidential appointees. recent decades have seen a constant erosion of congressional powers in deference to the executive. the senate is required to confirm presidential appointments for a reason. it is a check on the executive powers. this amendment is an opportunity to reempower that check by disincentivizing recess appointments except in cases where they are truly needed. thank you for your time, mr. chairman. i urge support and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk that would help stop congress from taking the core -- corps of engineers back to the 1980's. in 2007 congress passed legislation requiring the army corps of engineers to update its principles and guidelines, the p and g. these are used by the core in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water resource projects. this is something i have been involved with since i first came to congress 17 years ago, served on the water resources subcommittee, and discovered that the corps was trapped in time. this update was critical in that the -- they have not been updated since 1983. if you understand how the federal government operates, for something that was approved in 1983, in were in the works in the early 1970's. now, earlier this year the council on environmental quality finally released an updated p and g that lays out broad principles and draft interagency guidelines for implementing the principles and requirements. these new p and g were developed over the last six years by federal agencies and they incorporated extensive comments from the public as well as the national academy of sciences. the modernized p and g will help accelerate the project approval, reduce costs, support water, infrastructure projects with the greatest economic and community benefits. they will allow for better consideration of long-term benefits, provide for flexibility for local communities, promote more transparency in the federal decisionmaking process. unfortunately, there appears to be language in the committee report accompanying this legislation that would prevent the corps from implementing them. the report states the corps shall continue to use the document datted march 10, 1983 -- dated march 10, 19 3, entitled economic and environmental principles and guidelines for water research. during the fiscal year covered by this act. does it make any sense at all to take work that has been in the process for years and tell an agency you can't update your planning documents, prevent you from using updated resources. during the floor debate on this issue in 2007, i indicated that i was embarrassed that the corps was operating under guidance from a quarter century ago. now, they are 30 years old. these principles and guidelines are older than most of our staff. in his ronald reagan was first term. michael jackson moon walked for the first time. the microsoft word was first released. think about the advancements in science, economic, and flood management, not to mention our environmental consciousness all that have happened since 1983. that's what led the national academy of sciences in the year 2000 to conclude that these needed to be revised to better reflect contemporary management paradigms analytical methods, legislative directors, social and political realities. it's even more true today than it was 13 years ago. this issue is not just about a bureaucratic process for economists and scientists. these projects have significant impact on the ground. in 2007, i highlighted the problems from an organization called levees.org, a nonpartisan, grassroots group founded after katrina. the group's mission was to help educate the people of new orleans about what happened in katrina and how to move forward. they supported the amendment at that time because they know this issue is a matter of life and death. to be able to have the corps to use the best information, the best technology to do the best job and relying on principles and guidelines that are a quarter century old is not our very best. over a third of a century is not our very best. i can comprehend no reason why congress would require the corps to continue to rely on outdated documents and not take advantage of the event of the work, research, the progress that's been done by people in the administration in the corps of engineers, the scientific community. going to an, i am he' withdraw the amendment -- i am he' going to withdraw the amendment because i truly believe we -- i'm going to withdraw the amendment because i truly believe we ought to understand what's going on, understand the benefits that led congress to embed this in the law in the first place, and i would look forward to having a conversation with my good friend, the chair of the subcommittee, the ranking member, to see if we can't he resolve this for the benefit of the public. thank you. i respectfully withdraw the amendment. the chair: no amendment was pending. the gentleman from louisiana, for what purpose does he he seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. number 37. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana, at the end of the bill before the short title -- mr. scalise: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: would the gentleman please specify which amendment he's offering? mr. scalise: 36. the chair: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment. it deals with a corps of engineers new program that was put in place two years ago. specifically in the new orleans district called the modified charleston method. the corps changed the usual and normal method for mitigation, any kind of mitigation done on wetland throughout the country you have to mitigate if you are going to do development, and everybody understands that. everybody's worked with that over the years, but two years ago the corps changed specifically for the new orleans district that process and literally put in place a process that's made it very unworkable to do a lot of our flood protection projects and economic development projects. one of the things that we are doing here, this amendment, by the way, is identical to language that we passed in the same appropriations bill last year. so the house has already gone on record saying this is an unworkable plan by the corps of engineers. this new m.c.m. method as literally shut down many flood protection projects and economic development projects in south louisiana. so i think what we have been saying to the corps of engineers is, let's work together on putting reasonable rules in place, but this rule is unworkable. so much so that the corps didn't even use these rules when they were doing their own projects. so i think americans understand that when government tries to impose rules on the people, and yet doesn't even follow those same rules themselves, it shows there is a problem. and yet that's what's happening in this case. so all we are saying is, understands we need to do mitigation, when the corps comes out with these new rules that triple in many cases the amount of mitigation that needs to be done to the point where it's unworkable, as an example just last year corps permit applications for development projects were down by 33%, because they literally took off the table the ability to do any kind of development in many areas of south louisiana. that's not how rules and regulations are supposed to work. you ought to be working with local communities. i'm not saying you can't even protect yourself from flooding, literally you look at the wetlands rules, they are preventing us from he restoring wetlands with these rules on wetlands. it doesn't make sense. it's something that's unworkable . and this amendment address this is problem. the core can move forward with the modified charleston method and go back to the table and put rules in place that make sense. put some commonsense rules in place. with that i yield back the balance of my time. urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, good afternoon, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 36, i think they have relabeled them from yesterday, before i get to that --ust want to say that >> mr. chairman. the chair: are we currently on amendment number 36? the chair: yes, we are. mr. lynch: thank you. reclaiming my time. the chair: are you wishing to address the amendment that the gentleman from louisiana has introduced? mr. lynch: no, sir. this is a new amendment. entirely new amendment. the chair: we are not funnished with this amendment. the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment . does the gentleman wish to seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i rise to support my colleague from louisiana's amendment. mr. richmond: not to belabor the point, just in the last 11 months, mitigation costs in the new orleans district for the corps of engineers in projects related to this have increased by about -- right at $11 million. it affects all types of projects, and i'll give you a few examples. one of which is am pipeline which we are responding to an increased need for natural gas transportation as louisiana refineries expand. one is a grocery store that provides fresh food, especially in our food deserts. another is an expansion of a 100 acre commercial park to create jobs and new office space. the last of which is the st. tamm manny parish drainage project which would help louisiana with its flood protection and protect our communities. this is a matter that is of vital importance. we are not diminishing the need for mitigation and understatementing its importance, but what we are trying to say it should be reasonable and the method we have before we move to the modified charleston method was a good method, but we need to make sure that the modified charleston does not hamper our

Related Keywords

Montana , United States , Kazakhstan , Nevada , Brooklyn , New York , Massachusetts Bay , Massachusetts , San Diego , California , Baldwin Hills , Connecticut , San Francisco , Mexico , Arizona , Culver City , Libya , Cambridge , Cambridgeshire , United Kingdom , Chicago , Illinois , Canada , Germany , Afghanistan , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Indiana , Georgia , Oregon , Michigan , American Samoa , London , City Of , Iraq , New Jersey , Lake Michigan , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , Carter County , Hawaii , Louisiana , China , Minnesota , Fort Hood , Texas , Russia , Ladera Heights , Washington , District Of Columbia , New Orleans , India , South Carolina , Cuba , Haiti , Philippines , North Carolina , Iran , Colombo , Western , Sri Lanka , Boston , Florida , Cairo , Al Qahirah , Egypt , Oklahoma , Maine , Arabian Peninsula , Saudi Arabia General , Tennessee , Israel , Detroit , Ohio , Kansas , Somalia , Italy , Italian , Americans , America , Saudi , Iranians , Iranian , Israeli , Russians , American , Haitian , Canadians , Hawaiian , Palestinian , Cuban , Craig Franklin , James Wilkerson , Dan Snyder , Roger Goodell , Fredrick Smith , Tom Reid , Ronald Reagan , Los Angeles , Gregory Hicks , Penobscot Indian , Michael Jackson , Abraham Lincoln , Harry Reid , Newport Englewood , Al Qaeda , John A Boehner , Diego Lgbt , Jackson Lee , Chris Collins , Ken Walton , James Whitey Bulger , Rudy Giuliani , Celeste Deford Dustin , Ted Poe , Ed Davis ,