tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 6, 2014 3:00pm-5:01pm EST
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule to come. actually -- the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.
mr. conaway: mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour, 2:00 for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will come a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. today, in a strong bipartisan vote, the house passed a bill to provide the administration with the authority to extend loan guarantees to the government of ukraine and i want to thank mr. hoyer and nita lowey. i ask the senate to act promptly and send it to the president for his signature. i expect the house to consider a resolution under suspension next week to express our support for the people of ukraine and their territory
integrity. in addition, the house will consider a number of bills to address executive overreach of the department of administration. mr. speaker, these bills are designed to restore the balance of power created by our founders and require that this president faithfully execute our nation's laws. the house will consider the following bills to re-establish the rule of law, h.r. 3973, the faithful execution of law act, to require federal officials to report to congress whened a -- when the administration fails to faithfully enforce current law. h.r. 4138, the enforce act, sponsored by trey gowdy, to establish procedures under which the house or the senate may authorize a lawsuit against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute laws. and the water rights protection act to ensure privately held water rights. the patch for the medicare sustainable growth rate expires at the end of the month. i expect the house to consider
h.r. 4015, the s.g.r. repeal and medicare provider payment re-authorization act of 2014, sponsored by michael burgess, next week. this completely paid for bill will replace the flawed s.g.r. formula, and i yield back my time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information that he's given to us. let me say on the ukraine, i think the house acted properly. it acted in a timely fashion to express the views of this house with respect to the russian violation of international law and the agreements that they have with ukraine. i'm pleased we were able to join together to pass that through the house. hopefully the nat will pass it quick -- senate will pass it quickly. i make the observation that the senate, i know, believes the reform of i.m.f. will be important to work with that extension. we'll see what happens on that, but i thank the gentleman, his side of the aisle, for acting
promptly. we were pleased to join in that action. let me ask the gentleman, the gentleman mentioned, as we know, that by march 31, the authorization for the sustainable growth rate payment will expire and the payment for physicians for medicare services will be substantially reduced under present law. there is a, i think, strong feeling by many of us that this needs to be fixed, needs to be fixed permanently and it needs to be paid for. it's my understanding that the bill, 4050, the bipartisan agreement on the s.g.r. payment policy, as the gentleman knows, does not have a pay-for in it. so it's -- is it my understanding that that will be amended before it's brought to the floor or will it be an amendment on the floor to add the pay-for? i yield to the gentleman.
mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we all are concerned about the s.g.r. fix. we've seen this movie more than four, five, six times. physicians were in town this week explaining to us exactly the impact that not getting this done on time so their billing systems and their cash flows are not interrupted. keen interest in all these small businesses which are most physician offices. keen is it to do that. -- interest to do that. that will be amended on the floor to include the pay-for so -- mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. let me clarify, mr. speaker. there will be -- this will be under a rule and there will be an amendment made in order to add the pay-for, is that correct? mr. conaway: the pay-for will be added to the rules committee. mr. hoyer: to the engrossed -- so before it comes to the floor will be paid for. i ask the gentleman, it's my understanding that the pay-for, i don't know if i'm accurate on this, but my understanding is that the pay-for is the repeal
of the individual mandate, and if so, can the gentleman tell me whether he has any indication that the senate would be in agreement on that? and i say that because there hasn't been agreement in the past. and if we use that as a pay-for, it seems to me it puts at risk meeting the march 31 deadline, and i yield to my friend. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the specifics of the pay-for has not been finalized. there are lots of things under consideration. we, too, want this done in advance to the march 31 date. like i said earlier, so that physician offices can continuing their bill as is without the interruption that a failure to extend or fix the doc fix would cause. we're keen on making that work. and the specifics of what the pay-for will be are currently under discussion. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i would simply say, mr. speaker, i'm hopeful in light of the fact that the bill itself is a bipartisan or at least the two committees have
agreed on it and i think there's general agreement on the fix for the s.g.r., but the pay-fors have been contentious, i hope as the bill has been a product of agreement that the pay-for, which is essential, would also be a product of that. so i would hope that we would see a bill come to the floor that does have the agreement of both sides of the aisle so that we can, as the gentleman points out and we fully agree, ensure that the s.g.r. is fixed and put on a sustainable path for medicare and for the provider community prior to march 31. so i would hope that could happen. hether the t know w gentleman has watched the colloquys in the past, but the majority leader and i had ongoing discussion about immigration reform. both of us believe the immigration system is broken. both of us believe it needs to be fixed.
can the gentleman tell me whether there is any likelihood of an immigration bill coming to the floor anytime soon? again, we have relatively short period of time left to go, and we believe this legislation is one of the most important pieces that are pending on the agenda, and i would be -- as i told the majority leader, very inclined to try to work with the majority on behalf of the minority, and i minority would be, too, to get an immigration reform we can agree on, passed as soon as possible. i yield to my friend. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there is nothing, of course, scheduled for next week. i'd tell the gentleman, majority -- the minority whip, beyond that i'm not -- i'm not aware of any further scheduling other than i know it's not next week. mr. hoyer: i thank the
gentleman. i hope if it's not next week it will be soon. i thank the gentleman for his information and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday, march 10, 2014, and that the order of the house of january 7, 2014, regarding morning hour debate not apply to that date. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. al green of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s granted. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches.
for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. recently recorded in political dialogue was a statement about one of my colleagues somehow feeling that his military service entitled him to a seat in congress. mr. speaker, no one in the military feels their service entitled them to anything. i am deeply disappointed in the implication that because i serve my country i feel entitled to serve in this esteemed body. or for that matter to anything. my colleague didn't pledge an oath of service to god and country because he felt he'd get something in return. mr. perry: mr. speaker, this type of statement not only is regrettable, reprehensible and
offensive but it diminishes the sanctity of military service and those who tirelessly and selflessly dedicate themselves to it. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. duckworth: mr. speaker, the unemployment rate for veterans is 10%. 900,000 veterans receive food stamps each month. nearly $104 million food stamps are redeemed at military conomy sears in fiscal year 20 13. more than two million individuals, including 200,000 veterans have been cut off from unemployment insurance benefits. i know firsthand how important this benefit is for hardworking veterans.
after i completed flight school and returned to illinois, i relied on unemployment benefits to help me transition back to civilian life. unemployment rate is 10%. 246,000 veterans who served since 9/11 are now out of work. for those coming home from iraq and afghanistan, this transition has been especially challenging. they have enough to worry about without suffering from cuts to unemployment insurance. taking an up or down vote on extending unemployment insurance is the right thing to do, mr. speaker. we need to renew this for those searching for jobs and those who are getting back on their feet. our veterans and unemployed have not given up on finding work, and we cannot give up on them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, house republicans led by budget committee chairman paul ryan criticize our nation's anti-poverty programs. mr. mcgovern: some want to drastically change them, others want to eliminate them altogether. we've seen $19 billion in cuts to snap alone, our nation's premiere anti-hunger program. participation in snap reached an all-time high a few years ago because of the recession because people were unemployeed or underpaid. if you want to reduets snap participation, it is simple. put more people back to work in better paying jobs. yesterday the center for american progress released a report showing how easy one step is. they found that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would move about 3.5 million people off of snap simpley because they
couldn't need it. we shouldn't arbitraryly cut anti-poverty programs like snap. we must make commonsense changes like increasing the minimum wage if we're truly to end hunger in this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to onor staff sergeant nicholas from massachusetts. he graduated from umass and graduated in 2007. after graduate as a special onor graduate from the qualification course, he became a green beret. there's an excerpt from a letter i want to share with you that he left his loved ones when he first deemployee. quote, if i should fall do not let your heart fill with
sadness. know that i passed doing what i love to do, what i believe in, what brings me happiness, protecting those who cannot fend for themselves, protecting the united states of america and all those i love so dearlyment look back on me with kindness and happiness, be happy knowing i could not have chosen a better way to go. with lowe filling my body for my friends and my family, i tried to always be there for you all. whether the shirt off my back or somebody's keys, if you needed it, i would get it for you. happy was brought to me through the eyes of my loved ones. seing you all happy brought me such joy. i never wanted money, accommodation or any recognition, none was necessary. i hope i served you well. i gave it my all, no need for thank you. the pleasure was all mine. mr. speaker, this weekend, nick will be coming home, loved,
alive, and a hero. since enlisting in 2007 he's been awarded three purple hearts. in the spring of 2013, nick and his team were involved in a green on blue attack a strike on coalition members by people dressed in their own uniform. he sustained injuries to his right leg in that attack and subsequently had it amputated below his knee. he will receive a silver star with valor and a bronze star with valor at fort bragg. after over a year in walter reed, the commonwealth of massachusetts is proud to say to neck, welcome home. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the department of energy's recent loan guarantee for plant vogeln georgia.
it's the first nuclear power plant built in the united states in almost three decades and i'm proud to represent the district where our nation's nuclear renaissance has begun. throughout my time in congress i have supported the use of nuclear power as part of a comprehensive energy program. mr. barrow: the plant will create the kind of good-paying jobs we need. it will create 5,000 jobs at the height of construction and 800 permanent jobs after construction is complete. the federal government's guarantee is expected to save georgia electric companies nearly a quarter billion dollars in expense. this is exactly the sort of investment the federal government should be making at virtually no risk to the federal taxpayer we can save money for georgia taxpayers as they pay for the infrastructure to creite good-paying jobs to support the lifestyles of virtually everyone else in the economy. i look forward to the all the good things that will lead to
and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i am, with great sympathy and sadness, rising to pay tribute to the late dr. lafayette fernandez chaney, the extraordinary leader who touched the lives of many through his education and religious endeavors. under his leadership, the damascus missionary baptist church in houston experienced tremendous growth both spiritually and financially. he was requested to join our lord on friday, february 28, 2014, and he was 96 years old. he gained his bachelor of arts and batch love o-- bachelor of beginity from paul quinn, studied for his doctorate and pais lohr, received his doctorate from texas southern university.
he was a teacher, taught mathematics and science in moore high school. he taught in waco at the oakwood elementary school. he loved children. he was someone who was a builder he had professional memberships in a lot of educational associations he pastored a number of churches. but his greatest gift and greatest cherished memory was pastorship for 50 years of damascus missionary baptist church, even when the church was without a home and he had to hold the congregation together to build the beautiful new building we have, he was there. he enjoyed leadership in a variety of organizations and was courageous enough to appoint the first female minister at the damascus missionary baptist church. i enjoyed my time with pastor delaney and visiting him as his -- at his last church commemoration, he thurge -- the church anniversary. it was my pleasure to be with him and share in the glory of
the celebration of his great life. he's run a great race, he's gone on to receive a great reward, i ask this body to have a moment of silence in his honor. thank you very much, mr. speaker, i thank you, reverend delaney for being a great houstonian, a great texan, and yes, a great american. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to applaud -- mr. payne: i rise to recognize -- to applaud president barack obama for recognizing this as colorectal cancer month. i would like to thank the members of congress who signed on to the letter i authored and sent to the president requesting the issuance of this problem
clamation. finally but more importantly thank you to the colorectal cancer community who have given their time, sweat, and tears to raise awareness about prevention and early detection. our efforts have not gone unnoticed this month, the highest office in the land, the president of the united states, brought national attention to our fight. what better way to pay tribute by remembering those who have lost their battles to colon cancers, such as my late father, the honorable congressman donald payne sr. who i followed into congress, who lost his battle with cancer two years ago today. this proclamation honors his memory and honors those who are fighting the battle against colon cancer today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from maryland, mr.
sarbanes is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to address the issue of money and politics. i address it knowing that many of my constituents and many americans across the country are in pretty bad mood about washington, about politics as usual, about congress. they're angry because they feel like their voice can't be heard. they're frustrated because they feel like somebody else writes the rules, somebody else makes the policy, and their opinions on issues don't matter. a big part of the reason for that frustration and that anger is they look out and they see these super p.a.c.s and other big money campaign donors and
p.a.c.'s and special interests pouring money into washington, pouring money into our political system. and they feel like those are the folks who call the shots here in washington. that when it comes time for us to make public policy, too often the institution of congress leans in the direction of the big money and the special interests and away from the priorities an needs and concerns and demands of everyday citizens. people are pretty smart. americans are pretty smart. if they are feeling this way, there's probably a good reason for it. when you do the research, when you track the numbers, when you look at the amount of money that's pouring in here, it's no wonder that americans have become cynical and angry and fed up and disillusioned. it's no wonder that the
favorability rating, the approval rating of this institution is as low as it is. let's look at some of those numbers. n the 2012 election cycle, big energy, the big energy industry, poured $140 million into congressional campaigns. that's in one election cycle. $380 ey spent another million on lobbying expenditures here in the city of washington. here on capitol hill. wall street. they were at the top of the list. again, in one election cycle, in the 2012 election cycle, the financial industry contributed $660 million to congressional
campaigns. and spent another $490 million, almost half a billion dollars on lobbying up here on capitol hill. sometimes we ask ourselves, and i know my constituents ask me and i know americans raise this from time to time, how is it the case that an industry like the oil and gas industry that in 2011 posted profits, the top phi oil and gas companies posted billion, how sit -- how is it an industry like that continues to get taxpayer subsidies every year to the tune of $5 billion? how are they able to preserve that loophole? when they're making all those profits. and they don't need that taxpayer subsidy. how does that come to pass? well, i just read you the numbers.
if you're pouring $140 million into campaigns and you're spending another $380 million on lobbying, you can keep those loopholes in place. why can't we close some of these loopholes through wall street and the financial industry? the same answer applies. look how much influence is coming from the money that pours in from those industries. so when americans feel in their gut that somehow their voice isn't being heard and it's the interest of big money that rules the roost around here, there's a factual basis for that. it's something that we need to address. whatever the priority that americans care about, whether it's jobs, the budget, health care, education, protecting our
environment, whether it's reining in the influence of wall street and making sure important regulations are in place, whatever the priority that americans want to see, the fact of the matter is, the big money gets in the way of those priorities. it pour into campaigns, pours into lobbying shops and it stops often coming out of the gate these priorities that everyday americans put at the top of their list system of it's no wonder that so many americans are fed up. in fact, when you talk to them, when you get them to start talking about how they really feel, the fact of the matter is, many are down right disgusted by the influence that big money has on our politics and on our overnment.
so we got to figure out what to do about this. if we want to reclaim some of the trust of the american people, if we want americans to have confidence that their government is actually working for them, we've got to address this problem. e first step to any recovery is to recognize the problem. and the fact of the matter is that the institution of congress is too dependent upon big money and special interests . and as a result, when it comes time to make public policy, leans away from the public's interest and in the direction of the special interests. so what can we do? by a month ago, joined 128 original co-sponsors, i introduced the government by
the people act. this is a first step. his will not cure all the ills that the bedeviled -- of the bedeviled congress and washington. it's not waving a magic wand, but it's an important first step in the americans saying we want to take our government back from the special interests and we want our government work for us. and the government by the people act is premised on the idea that we have to put ordinary americans, everyday citizens at the center of the funding of campaigns and take 's and ay from the p.a.c. the special interests and the campaign donors. the fact that we had so many co-sponsors on this bill at the point of introduction i think shows that members of this institution are hearing from their constituents and
understand the anger and frustration that is out there and recognize that they need to do something about it. let me tell you about the vernment by the people act because it is really designed to make sure that the voices of everyday citizens are as powerful as the voices of the big money campaign donors. the first thing it does is it would provide a $25 tax credit, what we're calling the my voice tax credit, the $25 refundable tax credit to any american that makes a contribution to a congressional campaign in each of the two years of the election cycle. now, why do we do that? well, if you look at the numbers right now, you will see that a very small percentage of americans actually participate in the funding of campaigns. the funding is dominated by a
small group that tend to be the more wealthy citizens in society, and ordinary americans out there are not getting into the role of helping to power campaigns on the funding side. we want to encourage them to do that. we want to say to those citizens who want to support a good candidate who is turning to them and listening to their concerns, we want to say to those citizens, if you're willing to put $15 or $20 or $25 behind that candidate who stands for the right thing, we'll help you do that. we'll provide this tax credit to make it a little bit easier for you to step up and be part of the solution. so the my voice tax credit does exactly that. it gives a voice back to everyday citizens who feel right now like their voice
can't be heard, like they're not empowered to participate in the system, to participate in the solution. so that's why we created the my voice tax credit. so that's the first important element of the government by the people act. the second is that we want to ake sure that the voice of the everyday citizen can be loud enough to compete with the big money out there so we created something called the freedom from influence matching fund. and this would provide matching dollars that would come in behind those grassroots donations and boost them up, amplify the voice of the grassroots so that now those everyday citizens can get the attention of a candidate or a member of congress who might otherwise be inclined to go street or time on k
raising money from big-time campaign donors and now they have an incentive to go to a house party back in their district and raise small donations knowing those matching funds will come in behind it and they'll be able to raise sufficient dollars to run a competitive campaign. so we combine those two elements to try to change the way campaigns are funded. the my voice tax credit to promote those small donations, those grassroots donations, and the freedom from influence matching fund, to come in behind it and amplify it so the voice of everyday americans can actually be heard, can actually compete with the maga phone that big money has and -- megaphone and big money has. that's what the government by the people act is designed to do, to empower everyday citizens to really have a voice again. in their own democracy. the third piece is just as critical. over the last two election
cycles, americans have seen the c.'s go by super p.a. outside the roof -- go above the roof and they know there are candidates, good candidates who run for office, who make a strong case on issues that matter to the public but they get into those last 60 days, the homestretch of a campaign and suddenly a super p.a.c. comes in and pours money into negative advertising. and before you know it that candidate's voice is wiped off the playing field. so we said that in that homestretch, in those 60 days we wanted to make sure that a candidate who chooses to participate in this system, chooses to reach out to everyday citizens and lift their voices up that that candidate's own voice will be able to stay in the mix, because that candidate's voice
represents the voices of thousands of small donors and other supporters who stepped up behind them. so in the last 60 days, a candidate who chooses to participate in this system would get the benefit of some additional dollars to help them stay in the game, to help keep their voice in the mix up to election day. and there's evidence, mr. speaker, to show that a candidate who works hard to reach out and build a relationship with their constituents, if they can get enough dollars in that final stage to stay in the game, to keep their voice there, to keep representing the interests of everyday citizens, then even if a super p.a.c. or some outside group comes in and throws a lot of money at them, they can still prevail. and that's the way it ought to be. a candidate who's doing the right thing, a member of
congress who's trying to serve their constituents and lift up the voice of their constituents ought to be able to survive a process where some outside group is coming in and trying to wipe them off the face of the map. so those are the three pieces of the government by the people act. a tax credit, the my voice tax credit, to encourage and help everyday citizens participate on the funding side of campaigns. a freedom from influence matching fund will come in behind that and provide matching dollars to amplify the voice of the grassroots and everyday citizens. and then some extra dollars in that final stretch for participating candidate who suddenly face an attack from a super p.a.c. or from some other outside group so they can stay in the game, so their voice and the voices of the people they represent who've invested in them can still be heard.
i've talked about why this is so important in terms of changing the perception that americans have of washington and congress, the notion that if everyday citizens feel that members of congress can continue to represent them because they're the ones that powered their campaigns instead of the special interests and the big money being the one that underwrite their campaigns, that that can begin to restore some confidence. it won't change it overnight. it won't cure the ills of this place. but it will restore confidence on the part of everyday citizens, that their voice can actually be heard here, that when the campaign is over and governing begins, this institution will continue to listen to them because they're the ones that help lift that candidate up on their shoulders
. but i want to come at it from another angle for a moment. if you have a system like this that allows a good strong candidate who knows how to reach out and network in their district to be competitive, you'll see a different kind of person coming to washington. right now more than half of the people who serve in congress are millionaires. that's not surprising, because to run for office you need a lot of money, you need to know a lot of people who have a lot of money. that's the reality. but if you have a system where small donors and matching funds can lift up a candidate and power their campaign, you'll get people running for congress and being competitive who in a past would never have had chance. i was recently in maine or new
hampshire and i sat on a panel with a legislator from maine and in maine they have a system that helps candidates that reach out to the grassroots be able to assemble the funds to be competitive, and this legislator said but for that system she would not be a member of the maine state legislature because she wouldn't have been able to raise the dollars you need to run for office and represent the people in her district. t because a system like that existed, she's now in the maine legislature. i believe that we would see people competing for congress and succeeding and being elected who right now have no way to access this place, and those are the kind of people
that represent the broad american constituents. and that's another way to begin restoring people's faith in this institution. if they look here and they say, you know what, there's somebody who was a community activist in my district. there's somebody who volunteered at my church who decided to get into politics, who decided to put their name in the ring and because there's a system for funding campaigns now that combines small donations with matching funds, that person was able to run and compete and to be elected. and i think that that will lift up many americans and make them believe that their voice actually makes a difference here, that their voice can be heard. now, i want to put this in another context as well. there are many things that we can do to try to address the
influence of big money in our politics. we need more disclosure and transparency in terms of where these independent expenditures are coming from. and i support the disclose act, which is sponsored by my colleague, representative chris van hollen of maryland, because americans deserve to know where this big money comes from and who's spending it so they can make a judgment about whether that's fair and whether the people behind whom that money is going ought to be representing them here in washington. so we need that transparency and we need that disclosure. that's an important reform. it's important, also, i believe, to try to address the of ion -- the decisions this supreme court. in particular, the citizens united decision, which
basically took the lid off of outside campaign spending and expenditures by these super p.a.c.'s and other independent groups and resulted in this flood of negative campaign commercials and advertising that come in the final weeks and months of the campaign cycle. so we need to address that, and there are proposals that have been introduced in this body for a constitutional amendment that would rein in the spending of these outside groups. i think we need to address that too. those are important measures that we need to undertake. . but i also think it's critically important that there be something that's part of the reform agenda that has to do with empowering everyday citizens. if you think about it, disclosure and putting limits on
the spending of these outside groups and super p.a.c.'s, that's about reining in the conduct and the behavior of the bad actors, if you will, out there. the people who have kind of gone too far. but we also have to do something to empower and lift up the good actors, everyday citizens who want to see their government do the right thing, who have commonsense solutions and want the people that they elect to congress to reflect that commonsense perspective. that's why we need the government by the people act. because it would create a system that would empower everyday citizens. would allow them to feel that their voice is being heard. that they're not just standing back as observers, watching the titans, the big money players, the super p.a.c.'s, duking it out in the ring, like two
professional wrestlers or something, but that they could participate that everyday citizens could step into the ring and say, my voice is as important as the voice of that big donor. and i demand to be heard. that's what that everyday citizen is saying. they want their voice to be heard. but we've got to give them a system that will allow for that. we called this bill the government by the people act listen when i and others to americans across the country, we hear them saying, we're tired of a government that appears to be of, by, and for the special interests and the big money. put very simply, we want our government back. we want it back.
and the government by the people ct is an attempt to begin to change business as usual, to create a system that will give government back to the people that it is supposed to represent. that's our only path back to relevancy in the eyes of the general public. that's our only path back to restoring the trust and confidence that we need as an institution in order to get things done. and let me tell you something, when it comes to relevancy and trust and confidence, we're hanging on by a thread right now. when you look at the polls and the surveys in terms of what people think about washington and feel that the priorities of the place have become warped by big money and special interests,
our relevancy in the minds of most americans is hanging on by a thread. we need to do something and the government by the people sacramento a reform that can begin to reclaim government and democracy and the political system back for everyday systems out -- citizens out there that are so frustrated with what's going on. so mr. speaker, i'm optimistic, i'm optimistic by nature, i think we can get this reform. when we introduce the -- introduced the bill we had 128 co-sponsors at the point of introduction. we have 140 as of today. i think members of this body are themselves at a point where they want to see something different. a lot of members of congress are exhausted by the current system.
and they wish they could raise money a different way. they wish they could run their campaign and fund their campaign by turning to the people they represent instet of having to chase the -- instead of having to chase the big money and the p.a.c. money and the special interests all the time. there's something wrong with an equation where people go into the voting booth and they pull the lever for you and they send you to washington to represent them and the day you get to washington, you have to start representing the big money and the special interests because that's the only way you can raise money to fund your campaign. let's think about it in those terms. what happens to the franchise when somebody gets here and they have to turn in -- and they have to turn their back on the people who elected them because they got to go raise the money from someplace else?
what if the place you want to power your campaign was back to your constituents, everyday citizens? because you had a system that would match their small donation and be able to lift a candidate up and power them forward. that would change the way things operate around here. i invite people listening to this, go back through the congressional record. read the statements. -- read the statements of members of the house and senate who announce their retirement and sometimes within 24 hours, go to the floor of the senate or the house and talk about the problem of money in politics and how corrosive it's become. liberated finally from the current system by the fact that they decided to move on, they're able to stand back and in a clear-eyed and candid way talk
about this problem of influence that comes from big money and special interests and what it's doing to this place. i want to read you a quote, because i think this really goes right to the heart of the matter. people are fed up with the gridlock here and the dysfunction. we can connect a lot of that to this issue of money in politics. let me read you a quote from 1982. when political action committees give money they expect something in return other than good government. it is making a -- it is making it much more difficult to legislate. we may reach a point where if everybody is buying something with p.a.c. money, we can't get anything done. we can't get anything done. you know who said that in 1982? robert dole, the minority leader. at that time. republican member of the u.s. senate. and that was in 1982.
the influence of big money on our politics and governing has metastasized since then. but even then, on the front edge f this trend, bob dole could see what it would do to the institution. nd he was lamenting it then. so a public that's upset about gridlock and dysfunction -- dysfunction of this place needs a solution that will address the influence of big -- that big money has here. because that will help, i think, change the whole way in which we operate. and other members have made similar comments as i mentioned a moment ago. mr. speaker, as i said, i'm optimistic, i think we have a good piece of legislation, i think it goes to the heart and
tries to address a lot of the cynicism that so many americans have out there, that their voice can't be heard. i want to mention that we have at this stage over 40 national organizations who have gotten behind this legislation, this is a new development. we've had reform bills in the past. good ones. but they didn't have that kind of broad support from grass roots organizations across the country, civil rights groups like the naacp, environmental groups like the sierra club and greenpeace. labor groups who have been out there trying to address the issue os working families. like c.w.a. and others. why are they coming to this? because they figured out what the american people have figured out. that the good things they want to see when it comes to the environment or to creating jobs or to making sure people are
treated fairly in this society that all those good things are being thwarted by the influence that big money has over the way this institution operates. so they're coming to this fight now saying, if we care about the environment, if we care about jobs if we care about economic justice, we have to adopt reforming the way campaigns are funded as part of our own efforts and already within the first three or four weeks since we introduced the bill over 400,000 citizen co-sponsors from across the country have signed petitions supporting the government by the people act. because they understand that this reform is meaningful and will make a difference. i'm optimistic that we can get this done, we're not going to get it done tomorrow and we're not going to get it done next week.
but with the opportunity to channel in a construct i way some of this anger and cynicism and frustration the american people are feeling right now, that their voice is not heard, if we have a vehicle to channel that and organize it into a strong momentum, then when the opportunity presents toiths actually achieve this reform, i think we can do it. and i think that if we don't do it, americans will finally turn away completely from this place and say, you can't help us anymore. that's what's at stake here. the relevancy of this institution, the relevancy of this, the people's house, to the people. and until we address the problem of the influence of big money over our system, we're not going to be able to reclaim the confidence and the trust of the
american people system of mr. speaker, as i close, i want to tell the story of a person in my district a couple of years ago herb came to one of my house parties. longtime supporter of mine. came up to me after the house party was over. he said, look, i'd like to contribute $25 to your campaign. he said, i can't do more than that. i can't afford more than that. but i'd like to do it, i'd be proud to do it. i just don't know, will it make a difference? will it matter? and he was, i think, saying what many americans are saying, which is, do our voices count? can we really compete with the big money out there? is anybody listening to us?
that's what he was saying to me. if we can pass legislation like the government by the people act and create a new way of funding our campaign that puts everyday citizens in the middle of the equation, make them the ones to solve this problem for us and empower them, then i'll be able to say to people like that, to constituents like that person who came up to me and was feeling marginalized by the current system, i'll be able to say, not only are you relevant, not only is your voice important, your voice is the most important part of the way we power campaigns in this country. that's the message we need to send. that's the outreach we need to do. and so we can move with this gislation from a system of politics, democracy that's too often of, by, and for the big
money campaign donors and special interests, to a government that truly is of, by, and for the people. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the kuok of the united states -- to the congress of the united states. pursuant to the emergency economic powers act i hereby report i have issued an execive order declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual threat to the national security of the united states posed by the situation in ukraine. the order does not target the country of ukraine but rather is aimed at persons, including person who was asserted governmental authority in the crimian region without authorization of the government of ukraine who undermine democratic processes in ukraine, threaten its peace, sovereignty and territorial integrity and contribute to the
misappropriation of its assets. the order blocks the property and interests and property and suspends entry into the united states of any person determined by the secretary of the treasury in consultation with the secretary of state to be responsible for or complicit in or to have engaged in directly or indirectly any of the following, actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in ukraine, actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of the ukraine or misappropriation of state assets of ukraine or of an economically significant entity in ukraine to have asserted governmental authority over any part or region of ukraine without the authorization of the government of ukraine to be a lend over an entity who has or members have engaminged in any activity described above or of an entity whose property and interests in
property are blocked pursuant to the order to have materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial material or technological support for or goods or services to or in support of any activity described above or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order or to be owned or controlled by or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order. . i have delegated to the secretary of the treasury the authority in consultation with the secretary of state to take such actions including the promulgation of rules and regulations and to employ all powers granted to the president by ieppa in order to carry out the purposes of the order. all agencies are directed to take appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the
provisions of the order. i'm including a copy of the executive order. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. poe: this is march 6 and i want to talk about march 6 in historical perspective. history is very important that americans know about. yesterday on the house floor, i talked about the things that are going on in the ukraine and compared mr. putin's aggressive actions toward europe similar to the actions of hitler and the nazis. before i do that today, i would like to yield time to our colleagues. first, i would like to yield to mr. frank wolf from virginia
such time as he may wish to consume. mr. wolf: i want to thank the gentleman from texas for his courtesy. mr. speaker, today i rise to discuss something very close to me. i want to talk about stuttering. i have been a lifelong stutterer and when i was young, i experienced very difficult times but that's a story for another day. more than 70 million people stutter. one in every 100 people in the world stutter and in the u.s. three million americans stutter. you probably have a friend, neighbor, classmate or co-worker who stutter. 5% of all children go through a stuttering phase that last six months or more. some will recover by late childhood but one out of 100 children will be left with long-term stuttering. i would like to tell you more. how it is, how family members
and friends can help. stuttering is a disorder where the flow of speech is broken by petition of sounds and syllables. unusual facial and body movements may happen. stuttering is more likely caused, one jet etics, two, child development. for example, children with other speech and language problems with developmental delays are more likely to stutter. three, the makeup of the brain, and ongoing research study by dr. ann smith shows that people who stutter process speech and language differently and four, lastly, family dynamics have an impact. high expectations and fast-paced lifestyles can contribute to stuttering. people who stutter are no different from those who do not stutter. in fact, studies by the
university of illinois, show people who stutter are as intelligent and well adjusted as those who don't. stuttering can be treated. i want everyone to let everyone out there who stutters, much can be done. therapists trained work in schools, clinics and universities to help treat stuttering. the most important thing and many experts agree that early intervention is key, the earlier we can identify stuttering in children, the better chance we have to help them speak more fluently. if you stutter or a child or loved one stutters or you think they might be stuttering. get help immediately. visit the stuttering foundation. the foundation was founded more than 70 years ago.
is book called "self-therapy for the stutter" is one of the best books. ou can visit the foundation at www.stutteringhelp.org they have expert information for free and countless brochures and other materials for parents and teachers. unfortunately, there is no instant miracle cure for stuttering. no surgery, no pills, no intensive weekend retreats. stuttering takes time and effort and commitment to work through. some people outgrow it. some people respond well to years of therapy and learn to speak fluently without any traces of difficulty. for many others, stuttering is a lifelong struggle. for those of us who stutter and for the millions of parents of
children who stutter, we know it becomes more challenging for teenagers. kids can be tough on classmates who stutter and for some, the teasing and the mocking can be too much. we must help people who stutter and understand there are many people who snow firsthand how difficult it is for someone who stutters. and that help is available. we need to be patient, kind, understanding and attentive. we know that we need to know and show that we care. and if you stutter, let me tell you something, don't give up. so much can be done. and i yield back the balance of my time. and i thank the gentleman for giving me that time. mr. poe: thank the gentleman from virginia. mr. speaker, as i mentioned earlier, history is something we should remember and talk about. and today is march 6, probably doesn't mean much to a lot of folks in the united states, but to those of us from the state of
texas, march 6 is an important date. and i want to put it in context. there are three very important days for those of us from texas. march 2, march 6 and april 21. and i will get to the significance in just a moment. many, many years ago, parts of texas, mexico, central america and even south america, were controlled by european country of spain. controlled all of that area. and the people of mexico decided that they wanted to have their own independent country. sounds familiar, does it not? and they rebeled against the spanish and they formed the republic of mexico. established a constitution, called the constitution of 1824. but as sometimes happens with new democracies, the president
takes over and his name was santa ana. when he took power legally, constitutionally, under a democratic regime, did what some dictators unfortunately still do. he abottle issued the government. he abottle issued the constitution of 1824. he created a centralist government, but several areas, states, if you will, in mexico, e senate objected vocaly objected, even rebeled. d those areas of mexico were the state of cojilla and durango , yucatan and a
couple of others. most of those areas, those states did nothing more than just object and quickly santa ana moved in to quell any disruption or disturbances. but there were three of those areas that actually formed their own republics, if you will. republic of the rio grande, the republic of the yucatan and the republic of texas. santa ana quickly moved to stop these new countries, if you will, these areas that were seeking ingeds from this dictator. as history has shown, they all failed except the republic of texas. and that's what i would like to talk about this evening, mr. speaker. texas, happened in , ople objected of all races
tajano is someone of spanish descent and born in texas and the anglos. the senate objected to santa ana's imperial dictatorship. and it started over a cannon. in october of 1835, the mexican government sent some military over to the little town of gonzales, texas, and demanded that the people there give up their cannon, their arms. and they objected. they refused to do it. and so there was a skirmish between the mexican regulars and the col nists who lived in gonzales. shots were fired on both sides. i don't know if anyone was hurt too bad. couple of folks were wounded.
but more importantly, the mexican military left and did not get the cannon and thus started the texas war of independence. you might have heard the come and take it flag. the texans painted a flag on a white background and wrote come and take it. in any event, that started the texas war of independence against a dictator, a person who abottle issued the constitution of the republic of mexico. santa ana then decided he would put down this rebelion, all of these rebel i don't know, sir that i talked about and he successfully did so in parts of mexico and those areas that i mentioned and moved across the rio grande river to put down this so-called rebelion against
his dictatorship. so the first battles of texas independence were successful in 1835, october of 1835, and that brought us into 1836. success was not the norm in 1836. texans 2, 1836, 54 including navarro and sam houston and others gathered not too far from san antonio and declared their independence from exico and wrote a constitution -- similar to the declaration of independence and was signed by all of them on march 2, 1836. march 2 happens to be the birthday of sam houston. imagine that. and that's the first important date. but meanwhile, assembled down
the road from texas declaring independence at washington were a group of volunteers. ey were all together in this old beat up spanish church that was 150 years old at the time. it was a town called bayer and now know it as san antonio. and the place they were assembled themselves to fight off the invasion of the dictator was the almow. this is a -- alamo. this is an artist sketch the 187 volunteers defended the place. you will notice, mr. speaker, the flag that is flying over the alamo is not the lone star flag,
which was the flag of the republic of texas, the flag of texas now. it's the flag of 1824. it's very similar to the mexican flag, but what the defenders had done was remove the eagle, the mexican eagle and put the words of the numbers 1824. and why did they do that? well, because when they went into the alamo, they were trying to rehf-establish a constitutional government in meckscon and wanted the constitution of 1824. and that's why that flag that's why that flag flew other the alamo. the people who entered the alamo did so on february 23, 1826, they did so before march 2, br the declaration of independence, because they knew the invaders ar come -- were coming under the leadership of the president,
the dictator, santa ana. these people in the alamo were all volunteers. they came from almost every state in the united states. 13 foreign countries, including mexico. i'll just mention some of the states that they came from. hey came from alabama, connecticut, georgia, illinois, louisiana, maryland, several from massachusetts, came from the state of mississippi, missouri, as far away as new hampshire, new jersey, several folks from new york, north carolina, ohio, a great number came from pennsylvania, and of course south carolina, even one from rhode island, and many, many came from the state of tennessee. there were also native texans in the alamo, if you would refer to
them as that, and they were the nine, at least nine, tejanos who fought in the alamo, there may have been more, we do not know. there was also one from vermont, several from virginia. and they were from foreign countries. denmark. several from england. ireland. germany. scotland. wales. france. and some other countries as well. and mr. speaker, i would like unanimous consent to introduce into the record the defenders who fell at the alamo and the states or countries that they were from. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: as i mentioned, they were all volunteers. they did not look like an army. they were everything from wyers, doctors, shopkeepers,
frontiersmen, adventurers, people who had served in other armies, they were all, though, freedom fighters who volunteered to go into the alamo on february 23. commanding the alamo was my favorite person in all of history, william barrett travels. william barrett travels was a lawyer, that's one reason i like him, aisle a lawyer. but he was a 27-year-old individual, born in south carolina, raised in alabama, found his way to texas and he was a revolutionary. he wanted independence for the state of texas, or the republic of texas. and he took command of the alamo and he sent out scouts, would be the term, asking that people who lived in the area come to the alamo and help defend the alamo, fight against this imperialistic dictator, and get texas independence.
he sent his best friend, who also came from south carolina, jim bonham, out as a scout along with others, juan seguin was one. trying to get folks to come to help out at the alamo. unfortunately, only one small town responded in the affirmative, and that was gonzalez, texas, where it all began. 32 volunteers from gonzalez, all men, young men, primarily the entire population of gonzalez texas, marched from gonzalez to the alamo. they were the only reinforcements that went. now, if you would, mr. speaker, think about frontier life, the rsh frontier, where the male population, basically the entire male population of a small town,
leaves, headed to the alamo, where they figured they were not going to be able to return. the ones that were left were those strong willed frontierswomen and their children who later had to forge their own history absent their spouses. remarkable women. remarkable men who went to the alamo. it's said in history that when these 32 defenders showed up at the alamo, travels looked down and said to his friend, they came here to die. now, william barrett travels, in and lea for help to go fight for liberty, independence, as i told you, most of the folks did not go. they were there already. the ones that were going to fight. he sent out many dispatches and sent a letter asking that
people go to the alamo. i have a copy of that letter, i have another copy on my wall in my office, i have had that since the day i was a prosecutor and a judge in texas. and many other members of texas have what i think is the most passionate plea for liberty written by anybody, anywhere in the world. so you see the surroundings. 186 men, surrounded by thousands of other enemies, mill tear. and here's what he said in that letter, mr. speaker, it's dated february 24, 1836. at the alamo. to all the people of texas, fellow citizens and compatriots, i am besieged is by a thousand or more of the enemy under santa
ana. i have sustained a continuous bombardment in canon -- in cannon fire for over 24 hours but i have not lost a man. the enemy has demanded surrender at its discretion, otherwise, the fort will be put to the sword. i have answered that demand with a cannon shot. and the flag still waves proudly other the wall. i shall never surrender. i shall never retreat. i call upon you in the name of liberty, patriotism, and everything dear to our character to come to my aid with all dispatch. if this call is neglected, i am determined to sustain myself for as long as possible and die like a soldier that never forgets
what is due his honor, and that of his country. victory or death. william barrett travels, commander of the alamo. -- travels, commander of the -- travis, commander of the alamo. we all know what happened later. he and his fellow freedom fighters were killed. some historians say that before it was impossible to leave the alamo, william barrett travis brought the whole group, 187 volunteers, drew a line in the sand and said if you're with me, cross the line. everybody crossed. had the opportunity to leave, they did not. and after 13 days of glory, if you will, at the alamo, travels and his men sacrificed their lives on the altar of freedom. march 6, 1836.
and that's bhy i mention march 6 -- and that's why i mention march 6, because today is march 6. it is an anniversary of those people who gave up their lives, willingly, to fight for freedom. similar to the history of the united states. america took seven years to gain independence from the british, lost a lot of lives, men and women, during that. it seems as though freedom always has cost, good things always do, important things always do. because you see, some people in history have down in their soul, mr. speaker, that living free is ore important than anything. including their own lives. if they can't live as free
people, they will fight and give up their lives in exchange for that belief. those are remarkable people that have done that throughout history all over the world. but today, we remember those 186 defenders of the alamo. people like william barrett travels. davy crockett from tennessee. jim bowie from louisiana. the 11 tejanos i have mentioned. because they were willing to do that. travels said in the last letter that he sent from the alamo that defeat will be worse for santa ana -- excuse me, victory will be worse for santa ana than defeat because of the loss. turns out that was true. he was able to delay santa ana's march into texas while the texas army was being built, surrounded
by their commander, general sam houston. which i will get to in a minute. jim bonham is another person of interest, i think. he was the scout, along with juan seguin who went out to send the word, come to the alamo for help. when he got to washington on the brazos, legend says, when he got to washington on the brazos where the texas republic was being formed on march 2, 1836, drafting the declaration of independence, he asked for those men there to come to the alamo they refused to do it. they said building a government, forming a government, was more important than going to the alamo. bottom line they didn't go system of he gets on his horse and starts to ride back to the alamo. the men there at washington on the brazos tried to stop him. they said, you'll be killed he said, my friends have the right to know that no one is coming.
i don't know if that happened or not. some historians say it did. this shows you the type of people that they were at the alamo. so after 13 days, santa ana did what he said he was going to do, the w the red flag, blew bugles that was said they would not offer any quarter to anyone unless they surrendered at a certain time. they did not surrender. none of the men in the alamo were given any quarter, they were all killed. santa ana then continued his march through texas. remember, if you will, mr. speaker, he had already established his domain militarily over other peoples in mexico that had the desire to object to his dictatorship. suppress them militarily. now he had moved that experienced army into texas, one at the alamo, and was moving toward sam houston who was moving his army toward the
eastern part of texas. toward the united states. that time in history is called the runaway scrape. the colonists, everybody between san antonio yow and the american --- san antonio and the american-texas line was moving east. they were moving their property, it was being burned they left in what is called the runaway scrape. not only the volunteer army but the families as well. and so sam houston kept moving toward the east he did not pitch a battle right away. he formed the army, as i said, all volunteers, juan seguin and is band of scouts, calvary, if you -- cavalry if you will, enended up joining sam houston and in april, 1836, on the plains of san jacinto, most americans don't know where that is, but it's down there near
houston texas, you have probably heard of that place. in the marsh, in the swamp. the same type of individuals who were at the alamo were in sam houston's army. it was a little larger, almost 600. and these were individuals of all races. they were people from the united states, foreign countries, from mexico, tejanos, and they finally decided that on april 20 , that they were going to stop where they were on the plains of san jacinto, in the marsh, and pitch battle. now the plan was to have the battle on april 22. what had happened was santa ana had already caught up with them. he had pitched his tents, he had his 1,000 or so soldiers, he had two other armies still in texas, moving toward him to reinforce him, and everyone expected this
battle to take place on april 22. but, history and war determines when battles are to take place. sam houston talked to his commanders, they decided it was time on april 21 to do battle. history has always shown, battles take place at dawn. they still do. these texans didn't get around to it until noon on april 21 and they decided to attack the mexican army, santa ana, who was not prepared for an attack. sure enough, early afternoon, outnumbered texas army attacked santa ana's army. the battle lasted 18 minutes. something that i thought was quite unique and clever. his gain -- seguin and
tejanos fighting for texas independence. they were pushing for independence against the dictator santa ana. but weren't wearing uniforms. they looked pretty rough, pretty tough. and so sam houston to make sure that the tejanos weren't mistaken for santa ana's army, he had all of them put a playing card in their hat band. in those days, they were big. they stuck a playing card in their hat band so they could be recognized. and his cavalry protected them. they marched in one long column. didn't have enough for two columns. marched down and defeated santa na's army by surprise. captured more than what was in sam houston's army. casualty on the part of the
texans was minor. sam houston was wounded in the leg. and the rest they say, is texas history. texas declared set up its own government and claimed a lot of texas. things have changed. when texas became a country in 1836, here's a map of what they claimed was texas. i won't make any editorial comments whether we think it should still be texas or not, but any way, you see what is modern-day texas. they claimed part of new mexico, -- of arizona, oak oak oklahoma, up to wyoming and when texas became part of the union, texas sold that to the federal government to pay off its debts for the war. so any way, that's the way texas
used to look. it doesn't look like that anymore. we have no plans to retake that territory. that was the republic of texas. and texas was an independent country. finally after several votes, texas got into the union after one louisiana switched his vote, texas joined the union and became part of the united states. because of that, fact that texas was a republic, texas can divide into five states. don't see that happening. not unlike california who is thinking about it. texas flies the texas flag even with the american flag because texas was a republic. i think texans still have that independent spirit that our ancestors had. things are different in texas.
it's a whole different country and the reason is because our history is different. it's because the people of texas , all different backgrounds have that still, that independent spirit about freedom. remember our ancestors who gave their lives, gave their property so we could have freedom and independence and texas could be an independent country even for nine years. that's why historically i think that we appreciate those people who want independence. appreciate people who want liberty. right now, those folks in the ukraine trying to keep out some dictator. i call him a dictator, president putin of russia. so, mr. speaker, we celebrate today and honor today march 6,
because it is one of those three important days. march 2, texas independence. march 6, 1836, the alamo failed. we remember those people. and april 21, 1836 is when texas got independence and started its quest for being -- into being an independent entity. in closing, i would like to read he lyrics of a song that marty robbins wrote a long time ago. you are old enough to may have heard of this song. he wrote it in honor of the people at the alamo. it goes like this. it says in the southern part of texas, there's a town of san anto. there is a fortress that is all in rueyine and the weeds are
overgrown. you may look for crosses and will never see one. but between now and the setting of the sun, you can hear a glowsly bugle as men go marching by. you can hear them as they answer to that roll call in the sky. colonel travis, davey crockett and 180 more. jim bowie stand present and accounted for. back in 1836, sam houston said to travis, get some volunteers and go fortify the alamo. you see the men came from texas, old tennessee and a lot of other places. they joined up with travis just for the right to be free. indian scouts with squirrel guns, men with muzzle loaders, stood together heel and toe to defend that alamo. you may never see your loved
ones, travis told them that day. those who want to leave can do so now, the rest, you can stay and fight to the death. so in the sand he drew a line with his army sabers and out of 185, not a soldier crossed a line. with the banners dancing in the light's golden light, santa ana came dancing on a horse black as a night. he sent an officer to tell travis to surrender. travis answered that with a shell and a rousing yell. santa turned scarlet and he said, play the diego, he roared. i will show them know quarter and everyone will be put to our sword. 18 holding back 5,000, five days, six days, eight days, 10, travis kept holding again and again. then travis sent for replacement for his wounded and lame but the troops that were supposed to
come, they just never came. so twice santa ana charged and blew recall, but on that fateful third time, santa reached the wall and he killed them one and all. now the bugles are silent and rust on each sword and a small band of sole years lie asleep in the arms of the lord. in the southern part of texas, like a statue on a pinto rides a cowboy all alone. he sees the cattle grazzing where the guns were blazing and the cannons used to roar. and his eyes turn a little misty and he takes his hat off slowly to those men of the alamo. to the 13 days of glory at the siege of the alamo. and mr. speaker, that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back
the balance of his time. does the gentleman from texas have a motion? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i move we adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yeas have it. the motion is adopted. the house is not in session friday. they will be in tuesday through friday next week. earlier the president made a statement about the russian intervention in the ukraine. >> good afternoon, everybody.
update onprovide an our efforts to address the crisis in the ukraine. interventionsian we have been mobilizing the community to condemn this violation of international law and support the people of ukraine. an ordering i signed that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty of ukraine or for stealing the assets of the ukrainian people. put inte department has place restrictions on the travel of certain individuals. these decisions continue our efforts to impose a cost on russia and those responsible for the situation in crimea. they give us the flexibility to adjust a response going forward based on russia's actions. we took the steps in
coordination with our european allies. i have spoken to several of our poses friends around the world, and i am pleased our unity is on display at this moment. we have moved to announce substantial assistance for the government in kiev, and in brussels today our our eyes took silver steps. i am confident we are moving together, united in our determination to oppose actions that violate international law and to support the government and people of ukraine. that includes standing up for the principle of state sovereignty. the proposed referendum would ukrainiane constitution and international law. any discussion about the future of ukraine must include the legitimate government of ukraine. beyond the days where borders can be redrawn over the heads of the credit leaders. democratic leaders.
i want to make sure there is a way to resolve this crisis that respects the interest of the russian federation as well as the ukrainian people. let international monitors into all of ukraine, including crimea , to ensure the rights that all you craniums are being respected, including ethnic consultations between russia and ukraine with the participation of the international community, and russia would maintain its basis in crimea provided it abides by its agreements. theworld should support people of ukraine as they move to elections in may. that is the path of de-escalation. secretary kerry is engaged with discussions with all parties to pursue that path. but if this violation of international law continues, it
will result in the united states and our allies and the international community's resolve being firm. we support the people of ukraine. one last point, there has been talking in congress about these issues. today i call on congress to follow us on -- follow up on these words with actions, to support the imf's capacity to lead resources to ukraine and provide assistance for the ukrainian government so they can and stabilizetorm the economy, make needed reforms, deliver for their people, all of which will provide a smoother pathway for the elections that have been scheduled in may. today the world can see the united states is united with our allies in upholding international law and pursuing a just outcome that advances global security and the future of ukrainian people. that is what we will continue to
do in the days to come until we have seen the resolution to this crisis. thanks very much. others will be happy to take your questions. today's session, the house blocked a democratic-led issue to condemn darrell issa for his actions during yesterday yesterday's irs hearing. we have several events to show you regarding this. first, some of yesterday's hearing that sparked the complaint. and today the filing of the resolution on the house floor, a briefing led by the ranking member on the oversight committee am a and reaction from house speaker john boehner.
[indiscernible] i am the ranking member of the committee, and i want to ask a question. what is the big deal? may i ask my question? >> you are free to leave, but the gentleman may ask his question. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, i have one procedural question and it goes to try to get the information you just asked. >> what is your question? >> let me say what i have to say. i have listened to you for the last 15 minutes. >> ms. lerner, you are released. >> first, i would like to make some brief points. for the past year, the central republican accusation in this investigation -- >> we are adjourned.
close it down. [indiscernible] >> before i -- [indiscernible] >> thank you. [indiscernible] >> if you will sit down and allow me to ask question, i am a member of the congress of the united states of america. i am tired of this! >> well -- >> we have members here who represent 700,000 people. you cannot have a one-sided investigation. >> hear, hear.
>> the hearing is adjourned. >> i do have a question. >> i gave you [indiscernible] he is taking the fifth, elijah. [indiscernible] republicanss a staffing choice in his effort to [indiscernible] although he provided a copy of [indiscernible] he refused to provided to members of the kennedy. -- of the committee. we have employees who have said the same thing about the white house was not directed [indiscernible] at the time it was occurring. [indiscernible]
any political motivation. inspector general told us the same thing. he found no evidence of any white house involvement or political motivation. said it the report began with employees in cincinnati who developed and used inappropriate [indiscernible] to identify applications of organizations with the words "tea party." explained that his employees were the ones who first came up with the inappropriate [indiscernible] in 2010. he denied any political motivation and he made his point by explaining he is a conservative republican. the entire transcript
eight months ago, and the inspector general report found discoverlerner did not these practices until 2011. when she learned about them, and i quote again from the report, she immediate lee erected that christ -- she immediately directed that the criteria the change. again found no evidence of political motivation. past year, our committee has looked through hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses. we have identified absolutely no evidence to support allegations of a political conspiracy against in servant of groups. what we have identified is evidence of gross mismanagement. discoverr failed to
that employees were using these terms for over a year. like the former irs commissioner, ms. lerner failed to notify congress about what she did. i am very disappointed that i will not be able to ask questions today. support -- port -- when she invoked the fifth amendment, and i do not believe a court would uphold that conclusion. like to ask if you procedural questions. attorney earlier, her she loses nothing, nobody gains anything. [indiscernible]
at that meeting her attorney would was asked if i [indiscernible] i agreed to do that. that did not happen. accepting thed, proper does not grant immunity. it does not bind the committee in any way. it allows the committee to of date information without requiring the witness to waive their fifth amendment rights. i was not invited to the meeting lerner'sth with ms. ne attorney. it seems to be the committee loses nothing by accepting this offer and may gain important information. the very question that the ,hairman just asked ms. lerner those are the kinds of questions that could be answered in a proffer.
i wanted to ask the chairman whether the committee would schedule time this week's for all committee members to hear from ms. lerner's attorney. with that, i yield back. [indiscernible] it in supreme irony that the chairman of this committee would unilaterally when an american citizen waves her fifth amendment rights while exercising his fifth amendment askt to exercise -- to not a question. [indiscernible] >> ms. fudge: mr. speaker, under rule 9 i give notice of my intention to offer a question of the privileges of the house.
the form of the resolution is as follows. whereas on march 5, 2014, during a hearing before the house committee on oversight and government reform, committee chairman darryl e. issa gave a statement and then posed 10 questions to former internal revenue service official lois learner who stated she was invoking her fifth amendment right not to testify. whereas the committee's ranking member, representative elijah e. cummings, had his turn for can hes. whereas chairman issa then quickly adjourned the hearing and refused to allow him to make any statement or ask any questions. whereas ranking member cummings protested immediately, stating, mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you just cannot do this. this is -- we are better than that. as a country we are better than that, as a committee.
whereas then chairman issa returned and allowed ranking member cummings to begin his statement but had it became clear mr. issa didn't want to hear what member cummings said, turned off ranking member cummings' microphone, repeatedly signaled to and he the hearing with his hand across his neck. whereas ranking member cummings objected again stating, you cannot have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that. whereas chairman issa made a statement of his own and posed questions during the hearing but refused to allow other members of the committee and in particular the ranking member who had sought recognition to make statements under the five-minute rule, in violation of house rule 9. -- 11. whereas chairman issa instructed the microphones to be turned off and adjourned the hearing without a vote or a unanimous consent agreement in violation of rule 16, because
he did not want to permit ranking member cummings to speak. whereas chairman issa's abusive behavior on march 5 is part of a continuing pattern in which he has routinely excluded members of the committee from investigative meetings and has routinely provided information to the press before sharing it with committee members. whereas chairman issa has violated clause 1 of rule 23 of the code of official conduct, which states, that a member, delegate, resident commissioner, officer or employee of the house shall behave at all times in a man that are shall reflect credibly on the house. now, therefore be be it resolved, that the house of representatives strongly condemns the offensive and disrespectful manner in which chairman darrell issa conducted the hearing of the house committee on oversight and government reform on march 5, 2014, during which he turned off the microphones of the ranking member while he was speaking and adjourned the hearing without a vote or unanimous consent agreement.
. the speaker pro tempore: under route 9, a resolution offered from the floor by a member other the majority leader or the minority leader is a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time dellingd by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentlelady from ohio will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time >> good morning.
the house rules say each member is supposed to get five minutes. for 15n issa went on minutes, and when i sought recognition, he quickly adjourned the hearing, turn off my microphone, and refused to allow me to make any statement or ask any questions. chairman issa cut off my microphone because he did not like what i had to say or what he thought i might say. chairman issa's actions undermine the integrity of our committee and prevent us from doing responsible and effective oversight. the irony of what chairman i said it is -- chairman issa date is the question i wanted to ask
was an attempt to help the committee's investigation. i question was an offer about ms. lerner's attorney to provide a proffer to the committee. i want that it proffer. i wanted to hear what her attorney would have said, and i want that information. the congress is entitled to that information. it does not give her immunity and does not wind the committee. it could have given us some of the information to chairman was asking about yesterday. 10asked ms. lerner some questions, and all of those answered by an proffer from her attorney. we ended up not getting any information. so not only were chairman issa's actions and abusive of
authority, they were counterproductive. republicans have abandoned responsible oversight by declining to take basic investigative steps for motive unnecessary political conflict. andmaking false claims about the white house last year before the committee received any documents or interviewed any witnesses, chairman isa kind on national television this was a targeting of the president's political enemies during the election year. the problem is even inspector george found no evidence of any white house involvement or political motivation. the committee has interviewed 38,000 employees who have said the same thing. there was no white house involvement or political motivation. cincinnati, al in
self identified conservative republican manager, told us the same thing. it is interesting that at gentlemen has never been brought before the committee. it started with him. yet republicans remain fixated on falsely accusing the white house attorney and it's a political -- and its political enemies in an attempt to reignite the partisan inquiry before the november elections. this is only one example of the larger pattern of unsubstantiated claims in two weeks ago chairman issa claimed that former secretary of state told leoninton panetta to stand down after the attacks in benghazi. " factashington post for --ass fact check