Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 694, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 676) providing for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the consideration of H. Res. 676.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to discuss the unwarranted, ongoing shift of power in favor of the executive branch.

Under President Obama, the executive branch has increasingly gone beyond the constraints of the Constitution. In fact, in a number of instances, the President's actions have gone beyond his article II powers to enforce the law and have infringed upon the article I powers of Congress to write the law.

We are here today because, at the beginning of this Congress, every Member of this body took an oath of office in which we swore to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' At the beginning of each Presidential term, the President takes an oath to ``faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States and . . . to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' While these oaths are slightly different, the object of both oaths is the same. The President and Members of Congress have an obligation to follow and defend the Constitution.

The text of the Constitution that we have sworn to defend provides separate powers for each branch of the Federal Government. Article I puts the power to legislate--that is, to write the law--in the hands of Congress. Article II, on the other hand, requires that the President ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The difference is important. The Founders knew that giving one branch the power to both write and execute the law would be a direct threat to the liberties of the American people. They separated these powers between the branches in order to ensure that no one particular person, whether it be the President or a Member of Congress, could trample upon the rights of the people.

My fear is that our Nation is currently facing the exact threat that the Constitution is designed to avoid. Branches of government have always attempted to exert their influence on the other branches, but the President has gone too far. Rather than faithfully executing the law as the Constitution requires, I believe that the President has selectively enforced the law in some instances, ignored the law in other instances and, in a few cases, unilaterally attempted to change the law altogether.

These actions have tilted the power away from the legislature and toward the Executive. They have also undermined the rule of law, which provides the predictability necessary to govern a functioning and fair society. By and large, this country is founded upon the rule of law, and this tilts that balance. By circumventing Congress, the President's actions have marginalized the role that the American people play in creating the laws that govern them. Specifically, the President has waived work requirements for welfare recipients, unilaterally changed immigration laws, released the Gitmo Five without properly notifying Congress, which is the law, and ignored the statutory requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

We have chosen to bring this legislation forth today to sue the President over his selective implementation of the Affordable Care Act because it is the option most likely to clear the legal hurdles necessary to succeed and to restore the balance between the branches intended by the Founders. This administration has effectively rewritten the law without following the constitutional process.

When the executive branch goes beyond the constraints of the Constitution and infringes upon the powers of the legislative branch, it is important that the remaining branch of government--the judiciary--play its role in rebalancing this important separation of powers. After all, the constitutional limits on government power are meaningless unless judges engage with the Constitution and enforce those limits.

My friends in the minority do not seem to believe that the judiciary is up to its role in rebalancing the separation of powers. I disagree. Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, Members of the minority argued that this lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of time. They argued that if this litigation were to go forward that it would lead to countless lawsuits between the branches of government.

What my friends in the minority might fail to tell you--but I will today on the floor--is that they were for suing the President before they were against it. Eight years ago, in 2006, some Members of the minority, including the ranking member of the Rules Committee--the gentlewoman from New York--were plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against then sitting President George W. Bush.

That is right. Eight years ago, my friends across the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President, brought by Members of one half of the Congress. The Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, who is also a plaintiff, argued that he was alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government and by a President who shrugged about the law. After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the Nation, he said he had determined that there was one group of people who was injured by the President's lack of respect for checks and balances--the House of Representatives.

I want to echo one line that he argued at the time regarding the separation of powers:

If a President does not need one House of Congress to pass

the law, what is next?

Perhaps this makes sense.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an editorial from The Huffington Post, on April 26, 2006, by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Michigan. It is entitled, ``Taking the President to Court,'' in which he made a compelling argument as to why Members of the House could, in fact, have standing to sue the President.

[From The Huffington Post, July 30, 2014]

Taking the President to Court

As some of you may be aware, according to the President and

Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both

the Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth

grade civics lesson, forget the book they give you when you

visit Congress--``How Our Laws Are Made,'' and forget

Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and balances, Republican-

style.

As the Washington Post reported last month, as the

Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through

Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year

(the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and

Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different

versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make

Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so

they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as

the House bill and sent it to the President. The President,

despite warnings that the bill did not represent the

consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed

the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it

as though it was the law of the land.

Several public interest groups have sought to stop some

parts of the bill from being implemented, under the theory

that the bill is unconstitutional. However, getting into the

weeds a bit, they have lacked the ability to stop the entire

bill. To seek this recourse, the person bringing the suit

must have what is called ``standing,'' that is they must show

they were injured or deprived of some right. Because the

budget bill covers so many areas of the law, it is difficult

for one person to show they were harmed by the entire bill.

Thus, many of these groups have only sought to stop part of

it.

After consulting with some of the foremost constitutional

experts in the nation, I determined that one group of people

are injured by the entire bill: Members of the House. We were

deprived of our right to vote on a bill that is now being

treated as the law of the land.

So, I am going to court. With many of my Democratic

Colleagues (list appended at the bottom of this diary), I

plan to file suit tomorrow in federal district court in

Detroit against the President, members of the Cabinet and

other federal officers seeking to have a simple truth

confirmed: a bill not passed by the House and Senate is not a

law, even if the President signs it. As such, the Budget bill

cannot be treated as the law of the land.

As many of you know, I have become increasingly alarmed at

the erosion of our constitutional form of government. Whether

through the Patriot Act, the Presidents Secret Domestic

Spying program, or election irregularities and

disenfranchisement, our fundamental freedoms are being taken

away. Nothing to me is more stark than this, however. If a

President does not need one House of Congress to pass a law,

what's next?

The following is a list of co-plaintiffs on this lawsuit. I

would note that I did not invite every Member of the House to

join in the suit, and I am certain many, many more Members

would have joined if asked. However, this was not possible

for various arcane legal reasons.

The other plaintiffs include Rep. John Dingell, Ranking

Member on the Energy and

Commerce Committee; Rep. Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Member on

the Ways and Means Committee; Rep. George Miller, Ranking

Member on the Education and Workforce Committee; Rep. James

L. Oberstar, Ranking Member on the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee; Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member

on the Financial Services Committee; Rep. Collin C. Peterson,

Ranking Member on the Agriculture Committee; Rep. Bennie

Thompson, Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Committee;

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member on the Rules

Committee; Rep. Fortney ``Pete'' Stark, Ranking Member on the

Ways and Means Health Subcommittee; Rep. Sherrod Brown,

Representing Ohio's 13th District.

Mr. Speaker, the litigation considered by this resolution is a lot different and is a lot stronger than litigation filed by my friends on the other side against a previous President. The majority of these lawsuits was brought by a small group of legislators or individual Members. Today, the House as an institution will vote to authorize the suit, which gives this case, I believe, a far better chance in court than previous attempts.

My friends in the minority at the Rules Committee yesterday claimed that this is all about politics, but the Republican members of this committee repeatedly insisted that we disagreed. The issue is not about partisan politics. It is not about Republicans and Democrats. This lawsuit is about the legislative branch's standing up for the laws that have been passed and signed into law by the legislative branch and signed by the Executive of this great Nation. Republicans are motivated to stand up for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.

Any person who believes in our system of government should be worried about the President's executive overreach. This President, as well as future Presidents--from either party--must not be allowed to ignore the Constitution and to circumvent Congress.

Both Republicans and Democrats have stood up for the legislative branch in the past. In fact, there have been 44 lawsuits filed in the last 75 years in which legislators sought standing in Federal court. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs from a single party, nearly 70 percent were brought by Democrats, representing the body.

I submit for the Record an editorial by Kimberley Strassel, from The Wall Street Journal, dated July 17, 2014, that further explains why the Democrats were suing the President before they were against it, and I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for Congress and to defend our Constitution against the executive branch.

[From The Potomac Watch, July 17, 2014]

The Boehner-Bashers' Track Record

(By Kimberley A. Strassel)

In the tiny House Rules Committee room in Congress on

Wednesday, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter let roll her

grievances against House Republicans' lawsuit against Barack

Obama. It took a lot of coffee.

The suit, which sues the president for unilaterally

changing a core provision of ObamaCare, is a ``political

stunt,'' declared Ms. Slaughter. Republicans have ``timed''

it to ``peak . . . right as the midterm elections are

happening,'' said the ranking Rules member. Having failed to

stop ObamaCare, they have chosen to ``run to the judicial

branch.'' And, she lectured, a ``lawsuit against the

president brought by half of the Congress'' is ``certainly''

not the ``correct way to resolve'' a ``political dispute.''

As for the legal merits, well! Ms. Slaughter feted her

witness, lawyer Walter Dellinger, praising his work on Raines

v. Byrd , a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court found

members of Congress do not have automatic standing to sue.

The courts, she insisted, had no business settling such

disputes. A lawsuit against the president, she declared, ``is

preposterous.''

About the only thing Ms. Slaughter didn't do in five hours

was offer House Speaker John Boehner her litigation notes.

For it seems to have slipped Ms. Slaughter's mind--and the

press's attention--that a mere eight years ago she was a

plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats

against George W. Bush. The year was 2006, just as Democrats

were, uh, peaking in their campaign to take back the House.

Democrats were sore that they'd lost a fight over a budget

bill that made cuts to Medicaid and student loans. They

dredged up a technical mistake--a tiny difference between the

House and Senate version of the bill. Michigan Democrat John

Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee,

decided to (how did Ms. Slaughter put it?) file a lawsuit

against the president brought by half of the Congress. He was

joined as a plaintiff by nearly every other then-ranking

Democratic member and titan in the House--Charles Rangel,

John Dingell, George Miller, Collin Peterson, Bennie

Thompson, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, James Oberstar and Ms.

Slaughter herself.

In an April 2006 Huffington Post piece titled ``Taking the

President to Court,'' Mr. Conyers explained that he was

``alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of

government,'' and by a president who ``shrugged'' about ``the

law.'' After ``consulting with some of the foremost

constitutional experts in the nation,'' he had determined

that there was ``one group of people'' who were ``injured''

by Mr. Bush's lack of respect for ``checks and balances'':

Congress. So he was ``going''--or as Ms. Slaughter might put

it, ``running''--''to court.''

The plaintiffs--including Ms. Slaughter--meanwhile filed

briefs explaining why Raines v. Byrd (her Dellinger special)

should be no bar to granting them standing. They chided the

defendants for omitting ``any mention'' of Coleman v. Miller,

a 1939 case in which the Supreme Court did grant standing to

members of a legislature to sue. By Wednesday, it was Ms.

Slaughter who was omitting any mention that any such decision

ever existed.

Then again, there was so much that escaped Democrats' minds

at that hearing. Not one of those present, for instance,

recalled that only two years ago, four of their House

colleagues filed suit against Vice President Joe Biden (in

his capacity as head of the Senate) challenging as

unconstitutional the filibuster. Or that Democratic

legislators also filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2011,

and in 2007, and in 2006, and in 2002 and in 2001 and . . .

It was left to Florida International University law professor

Elizabeth Price Foley, another witness, to remind Democrats

that in fact no fewer than 44 lawsuits in which legislators

sought standing had been filed in federal court since Coleman

v. Miller. Of the 41 filed by plaintiffs with unified

political affiliation, nearly 70 percent were brought by

Democrats. At least 20 of those came since 2000. The GOP

might thank Ms. Slaughter for the idea.

Save one crucial difference. It was also left to Ms. Foley

to explain that the reason most of these prior cases had

failed is because most were, in fact--again, in Ms.

Slaughter's words--''political stunts.'' The majority,

including the Slaughter case, were brought by ad hoc groups

of legislators, sore over a lost political battle,

complaining to courts. The judiciary wasn't much impressed.

By contrast--and by far the more notable aspect of the five

long hours of the hearing--is the care the Boehner team is

putting into its own suit. While Democrats used Wednesday to

score political points, Republicans used it to grill their

expert witnesses on case law and constitutional questions.

Mr. Boehner's decisions to have the House as a whole vote to

authorize the suit, and to narrowly tailor it around a

specific presidential transgression (and one that no private

litigant would ever have standing to protest), are designed

to make this a far different and better breed of a court

case.

It's precisely because Democrats know how good a point

Republicans have about Obama unilateralism that they are

already working to dismiss the suit as ``political.'' And to

do that, Ms. Slaughter must have us forget that up until, oh,

two weeks ago, Democrats were all about asking the courts to

vindicate Congress's prerogatives. How times change.

Mr. Speaker, through this lawsuit, the United States House of Representatives will take a critical and crucial step in reining in the President and in defending the Constitution so that it will endure for yet another generation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a lot of revisionist history.

But I will answer the question. And the answer is that years back, we did impeach William Jefferson Clinton because he lied to an FBI agent. He lied to a Federal grand jury, and he violated a Federal law, which was a felony. Oh, by the way, that led to impeachment for a felony while in office, a sitting President.

In this instance, the President of the United States is not faithfully executing the laws of the country, and that is an entirely different process. So for the gentleman to suggest that this is going to lead to that is simply not true.

I will tell you that William Jefferson Clinton violated the Federal law as a felony, and we believe our President, now Barack Obama, is not faithfully executing the laws. And anybody could figure that out who serves as a Member of Congress.

I would now like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a member of the Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and Natural Resources Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

With the gentlewoman having 5\1/2\ minutes left, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman that I have no additional speakers except myself to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, our system of government is in a bad place when one branch of government is compelled to sue another branch of government for failing to play its proper constitutional role. We shouldn't be in that situation, but we are. The President should have fulfilled his oath to faithfully execute the laws as written by Congress and signed by this President. Unfortunately, this lawsuit is necessary because the President has not implemented the law as passed and chose to pick and choose how he would have the law affect the American citizens.

This resolution will help guarantee that the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President is faithfully executed according to the rule of law and not according to the whim of one person, that being the President of the United States. Also, no President should be allowed to pick and choose which laws matter and which ones do not.

It is unfortunate that some Members of Congress believe this body should be irrelevant. It is unfortunate that they believe any President should be able to enforce the law or not enforce the law as that President chooses.

The American people elect their Member of Congress. They live under the laws that are written. They make their plans and follow through based upon what the laws are, and they live under these rules of law, and they need to be able to count on them. When Members of Congress believe the laws that we pass no longer matter, they are also saying that the beliefs of the American people do not matter.

When we allow the President to singlehandedly determine what the law is, the Constitution, our separation of powers, and the American people become irrelevant. That is why the President's system of unilateral governance cannot stand. It must be stopped. Even if it takes a lawsuit to do so, that is what we think the Federal judiciary is there to do: to resolve differences based upon the law. If the President's goal was to goad the House into defending the Constitution and the role of the

government, he certainly had succeeded when he said: Why not just sue me?

Our Constitution must be defended and the role of the American people in the lawmaking process must be understood and guaranteed. This resolution is an important step in doing that.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit an exchange of letters between Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, Candice Miller, and myself regarding the Committee on House Administration's jurisdictional interests in this resolution as well as Chairman Miller's desire to waive House Administration's consideration of H. Res. 676. These letters were also included in House Report 113- 561, which was filed on July 28, 2014.

July 24, 2014.

Hon. Pete Sessions;

Chairman, The Committee on Rules,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sessions: On July 24, 2014, the Committee on

Rules ordered reported H. Res. 676, a resolution providing

for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the

President or other executive branch officials inconsistent

with their duties under the Constitution of the United

States. As you know, the Committee on House Administration

was granted an additional referral upon the bill's

introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction under

rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over the

allowance and expenses of administrative officers of the

House.

Because of your willingness to consult with my committee

regarding this matter, I will waive consideration of the bill

by the Committee on House Administration. By agreeing to

waive its consideration of the bill, the Committee on House

Administration does not waive its jurisdiction over H. Res.

676.

I request that you include this letter and your response as

part of your committee's report on the bill and the

Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation

on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Candice S. Miller,

Chairman, Committee on

House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and in memory of one of Texas's most heroic sons, Navy SEAL Sniper Chris Kyle. Chris was one of the deadliest snipers in American history, with 160 confirmed kills out of 255 claimed by his SEAL brethren. He earned Two Silver Stars, and five Bronze Stars With Valor; and survived six IED attacks, two gunshot wounds, two helicopter crashes, and more surgeries than he could remember in his distinguished career. Sadly, on February 2, 2013, while trying to help a fellow veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, he was shot and killed at a shooting range. His courage, selfless service, and his dedication to his country and family make us all proud. He is survived by his wife Taya. I submit this poem penned in his honor by Albert Carey Caswell.

The Sights We've Set

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

The . . .

The sights . . .

The sights we've set!

All in our moments upon this earth as met . . .

All in our honor that we've so kept!

All in the goals that we've so met!

So reached!

To all our children we must teach!

Of uncommon valor so very deep!

As a United States Navy Seal Chris,

The Legend you now beseech!

And so surpassed,

forever onward to so last!

All in the sights Chris you've so set!

You, Star of Texas so very deep!

All in your Seal of Honor Chris,

you would not so breach!

Throughout your magnificent life so sought to seek!

Are left behind all of those moments of your life of now we

speak!

About Strength In Honor so very deep!

As why for you Chris we now all so weep!

For such things can only be found,

only in the most courageous of all hearts which so beat!

When, courage comes to crest!

To but be one of The Very Best!

As a true American Hero no less!

And to march off to war,

so willing to give up all that you love and adore!

For such ones,

Heaven will so reach!

And ah all of those lives you've saved!

And all of those Mothers whose tears you so helped not to

break!

Not to so weep!

And all of those children now so born,

from all of your Brothers In Arms from death you'd keep!

For only our Lord so knows this number so sweet!

And to you this day will speak!

Rest now our most heroic son!

As the eyes and the Hearts of Texas are upon you this one!

As we pray to our Lord to help your loved ones to move on!

As SEALED with a kiss we say goodbye!

As here we stand with tear in eye!

To so guide us all,

each and everyone!

All in the sights Chris,

for us you have set!

For now Chris you have but a new war so to be won!

As an Angel in The Army of our Lord our most precious son!

To so watch over us from sun to sun!

And we will hear you on the wind!

And feel your Angel's breath upon us,

as Thy Will Be Done!

As we pray up in Heaven one day we all shall so meet!

As this sight we have so set,

now so seek!

For you were once,

and will forever be . . . one of America's Best!

So Rest my Son!

As we lay your fine body so down to sleep!

And when there comes a gentle rain,

your tears shall wash down upon your loved ones to so ease

their pain!

Until, up in Heaven you all so meet,

and you won't have to cry no more!

Amen!

Madam Speaker, did you know that Google keeps emails for 7 years?

Google, a company which is used for personal emails, keeps your emails, evidently, longer than the IRS. Well, that is, at least, what we are understanding now from the IRS.

I think it is highly doubtable that these emails simply disappeared. And seeing the other claims by the IRS that have turned out to be falsities, I believe this is also. I do not believe that they have lost them.

First, the IRS delayed in telling the American people, through their report of the missing emails. They did not even acknowledge the problem that occurred.

Second, the IRS Commissioner Koskinen was, I believe, untruthful when he referred to these emails being missing. No, not in April, as he first claimed, but actually February 2, according to the IRS deputy associate chief counsel, did he recognize that they were missing.

Madam Speaker, I would say if Google can keep these emails for 7 years, I think the IRS should have to do the same, and if they can't do their job, we are going to, as Members of Congress, find out.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in calling for a resolution of what seems to have become the never-ending division of the island of Cyprus. I speak not of a resolution that casts blame for what has gone before, but one that reunites both Cypriot communities and allows the island as a whole to chart a path forward within the international community.

In much of the historical rhetoric surrounding this issue, what sometimes gets lost is that all Cypriots--Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots--have legitimate grievances. Any resolution of the Cyprus question must respect the rights of all Cypriots. All Cypriots must be allowed to participate freely in the island's national life. Finally, the international isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community must come to an end. The overwhelming vote ten years ago by Turkish Cypriots to end the status quo and for the Annan Plan underlines the ridiculousness of Turkish Cypriot isolation.

As we observe this year the 40th anniversary of the island, and the 10th anniversary of the vote on the Annan Plan, the fact remains that two generations of Greek and Turkish Cypriots have known nothing but the status quo. It cannot be maintained for future generations. I call on the Administration and my colleagues to support and encourage the ongoing dialogue between both communities, so that a comprehensive settlement that encourages reunion and reconciliation can be secured.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the young chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) for not only his great work that he has done on this bill but also presenting this bill before the Rules Committee along with the gentleman, Mr. Serrano, who not only ably spoke about their bill but defended its process and the attempt that they are trying to make today to pass this into law.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will reduce Department of the Treasury funding for salaries and expenses of departmental offices by 1 percent. This $1.75 million cut will not only reasonably save the government much-needed funds but will also send a clear signal to the Treasury Department that they must take seriously their oversight responsibilities over the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, known as the OCC.

I have been engaged in a process on behalf of a constituent of mine for a number of years, and I am here finally on the floor today as a result of frustration and what I think is an outright lack of effectively doing their job in the OCC.

Beginning in 2007, the OCC opened an action against T Bank, NA, with regard to their relationship with a payment processor, specifically investigating the bank's CEO, a gentleman from Dallas, Texas, Patrick Adams. The investigation culminated in a trial before an administrative law judge. That administrative law judge was picked specifically by the OCC as the administrative judge.

On November 8, 2012, the judge recommended that all charges brought by the Comptroller of the Currency against Mr. Adams be dismissed on November 8, 2012. Most disturbing is that the Comptroller has refused to render a decision, leaving Mr. Adams all this time in legal limbo.

12 CFR 109.40 clearly states the Comptroller ``shall render a final decision within 90 days after notification of the parties that the case has been submitted for final decision.''

Despite being required by law, the Comptroller has refused to render a final decision 15 months after the official submission by the administrative judge. Instead, the Comptroller has extended the 90-day period four times, most recently in May of this year. The Code of Federal Regulations provides no avenue for the Comptroller to extend such a decision.

I believe this delay represents a significant deficiency in the operations of an agency under the purview of the Treasury Department. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that I have tried to work tirelessly through this problem with the gentleman from Dallas, Texas, my constituent, and it is the Federal Government, through the OCC, who refuses to abide by a decision made by an administrative judge that they chose and has waited 15 months, holding this gentleman in limbo at a time of his life when he has spent millions of dollars to protect himself against the Federal Government, and the administrative judge ruled against the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, it is time that the OCC do their job. And since they are not, I am here on the floor today, and I am asking Members of this body to take the action that is necessary, regular, and, I consider, reasonable. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield, at this time, to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the subcommittee chair.

I thank the gentleman. And, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that I would appreciate not only his help, but also the help of the inspector general of the Treasury Department, who has been advised of this circumstance, and we are waiting for their final decision. Even though it is 15 months late, I believe we should move forward and take the $1.7 million away from an agency that does not live within the law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 17, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $1,750,000)''.

Page 152, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $1,750,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chairman Ashok Kumar Mago receiving the Padma Shri Award and to congratulate him on this honor.

As Chairman and CEO of Mago and Associates and Founder of the Greater Dallas Indo-American Chamber of Commerce, Chairman Mago's accomplishments are outstanding and he is truly deserving of this prestigious award. By focusing on networking, expanding business opportunities, and fostering trade between our two nations, the chamber has grown into an influential organization in Texas. I want to commend Chairman Mago on his leadership and dedication to the chamber and giving the local Indian community a united voice. His belief in giving back to his community is admirable and evident in his actions, such as raising hundreds and thousands of dollars for charities and generously devoting his time to serve in numerous civic organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Chairman Ashok Kumar Mago as he continues to encourage trade and business relations between the United States and India.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of America's 238th birthday and the brave men and women of The Armed Forces and their families, who've paid and continue to pay the great price of Freedom and Independence for us all. And on this Fourth of July surrounded by your loved ones, say prayer and give thanks to them all. I submit this poem penned in their honor, and America's 238th birthday by Albert Carey Caswell.

238 Ago This Day

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

238 years ago this day . . .

As the birth of this Nation so made its way . . .

Declaring Independence as had they . . .

Shouting out across the world on that day!

With a shot heard around the world to say!

That for the greater good so willing to pay!

The greatest treasure,

That Last Full Measure had all of they!

To Live Free Or Die on that day!

238 years ago this day!

And since then,

throughout the coming years . . .

The price of Freedom,

has been bought and paid by all of these so dear!

As one truth!

One constant!

Has so appeared!

To weigh from year to year!

Are all of these brave hearts,

who have given and gave so all without fear!

And all of those families who have so lived in tears . . .

Whose loved ones now lie in such dark quiet graves so dear .

. .

From the beaches of Normandy, to the jungles of Nam,

to An bar Province they've so fought and died for us all so

clear . . .

As their courage,

all in the darkest of all nights has so persevered!

With their most precious lives they gave!

And all of their strong arms and legs!

And beautiful eyes upon their face!

As generation after generation,

these magnificent's the price of Freedom have paid!

``with the bombs bursting in air''

``with the rockets red glare''

``gave proof through the night that our flag was still''

``O . . . say can you see'' while we all live so free?

This Independence Day!

And remember that somewhere far away,

there are heroes who for all of you will die this day!

And that in hospitals and towns all across this here USA!

There are fine Patriots of Peace,

who must rebuild their lives for the price of Freedom they

paid!

So for all of them a prayer so say,

and carry them deep down in your hearts this day . . .

On this Independence Day,

on this America's 238th birthday!

Independence!

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 629 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 629 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4413. This rule makes in order eight amendments which provide the opportunity for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate.

The legislation before us today reauthorizes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, known as the CFTC,

through fiscal year 2018, and makes important reforms to promote market stability and to protect end users from unnecessary regulations. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, we are here because we want to learn from the past, be prepared for the future, and to allow this organization to adapt as it needs to to produce better decisions and better outcomes in the future, and that is why Republicans are here today. This bipartisan bill out of the Agriculture Committee does exactly that.

Over the past 20 years, financial services companies have started to employ financial derivatives--historically used by farmers, ranchers, and utility co-ops to manage risk--as new types of investment vehicles. They are a part of the day-to-day life of millions of people across this country that help us to not only get better prices, but to be able to hedge against the uncertainty.

Today, the derivatives marketplace represents trillions of dollars' worth of futures contracts, swaps, and other similar financial instruments. In response to the incredible growth of the derivatives market, the CFTC has promulgated rules and regulations designed to promote fairness and stability throughout the economy directly in relationship to this activity.

Unfortunately, regulations have been written so broadly and with such inconsistency that many end users--such as farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and municipal utility companies that rely on these contracts for the delivery of critical grain and natural gas--are forced to comply with rules intended for sophisticated investment firms rather than the instruments on which they rely and use for their own trading and commodity work. Such blind enforcement of the law is not fair nor efficient and unnecessarily punishes small businesses that are trying to effectively manage their risk.

Simply put, as a direct result of the CFTC's regulations, American families are paying more for everything from a box of cereal to a new dishwasher to their monthly energy bills. In recognition of this fact, H.R. 4413 exempts end users from these regulations to restore fairness, to promote American companies, and to give them flexibility that they need to run their day-to-day operations and to protect consumers from unnecessary price increases.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been well understood by the Agriculture Committee on a bipartisan basis. All the way to the top on both sides of the committee, there is an agreement about how to move forward with effectiveness, with efficiency, and to allow those end users to be able to have the market strategies available to them to hedge their own risk, and to understand the things that are in their own natural best interest, and that is stability of prices, a marketplace that they understand, and, perhaps more importantly, one which keeps American jobs in America and, secondly, that allows Americans to be able to invest in America, from American-made products to American-made users.

What we are here to do today is to bring this commonsense piece of legislation to the floor on behalf of a bipartisan large group of members. It is common sense, it is pro-business, it promotes appropriate regulation of our Nation's derivatives market, it is well thought through. What this will allow is this House to be able to get on record, put themselves to where they can then go to a conference to meet with the Senate, if they believe it is the right thing to do, and move forward to make the CFTC even better than what it is today based upon the history and based upon where it wants to go.

The discussion we had at the Rules Committee was, on a bipartisan basis, very uplifting. I believe the effort that we are going to bring together with that legislation means that we can vote not only ``yes,'' but have confidence that we have made better the things which we touch today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida bringing up a few of the ideas and assertions that I believe that he thinks are frailties in the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What I would like to do, if I can, is let him know that we had a full hearing yesterday and enabled our members time to read and understand and hear these ideas. We were assured yesterday by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member that this is a good process. We are not trying to do an end run around anybody.

Mr. Speaker, there is something that is well established, known as the Administrative Procedure Act. This is an opportunity for agencies to interact with each other through an agreement, whereby they consult with each other and provide information and procedurally be able to walk through who is doing what and how things might be done.

I don't think it means they always have to have consent. I don't think it means they always have to have agreement, but there is a process that goes on.

I would refer the gentleman to section 211 of the bill on page 18. Section 211 says quite clearly--no ambiguity here--that everything in this act is meant to comply with and give guidance to the Administrative Procedure Act, which means that there is nothing in here that says that the CFTC does not share its information, understand its rulings, work with the FTC, work with the SEC, work with anyone about those rules that they are going to promulgate.

As a matter of fact, it says that the CFTC does have the ability to do that, and instead of them making their own rules and regulations without working through the Administrative Procedure Act would be a mistake. It is authorized here in law.

Further, if one goes back to a later section, page 47 of the bill, section 359, for the Members of Congress that are sitting in their offices and interested in this and want to know, this bipartisan bill by two senior Members--by the way, a former chairman and the current chairman today--says, ``Section 359. Cross-border regulation of derivatives transactions.''

That means that, in a world market, we want to make sure that Japanese, Russian, Indian, German, whatever the marketplace holds for a commodity that we are talking about in particular, this would mean that, as the bill says:

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this

act, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the

Commodities Futures Trading Commission shall jointly issue

rules setting forth the application of United States swaps

requirements for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the

Commodity Exchange Act related to cross-border swaps and

security-based swaps transactions involving U.S. persons or

non-U.S. persons.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to do the right thing. This is not about causing some market crash or failure. This comes from the Agriculture Committee, on a bipartisan basis, making sure that, in section 211 and section 359, they very effectively address exactly what we are being told we didn't do.

We are trying to have this government know what the right hand and the left hand are doing, not the reverse, and I believe it is simply not a true statement to say that we are not trying to accomplish this.

Look, we don't all have to agree on this, but on a bipartisan basis-- unanimous out of the Agriculture Committee--they thought they did a pretty good product. I think they did a pretty good product, and my job is to come defend us on the floor. So, when somebody says you did something wrong, I say, ``Read the bill.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I really do appreciate the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for coming down and taking her very important time.

I would, with great respect, remind her and my colleagues who are listening that the Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over the CFTC, not the Financial Services Committee, which is why we are here doing this bill today.

I want to just say to the gentleman and the gentlewoman that, if they are unable to give time during the debate or now to their Democrat colleagues they would choose, I am sure they could come talk to us and ask for time, but I don't see anybody lined up here to come down and argue the point, because this is a bipartisan bill, because this is a commonsense bill, because this makes sense that we are trying to avoid problems by getting this administration and the commissions that are spoken about here to work together, to use the benefit of the knowledge of the past. This is not about deregulating or doing away with something or defunding somebody. That is just not the case.

The case is section 211 and section 359. The entire bill has been well vetted and well understood on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Collin Peterson, the ranking member, came with the chairman, Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma. They sat there very succinctly and said they were going to work together. They were asking us to consider working together. We have had lots of bills, lots of appropriators. Just the other day, Armed Services, on a bipartisan basis, brought us their bill. I am sure there will be people who will fight that also. They will say that those darned Republicans just want to ruin this country, that they want to go back to the other ages.

Mr. Speaker, not true.

In fact, work that is done on our Appropriations Committee and work that is done, as an example, on the Agriculture Committee is done together to try and address the problems of their constituencies. They're the people who live in rural America--people who get up early, who go to bed late, who care about this country--who do the things that, I think, are all American, in my mind, including having their sons and daughters join our military and they are helping each other-- good neighbors--and looking out for each other. That is what we are doing. That is what this is. This isn't to have a debating group about things that are wrong. It is about things that can be done right.

I would just say that, if the Democratic manager is unwilling to yield his time to Ms. Waters, who is the gentlewoman who came up from Financial Services, she ought to ask a Republican if he will yield time, and it wouldn't surprise me if he would.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from Florida, for not only attending the meetings, Rules Committee meetings, that were directly related to this subject. It took some time yesterday. He was offered an opportunity and took us up on asking questions.

But I will tell you, not all of Denmark is rotten, Mr. Speaker. Not all of Denmark is rotten.

We are here today to put a bill on the floor to reauthorize the CFTC. We are not here for housing bills. We are not here for Wall Street bills. We are not here for all the problems of voter regulations. We are not here for all the problems of the world.

I am for world peace too, by the way. But that is not what we are here to do today.

What we are here to do is to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, through a bill that was worked through by the Agriculture Committee, on a bipartisan basis, where they bring people together and actually listen to ideas. And certain sections in here may have been written by a Republican, certain may have been written by a Democrat, but there was agreement that they saw the same direction.

What did we do?

We made sure we empowered, by recognizing the role of what we are reauthorizing for the CFTC, and gave them what we believe are the proper statutes and direction, which is what the Congress of the United States is supposed to be doing, giving direction, working in consultation, and we have done this over and over and over.

By the way, this is not a 3,000-page bill. This bill was read by Members of Congress before we passed it.

Section 211, right here, we want people to work together. We would like to ask this administration to please work together.

Oh, by the way, we included the Federal courts in here also, and we said, a person adversely affected by a rule of the commission promulgated under this act may obtain the review of this rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

So we included the court system in here. We went through a process to make sure that we were dealing properly with a bipartisan answer to the past and to make us better for the future.

Oh, did we include other countries to where we want others in the world marketplace to know what we are doing? Yes, we did. Section 359, cross-border regulations of derivatives.

Mr. Speaker, we have tried to do the right thing. We don't debate every day every bill. We do debate lots of bills. We are trying to do the right thing. We are trying to work together. We are even trying to give enough time.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on my side?

Twelve and one-half minutes. My guess is that the gentleman from Florida had at least 12\1/2\ minutes. That is 24 minutes that we had available where, if there are other Members of the body that would wish to come down and participate in this debate, they can do just that.

I have not had anybody seek time. So I think the arguments are fair, but I think that they hold less water than what some assume.

What we are trying to do here today, the Republican majority, is to bring bills forward through regular order, through committees, where we know what we are doing, and we try and get things--try to get things done together. In this case, a successful rain dance has a lot to do with timing.

Well, the timing is right here today, Mr. Speaker, and we are right here on the floor with a bill. I see very little in terms of content where people want to come down and beat up the product. And the reason why is because this product is kind of like an American farm product-- it is really pretty good. It really is a product of hard work, getting up early, going to bed late, being honest about it, trying to make things as efficient as they can.

So I am going to stand behind this product today. I am going to stand behind this product because I think they did a good job.

I will tell you that I think that our young chairman, Frank Lucas, is a great young leader. He is doing great things, and that is why I can say I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule, ``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I can say with some 10 minutes left in time given me, and some time, about the same that was given to my Democrat colleague, I am going to yield back the balance of my time because I believe that the job we did was worthy and the product will show itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chairman, my amendment is really straightforward and one which I have offered year after year after year after year on the floor of the House of Representatives.

It would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line, one line, on the Amtrak system, a line that is known as the Sunset Limited, and it runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles.

Madam Chairman, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 required that Amtrak operate without any Federal assistance after 2002. Amtrak was supposed to be free of Federal operating subsidies.

Yet, despite this commonsense requirement that Amtrak cease their financial irresponsibility and mismanagement, instead, it costs the taxpayers $396.31 per rider, per year, on this line. That is $396.31 to subsidize the travels of passengers from New Orleans to Los Angeles, a trip that takes nearly 48 hours, assuming the train is on time.

Madam Chairman, we could buy everybody a free ticket on an airline from New Orleans to Los Angeles and probably end up saving money.

However, according to Amtrak's most recent performance report, the Sunset Limited only arrives on time 46 percent of the time. So it might even make sense for somebody to get there not only quicker, but also cheaper.

This places the Sunset Limited as one of the top 10 worst on-time routes for any of Amtrak's routes in its latest performance report.

Madam Chairman, taxpayers should be happy that the train really doesn't run more often. But when it does run, the route loses an average of $40 million a year.

So my amendment is the first step, once again, in instilling just a small measure, joining the gentleman from Georgia, in fiscal discipline that Amtrak should be told today that it has to establish.

If it cannot manage itself with its worst, most expensive performing line, then God help us all. If they won't do it, we are going to. Failure to do so will only allow Amtrak to continue misusing and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Look, it is just very simple. I am asking that my colleagues join with me and say that the worst-performing, the most cost-prohibitive line would be stopped by Amtrak. So, I think it makes sense to say, no more Sunset Limited.

So I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, once again I stand up in a continuing theme of what I believe fiscally responsible Members who come to the floor should look at--the operation of Amtrak.

Today, once again, I come to the floor to offer my ideas about how we can help, especially during troubling financial times for the American taxpayer with our Federal Government, that we can look at and find ways to where we work with Amtrak.

Years ago I met with the chairman of the board, who openly acknowledged that there were challenges that Amtrak faced, not just safety issues, but many other issues that dealt with their financial integrity.

I told him I would continue doing these kinds of amendments, and he considered this, in a sense, an opportunity for the people who provide money, meaning the taxpayers of the United States, to have a say about the operation of how their money would be used. That is the same spirit that I am here on the floor today.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for Amtrak routes that have total direct costs that are more than twice the revenue that they produce. That means, if the cost is twice as much as the revenue, I think that that should be a solid reason why someone should consider eliminating those routes.

They are all over the place, and I believe that Amtrak continues to provide these, accept government money, and they don't give two flips about what we think about the use of the taxpayer money. And so I think it is worth our time to be here.

Every single long-distance route that Amtrak provides over 400 miles in length operates at a loss every single month. If they have got a route that is more than 400 miles, I mean, we are helping them out here, Madam Chairman.

We are helping out Amtrak, and we are saying to them, if you have got something more than 400 miles, you are operating at a loss.

Now we are saying, however, if it is twice the cost of the revenue, that is what we would like to have you look at. And I think that it would be an argument for us, as a provider of money, to say, look, we think that you should help people. Maybe when they call in to you to take Amtrak, if it is one of those routes, why don't you suggest to them that they fly aircraft, that they take a bus, that they do something where the American taxpayer is not on the line.

The bottom line is, if you combine seven routes that are taken in this parameter, the American taxpayer pays $332.8 million for this subsidy. $332 million is maybe not a lot of money to Amtrak, but that is a darn lot amount of money for the American people to be putting into Amtrak to have them waste.

I believe it is a waste. I believe it could be not only better allocated, but utilized in a better way, like shifting people who are coming to you--let's take an alternative. Let's maybe take an airplane.

It is clear that the government subsidizes rail service on Amtrak, and it does not make economic sense that they take advantage of that.

So, Madam Chairman, it is real simple. This is an opportunity for the people who represent taxpayers to simply come forth and say, let's have a vote on this, that we believe that that is too much money. 332 million bucks should not be used on these seven routes, and that is why I am here today.

So, Madam Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support what I think is a commonsense amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding to me, and I appreciate him bringing this issue up, as he did in the Rules Committee at the time of the hearing.

I want to assure the gentleman and each of the Members of this body that the gentleman who will be the new chairman of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), has every intent to make sure that his work, the assignments that will be given as they move forward, including travel, will be done on a fair basis.

Mr. Gowdy is aware of and knows the sensitive nature of not only the investigation, but also how this will be handled; and Mr. Gowdy, I assure you, is very prepared to match and to meet the Members that Ms. Pelosi has put on the committee, and I think that you will see that the Members who will serve as a result of the Speaker appointing them will serve with honor and distinction and will work well and fairly together.

I thank the gentleman for asking the question.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Rolf Haberecht as he celebrates his eighty-fifth birthday on Wednesday, June 4, 2014. Dr. Haberecht is a man who has made an impact on the Dallas community through his business success and philanthropic endeavors.

Dr. Haberecht earned his doctoral degree in Chemistry and Physics from the Technical University of Berlin, Germany. He and his wife, Ute, moved to Dallas, Texas in 1962 when he accepted a position with Texas Instruments as a Research Scientist, subsequently rising to become Senior Vice President, responsible for the company's worldwide semiconductor operations. In 1984 Dr. Haberecht launched VLSIP Technologies, a start-up company that has grown to become a worldwide manufacturer of electronic medical modules that are part of a number of medical devices. His achievements in science and technology have made such an impact that he was selected as the 2013 inductee into the prestigious ``Tech Titans Hall of Fame.''

Dr. Haberecht is also celebrated in the Dallas community for generously donating his time and efforts, as well as significant financial support, to numerous philanthropic endeavors. He has served on various civic and philanthropic boards, including the Lamplighter School, Episcopal School of Dallas, Southwestern Medical Foundation, and Chairman of the Texas State Technical College System Board of Regents. Dr. and Mrs. Haberecht have made generous donations to a multitude of organizations, including Children's Medical Center of Dallas and its Children's Research Institute, the George W. Bush Presidential Center, and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, which has named an academic center, a deanship, and a research fund in honor of the philanthropic couple. Their philanthropic and volunteer civic leadership has been recognized with the Charles Cameron Sprague Community Services Award given by the Southwestern Medical Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations to Dr. Haberecht as he celebrates his eighty-fifth birthday and our commendations to him for having successfully pursed the American Dream of achieving success in life while helping others.

Mr. Speaker, on this Memorial Day I rise in honor and remembrance, and gratitude for all of those families of the Armed Forces who gave That Last Full Measure in the name of Freedom. Carry them with you in your hearts this holiday and say a prayer for all of them and their families. I ask that this poem penned in their honor by Albert Carey Caswell be placed in the Record.

Bow Your Heads

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

Bow your heads . . .

And close your eyes . . .

And say a prayer for all those girls and guys . . .

And all of those families who now so cry!

Our most brilliant of all men and women of the military,

our GI's!

Army, Navy, Air Force, and The United States Marines,

no greater gift can so be seen!

And this Memorial Day,

please . . . please . . . please remember why!

We are free,

so you and I!

And remember that throughout the world,

all in such deep dark cold ground lies someone's little boy

or girl!

Who But For The Greater Good,

so gave That Last Full Measure in all they could!

As the angels up in heaven began to cry!

Thank them for the gifts they gave!

Thank them for teaching us all how heroes behave!

On this Memorial Day!

As all of those families,

so wipe the tears away!

And all of those children at night,

with tears in eyes so lie awake!

Now bow your heads . . .

And close your eyes . . .

Upon, your knees!

Say a prayer,

for all of these most heroic girls and guys!

And all of those families,

who now so cry!

And why we are free,

I bid you please remember why!

Bow your heads!

Amen!

Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to learn of the recent mining disaster in Soma, Turkey, which has now claimed 301 lives, and I extend my deepest condolences to the people of Turkey who struggle to make sense of this unfortunate accident. My thoughts and prayers are with both the families mourning the loss of their loved ones, and with the injured as they begin their long journeys to recovery.

Turkey is a longstanding friend and ally of the United States. From the Cold War to the fight against international terror, we have stood together against challenges and threats and we stand again in solidarity with our Turkish friends at this very difficult time. On behalf of myself and my constituents, I wish to offer the people of Soma, and the people of Turkey, our deepest sympathies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of GIFF, The G.I. Film Festival and its co-founders Brandon and Laura Law-Millet. Darin Selnick is also the VP of Development. In 2007 the Millets created one of the most moving and important film festivals in our Nation, GIFF. Through their efforts it has blossomed into one of the most powerful events called the G.I. Film Festival, to tell the stories of America's heroes which must be told to educate and preserve these priceless moments and events of the past for future generations to come. All hearts are moved and inspired by these works of art which honor America's greatest, the men and women and their families of the Armed Forces. I ask that this poem penned in honor of them by Albert Carey Caswell be placed in the Record.

A Picture Tells a Thousand Words

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

War is hell, and Hell is War . . .

Things that men and women dare not speak of the more!

For the only glory found in this story,

is all of those magnificent's who pay the selfless price of

freedom sure!

Who for all their Brothers and Sisters In Arms,

fight for each other but to live one day more!

As the greatest stories ever told,

to warm our hearts as we grow old . . .

All in their most magnificent hue . . .

Are of those who in hearts of honor who find such valor true!

Are of all of those so who heroically go off to war,

all for me and you!

And come back home without arms and legs . . .

With scars all upon their faces!

With holes all in their hearts,

as all of those demons they so face this . . .

And the doctors and nurses who death so race this!

And withstand all of the heartache,

to rebuild them in all such places!

Is but the grave price of war so cold!

And the ultimate,

are all of those who come back home incased in wood . . .

Who so gave their lives and fought but for the greater good!

As these are the stories to which our children must be told!

Of all of those who burdens bore!

So we will remember back into the days of yore!

Because . . .