Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue beyond 11 50 a. M. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina, ms. Foxx, for five minutes. Ms. Foxx thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Internal Revenue code allows individuals who feels they arent taxed enough to make voluntary contributions to the u. S. Treasury. Unsurprisingly, this provision is seldom used. My democrat colleagues should have considered this fact when drafting obamacare. The public is beginning to take note of what republicans have been pointing out for years. Young people who sign up for obamacare are taking on what ounts to a voluntary stealth tax in order to subsidize older enrollees. As the initial numbers come in, this will fair no better than the optional taxes already in law. Mr. Speaker, obamacare will crumble and should crumble, not because of bad website design or because republicans dont like it, but because its a flawed law built on a foundation of unsound policy presumptions. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman yields back. The chair would now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. Quigley, for five minutes. Quigley mr. Speaker, next week we will commemorate the life and accomplishments of dr. Martin luther king jr. A revolutionary civil rights leader, dr. Kings movement combated the systematic discrimination against africanamericans. But dr. King fought hard, not only for equal rights for africanamericans, he fought for equality for all in this great nation. So it is altogether fitting and appropriate that we honor him and his extraordinary life. But as equally appropriate to honor him by ending what is still legal discrimination in this country, discrimination against the lesbian, bay, bisexual, transgendered community, because denying civil rights based on a persons orientation is equally inherently wrong. We are all americans regardless of who we love. Why does someones orientation affect his or her legal status in this country . Every day we continue allowing discrimination against the Lgbt Community is another day that justice is delayed. Im reminded when lincoln spoke at gettysburg, he said, we formed a nation based on the notion that all is created equal. And they were in a war in determining whether a nation could long endure, but what we can take from that is the realization we have to ask ourselves every so often, did we really mean it back then when we said that all were created equal . This is one of those times when we have to ask ourselves, is everyone in this country equal . Mr. Speaker, we can end Workplace Discrimination against gay men and women today. The employment nondiscrimination act has 200 bipartisan cosponsors, and identical legislation has passed already in the senate. Yes, our colleagues in the other chamber have already taken this small but important step. When will this body step up and defend the rights of the Lgbt Community . When will the House Majority join us in the fight against inequality . Dr. King said, the universe is long but it bends towards justice. Yes, the journey may be long but i believe we can accomplish equality for all in this country. I ask my colleagues to find the courage to stand on the right side of history. Mr. Speaker, bring enda to the floor and allow a vote on equality for all americans. Thank you and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Rothfus, for five minutes. Mr. Rothfus thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, i rise today because, like many of my 700,000 bosses back home, i am frustrated with the broken washington. Prior to joining this house just over one year ago in my work in the private sector and in my personal life, deadlines mattered. If a client needed to start a contract by january 1, that contract had to be negotiated and signed by that date. Every april 15, my western pennsylvania bosses and myself have to make sure that all of our tax forms are filed on time. On the first day of school, my neighbors and i make sure our kids are ready to start the year. And every year on may 27, i better remember that that is the anniversary that the best girl in the world and i exchanged wedding rings. Getting things done on time is important. Its the value we teach our children. Mr. Speaker, theres an annual deadline that the house and senate have failed to meet with embarrassing frequency. The United States of america operates on fiscal years that begin on october 1 and end on september 30. Congress and the president are responsible for enacting the annual Appropriations Bills before each new fiscal year starts. Thats how its supposed to work. Unfortunately congress, led by both parties, has only finished its work on all regular Appropriations Bills before this deadline four times since 1977. Thats simply unacceptable. 26 years ago, the president of the United States delivered a state of the Union Address from the podium just over my right shoulder. During that address, Ronald Reagan noted that the government had just completed another broken and inefficient appropriations season. In seven years, the president then stated, of 91 Appropriations Bills scheduled to arrive on my desk by a certain date, only 10 made it on time. Last year, he continued, of the 13 Appropriations Bills due by october, none of them made it. Instead, we had four continuing resolutions lasting 41 days, then 36 days and two days and three days. President reagan then held up three stacks of paper totals 45 pounds which authorized the spending of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and reminded the congress that it had only three hours to review the documents. After recounting this dysfunctional history, president reagan pleaded, congress shouldnt send another one of these. Some may argue that process is not important. It is the policy that matters. Mr. Speaker, process is important because inside the process the policy happens. Our constitution gives congress the power to tax and spend. Exercising this spending power requires due deliberation and should allow for individual members on both sides of the aisle to challenge expenditures, including whether any particular expenditure is too much, too little or should be made at all. Those challenges should come in the form of amendments that will be debated on this house floor. This is a process by which the people of this country have the opportunity to say to have a say in how their hardearned tax dollars are spent. More than three months into the fiscal year, we are now heading toward a vote on what is known an omnibus. This bill puts all 12 Appropriations Bills into a single behemoth. We are at this point today because the house and senate did not complete the regular appropriations process on time. Instead of voting 12 times on individual Appropriations Bills and hundreds of times on amendments to those bills, members of this house will only vote once. Under this arrangement, important and necessary spending is held hostage to questionable and wasteful spending. Last year, the house only passed four spending bills on time, and the Senate Passed none. This must stop. Congress must get its work done on time. Today, im introducing the congressional pay for performance act of 2014. This simple bill will hold Congress Accountable and force us to comply with deadlines, just like the people in the real world do outside of washington, d. C. This is how it would work. Each house of Congress Must pass a budget resolution by april 15 or have its pay withheld. Then, each house of Congress Must pass all 12 Appropriations Bills by july 31 or have its pay withheld. It would then have two months to reconcile the bills between the two houses. If congress is not performing its core constitutional duties in a timely matter, it should not get paid until its work is done. Let this years omnibus be the last one, for congress shouldnt send another one of these to the president. I thank the speaker and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Mcgovern, for five minutes. Mr. Speaker, we live in the richest country in the history of the world and yet hunger is a problem in the United States of america, a very costly problem. A recent report published in the journal of Health Affairs shows that four people are getting sick because they are running out of food at the end of the month. Hunger increases the likely heed that people will get other ail ailments. Poverty may be the reason for increased Health Risks Due to dangerously low blood sugar. We know that poor families prioritize which bills they pay and that food, grocery bills, often falls behind other responsibilities like rent and utilities. I ask unanimous consent to insert an article from the new rk times titled study ties diabetic crisis to dip in food budgets, into the statement. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Mcgovern this marks the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, one of the key programs in our attempt to reduce and eliminate income equality is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or snap, formerly known as food stamps. Snap is a lifeline for 47 million americans, 47 million of our fellow citizens rely on this program to help put food on the table for their families. But snap has become a major target in this congress by those who believe it is simply a government handout. Snap is many things, but it is not a poorly run government handout. To the contrary, it is a program that is among the most efficient and effective, if not the most efficient and effective of federal programs. Despite this fact and despite the fact that millions of americans turn to snap precisely because they saw their incomes drop or disappear because of the recession, snap was cut by 11 billion on november 1, 2013, and on top of that, we were told that the farm bill that is still in negotiation would cut another 8. 5 billion to 9 billion above that november 1 cut. These cuts have real impacts. Some families who already saw a cut of 30 a month on november 1 will see their snap benefit cut by another 90 a month if the farm bill passes with these cuts. Thats a cut of 120 a month for a family of three in a state like california or massachusetts or new york, for example. According to a study conducted by the Robin Wood Johnson Foundation and the Pew Charitable trust, a cut of 2 billion a year in food stamps could trigger an increase in 15 billion in medical costs for diabetes over the next decade. The insistence of many in this congress, republicans and sad to say some democrats, that snap be cut will have serious longterm impacts on the health of poor people who are just trying to get by. And any cuts will cost us more. They will save us nothing. Being poor is hard. It is expensive. We should be making the lives of those who struggle we shouldnt be making the lives of those who struggle harder by cutting programs like snap. And not make people sicker while increasing spending for the Defense Department or giving corporate welfare in the form of Crop Insurance or other farm subsidies, many of these excesses are contained in the farm bill that we may see in the next couple of weeks. I oppose the snap cuts included in the farm bill. They are misguided. They are hurtful and they are wrong. They will do real damage to real people who just want to earn a paycheck and provide for their families. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and oppose this farm bill if in fact it contains these 8 billion to 9 billion in cuts in snap. I would remind my colleagues that behind all these numbers and behind all the statistics and behind all the rhetoric, there are real people. These cuts have already that have already been made actually hurt people. Lets not pile on. Antihunger advocates have warned that further cuts to snap will increase hunger in america. Go to any food bank in america. They are at capacity right now. Leading economists have told us that further cuts to snap will undermine our economy. Snap is actually a stimulus. People get snap actually have to spend it on food. It helps our economy grow. And doctors and medical researchers have documented time and time and time again with a gazillion studies that further cuts to snap will cause Avoidable Health care costs to millions of our fellow citizens. Sometimes i wonder when we have these debates whether anybodys paying attention. My question to this congress is is anybody listening . Why with anyone cut this program more and more and more and more. Why so many in this chamber so indifferent to the problem that affects 50 million of our citizens . I plead with my colleagues to say no to any further snap cuts. I appeal to this administration to work with congress to develop a plan that so that nobody in this country knows hungry. The silence on this issue on this congress and administration is sad and it is a missed opportunity to do something meaningful or positive for millions of our fellow citizens. We can do more. We can do better. We can end hunger now. But not by coldly, callously, and arbitrarily cutting snap. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Lankford, for five minutes. Mr. Lankford thank you, mr. Speaker. For the past month since september 11, 2012, we have learned a great deal about what happened in benghazi that fateful night when chris stevens, sean smith, glenn dawetry, were murdered in our facility. They worked to build peaceful relationships met with brutality. While we have some answers, i grow weary of asking many questions over and over again in hearings, letters, and on this floor to get some very basic answers for the families and the American People. Let me some of those questions past us again. It was known within the state department that at the highest level that neither facility in libya neither facility in libya, one in tripoli, or benghazi met the minimum physical Security Standards set after our embassy was attacked in kenya in 1998. Who made the decision to put so Many American diplomats in facilities that did not meet that standard . That same question is asked yesterday by a Senate Committee against report asking the same question. Who made the decision to put people in facilities we knew did not meet the minimum Security Standards . The embassy had access to additional military personnel for security and training. They had been there for a long time of the the Regional Security officer and ambassador requested to keep the additional security on the ground. That request was denied in august of 2012. And in september of 2012 there was an attack on our facility and we did not have the manpower to repel them. What was the reason for the decision to remove the existing Security Force from libya and leave only a small Security Team there . In fact, the Security Force was so small when the ambassador traveled in tripoli, it took the entire Security Team just to travel with him of the for long stretches during the day, the american diplomats were completely exposed. So exposed that diplomats asked the Security Forces to train them how to use a gun so they could defend themselves in the moments they were left with no defense. In a country thats just gone through a brutal, long civil war and no strong Central Government or National Police force, why were diplomats left to defend themselves in tripoli . Multiple intelligence reports from the c. I. A. , ambassador, and Regional Security officer all noted increasing violence in benghazi in terrorist Training Camps nearby. There were more than 20 security incidents in that area in the previous month. Every other International Facility in benghazi closed in the Previous Year because of security risks. Their facility or personnel was attacked, they made the determination of one of two things, either increase security or pull out. They chose to pull ow. Out. We he we had the same option but instead we chose to stay and decrease our security. Who made that decision and what information did they use to make that decision . We have a joint operation called the foreign Emergency Support team. To assist during and after state department crisis. They never mobilized that night. Because no one ever sent them. Apparently they were too far away, they were stationed in the United States. Can someone tell me why we have a foreign Emergency Support team if not for events like this . What level of attack is required to mobilize that team . If they are too far away to make a difference, why are they stationed in america . We ar