Signed, john a. Boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. The speaker pro tempore the chair will alternative recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1 50 p. M. The chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. Blumenauer. Five minutes. Mr. Blumenauer thank you, mr. Speaker. There are a lot of talk of cliffs here in our nations capital. We have fiscal cliffs that we faced with the debt ceiling. There was the sequestration cliff. We had obviously the cliff surrounding the government shutdown. This week we face a Homeland Security cliff. Where because our republican friends have been unable to Reach Agreement and they have held hostage the budget of the department of Homeland Security, we face a situation where well either shut down those operations or hopefully people will come to their senses and take action. But again, its government by cliff. We are facing in march the s. G. R. Cliff that if government doesnt move forward to deal with the meetingful solution to the Sustainable Growth rate, we are going to see a grammatic reduction in government reimbursement under medicare to providers. And looming in the background something that we talked about last summer because congress refused to deal meaningfully with Transportation Funding. There will be another cliff may 31 as the Transportation Fund loses its ability to fund. Already there are programs around the country in local and State Government that are trying to factor in reduction of important construction work that they arent certain they can do this summer. Well, we are putting in the background another cliff. Its one that will not probably get the attention that it deserves, but one that deserves people to focus on the impact on 11 million of our most vulnerable citizens. Over the course of the years, there have been opportunities within the trust fund that funds retirement and disability that are basically for most people they are synonymous. They are paid by the same tax on our earnings and that our employers pay, but they have been segregated into two accounts. One dealing with disability. One dealing with retirement. Over the history of these two programs they have spent at different rates. 11 times in the past under republican and democratic president s alike, congress has moved to shift money from one trust fund to another to be able to even it out. And not run out of the ability to pay benefits. The last adjustment was made in 1994, but the disability was only adjusted for about 20 years. At the time it was understood that there would be a need for more action dealing with disability because of a very fundamental demographic change. We have a lot more women in the work force, and the babyboom generation is moving into the years in their careers where they are more prone to disability claims. And sure enough, that projection is right. Around december of next year, we will no longer be able to pay full disability payments unless there is an adjustment. Well, the fix that has been done over the years, 11 times, on a bipartisan basis, is made infinitely more difficult because of a rule change that our friends in the republican side have adopted for this congress. Under what they have approved, it will be impossible to make that simple adjustment that we have done time and time again. If a Single Member of the house of representatives objects this is setting up an artificial crisis. There is a need to adjust funding for both Social Security and for disability because combined about 2023 or 2024 34,er rather, they will not be able to pay out full benefits. Thats why its important for congress to be able to step forward and deal with it meaningfully. But its not something we do in a crisis, and its not something that should be done picking out the one area of the 11 million citizens that rely on these for disability payments. It should be done thoughtfully and carefully. If people are concerned about fraud and misuse, i would suggest that my republican friends look at what they did in the budget process where over the last three years they have cut 7 out of the budget for Social Security administration that could have gone to deal with enforcement. That could have gone to deal with fraud and abuse. That could have gone to make sure that the program is operating properly. Instead, we have set up a crisis to try and force reductions in benefits for some of our most vulnerable. I think its not the way we should go. We shouldnt be having government by cliff, but we also ought to be dealing with it in a thoughtful and reasonable fashion to make the adjustments that make it sustainable. And in the meantime, the Republican Leadership ought to waive that rule like they routinely do for things that they care about like passing billions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts to be able to allow the rebalancing to occur and the decisionmaking to be made in a thoughtful and reasonable fashion. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Poe, for five minutes. Mr. Poe this week we learned three British School girls between the ages of 15 and 16 left their families and have gone to fight with isis in syria. How were they recruited to join . Apparently through social media. They are not alone. Terrorists have used twittory radicalize thousands twitter to radicalize thousands of young minds around the world and recruit new jihadists. They have also used it to fundraise millions of dollars for their reign of terror. They use twitter to broadcast its propaganda to the world. On february 3 isis tweet add video of its evil horrific burning of a captured jordanian pilot. Last august when isis release add gruesome beheading of american journalist james foley, it did so on yes, twitter. There are many more examples. Now, all of these groups, isis, aqap, aqin are officially listed as foreign designated terrorist organizations by our government. Federal law prohibits giving aid or helping a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. These f. T. O. s use twitter, an american company, as a tool and no one is stopping them. Why are American Companies and the u. S. Government allowing social media platforms to be hydrogened tsh it hijacked by terrorists. Some suggest if the government shut down social media accounts, such would be violating terrorist free speech rights. They are wrong. There are no constitutional protections to those who insight who incite violence. No one sports the bill of rights more than i do, but free speech has limitations, just as there are no constitutional protections for child pornography. Terrorists should have not access to american controlled social media platform so they can kill, rape, pillage, and burn. Theres precedent for this position. The Supreme Court has already ruled and held in the case of holder vs. Humanitarian law project that if someone has aided a foreign terrorist designated organization, they do not have constitutional protections of free speech. Twitter has argued that the feds do not want the terrorist accounts twitter accounts taken down because the feds want to track the bad guys. However keeping these twitter accounts up has neither stopped nor slowed terrorist regrumet propaganda, cause for violence, and their fundraising efforts. Instead allowing the terrorists to continue using twitter has helped radicalize hundreds of foreign fighters and raised for them millions of dollars. The sad reality is that today there are more terrorists using social media than ever before. Private American Companies should not be operating as the propaganda mouthpiece of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Mr. Speaker, during world war ii we would have never have allowed americas foreign enemies to take out ads in the New York Times recruiting americans to join the nazis, go ahead, and fight and kill americans. But today it is no different. Social Media Companies need to do more. Private companies not only have a public responsibility but a legal obligation to be proactive. Heres what section 219 of the immigration and nationality act says. That it is unlawful to he provide a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization like isis with Material Support or resources, including property, tangible or intangible or services. Thats about as comprehensive as you can get. You dont need to be a Law School Professor to understand this law actually applies to twitter. Its mindboggling to think those who behead and burn others alive are able to use their own companies against us to further their cause. This is nutty. But that is exactly what is occurring. As a result, there are more than 15,000 foreign fighters, many of whom have been radicalized on line, now fighting in iraq and syria. This is more than there were in the 14 years of war in afghanistan. Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations should not be allowed to use private American Companies to reach billions of people with their violent hate propaganda and recruitment. Its time to put a stop to this. Its time for twitter to take down terrorist accounts. And thats just the way it is. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hoyer i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hoyer i appreciate what the gentleman has just said. But, mr. Speaker those challenges and threats and undermining of our National Security are at risk this week by our own hand. That is the congress of the United States. The department of Homeland Security is not funded. There are 230,000 people who work at that department. 30,000 of them will be laid off. Mostly administrative personnel. The others known as critically important essential employees on the frontline will work but they wont get paid. We can lament what others have done to undermine our National Security. And share, i think in a bipartisan way, the conclusion that we ought not to further those enterprises. But as i said mr. Speaker, by our own hand we are about to shut down the department of Homeland Security. And we have but four days to pass a bill continuing its funding. I will say with all due respect, mr. Speaker, to my friends on the other side of the aisle, shutting down government is a strategy they have employed on a number of occasions. 1995, we shut it down twice for almost a month. Maybe a little longer. Just a few months ago we shut it down again, as a strategy not as a happenchance, but as a strategy. And again, mr. Speaker, there are those who are saying in this house well, it wont matter we shut down the department of Homeland Security. Some of the folks are funded on fees others will be required to work anyway, so lets just keep playing this russian roulette. With americas security and the safety of americans. Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the 11th hour and the house has not yet been given the opportunity to vote on a bill that essentially was agreed to by the republican Appropriations Committee. And we essentially passed it and we passed it for a short period of time. There was no debate on funding levels, mr. Speaker. There was no debate on whether this provision and that provision should or should not be in the bill. We passed it. And then the republicans, mr. Speaker, to accomplish another objective have done what then the republicans they said in the pledge to america they would not do. And that is put two different issues in the same bill. Well, they put a poison pill in this bill. And if we fail to act and send the president a bill he canned will sign, a bill free from partisan policy riders then thousands of our Homeland Security agents will be furloughed and almost, as i said 200,000 others will be forced to work without pay. Is that what americas come to . Surely not. The impact of our on our Border SecurityLaw EnforcementHomeland Security will be serious and make our country more vulnerable to threats. I came to the rostrum after a gentleman on the other side of the aisle correctly expressed concerns about the threats that confront us. I would hope he would join me in advocating and urging the Republican Leadership to bring to the floor a clean and by clean i simply mean a bill on which both parties have essentially agreed. Chairman mike mccaul, the republican who leads the House Committee on Homeland Security said yesterday mr. Speaker this is the republican chairman of the Homeland Security committee, and i quote, i fully believe we should not be playing politics with the National Security agency like the department of Homeland Security. Particularly given the high threat environment that were in right now. What american would say makes sense to play politics with Homeland Security in light of what the gentleman has just referenced and which all of us know to be the case . We have people who want to harm us as a people and as a nation. And mr. Speaker, this body has the responsibility to the American People to do everything we can to make them as secure as we can and to make our country as secure as we can. Senator lindsey graham, with whom i served in this body, who now represents South Carolina and is a republican member of the senate and an expert on National Security, he told his republican colleagues this and again i quote, the worst possible outcome for this nation is to defund the department of Homeland Security given the multiple threats we face to our homeland, and i will not be part of it. None of us ought to be part of it. 435 of us ought to vote to fund the Homeland Security department starting on friday. I urge the republican majority to heed this advice of mr. Mccaul of mr. Graham and frankly countless other republicans in the senate and some in the house to do the responsible thing and let this house work its will on the single subject of our National Security. If a clean Homeland Security appropriation bill were to come to the floor, i am confident and i tell my friend, the majority leader, mr. Speaker every democrat will vote for it. Were 188 strong. Surely there are 30 responsible republicans who care more about our National Security than their politics who would join us in voting for that bill. Im confident of that. Many more, i think than 30, but at least 30 would be needed with 188 to get to the 218. And we would fund the department of Homeland Security and we could do it tomorrow. We could probably do it today by unanimous consent. Well, no, i dont think we could do it by unanimous consent because theres some that continue to play politics with our National Security. If the majority is dissatisfied with our immigration policy which they articulate and legitimately can have an alternative view to express and try to enact, thats the democratic process is. Offer a bill to change that which they do not like. Not hold hostage the department of Homeland Security until the hopefully from their standpoint, the president is bludgeoned into signing a bill that he does not agree with and he does not believe is good for our country and believes is bad for our economy. If the majority is dissatisfied, bring a bill to the floor. Former Homeland Security secretary tom ridge, also a republican, with whom ive served when he was a representative from pennsylvania, subsequently the governor of pennsylvania and then our first secretary of Homeland Security, i want to quote him as well as i quoted the other two republicans that ive quoted. Political policy excuse me political folly and bad policy. Thats tom ridge, former republican governor and said i believe the political repercussions could be severe and on top of that, the men and women of the Homeland Security deserve better. Who wants to work for an employer that simply takes them hostage every few months and says to them, you may or may not get paid, you may or may not be able to come to work, you may or may not be able to do their job . It depends upon whether or not our political ends are to be served. I urge my Republican Leaders to keep their pledge to the American People to consider issues one at a time. Bring a comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. If you dont like what the president s done bring a bill that changes th