Transcripts For CSPAN House Session 20150212

Representativ any use t csecaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercialurposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 279, the nays are 137. The bill is passed, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The speaker pro tempore members and staff, will you please take your conversations off the floor. Members and staff will take their conversations off the floor. Thank you very much. The house will be in order. Please take your conversations off the house floor. Thank you. The chair lays before the house the following personal requests. The house will be in order. Please take your conversations off the floor. Thank you. The clerk mr. Honda of california for the afternoon of thursday through friday, february 13. Mr. Pearce of new mexico for today and the balance of the week and mr. Swalwell of california, starting at 1 30 p. M. Today and the balance of the week. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The requested the requests are granted. Members and staff, take your conversations off the floor. The house will be in order. Thank you. The speaker pro tempore the chair will now entertain requests for oneminute speeches. For what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition . I seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. The house will come to order. Mr. Emmer thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise today to honor the 90th anniversary of one in minnesota, born on february 10 1925 walter is a world war ii veteran with a remarkable life of service, both to his community and to his country. Shortly after graduating from Delano High School in 1943, walter was drafted into the u. S. Army air force. When his plane was shot down over germany, he spent six months as a prisoner of war to the nazis. After surviving this brutal experience, walter came back to minnesota serving as delanos postmaster until his retirement 34 years later. Freedom is a very special thing, he reminds delano students through his scholarship essay contest. You take it for granted because its always been there and always will be. But will it . Thank you for your service walter. Happy birthday. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise . Mr. Hoyer mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman fromaranis recognid r one minute. Mr. Hoyer mr. Speaker the congress has five legislative days left until february 27. We have five days in which were going to meet in order to send the president an appropriation bill that he can sign to keep the department of Homeland Security from shutting down. The republican leader in the senate says the house ought to act. The speaker says the senate ought to act. Somebody needs to act. Somebody needs to act like an adult. Somebody needs to fund the security and safety of the American People. Their own Senate Colleagues disagree with their strategy of Holding National security hostage to their Political Goals on immigration. We face, as all of us know very real threats which is why we cannot let the departments funding lapse. If the republicans want to debate immigration policy, then bring an immigration bill to the floor. Dont hold our security hostage. I ask my republican colleagues to end their games and instead work with us to keep america safe. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Thank you, mr. Speaker. This week Marks National marriage week. This is a time for americans to recognize, to celebrate, to honor this timehonored institution and the critical importance of a man and woman committing to each other and to the children of their loving union. Mr. Huelskamp marriage is vital to our economic success, cultural wellbeing and our children and sadly it is being trampled upon as we speak. Unelected judges across the country are foisting their personal feelings and bias against traditional marriage upon the American People. This judicial activism has thrown the social and legal status of marriage into chaos. Since the question of marriage is now before the u. S. Supreme court, Congress Must act now to right this wrong. That is why today im reintroducing the marriage protection amendment to affirm the true meaning of marriage between one man and one woman and to provide a clear policy for our nation, especially our children. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Higgins mr. Speaker, today marks the sixth anniversary of crash of the continental crash. Since that tragic day, the families and friends of those taken band together as a new family to give others a flight flight home. They descended in red on capitol hill turning pain into persistence, progress and purpose. They saw success in the passage of the Airline Safety and federal Aviation Administration extension act, which establishes one level of safety regardless of size and distance. Still there is no rest for the brave families. Last week i joined them on capitol hill to support reauthorization of the federal Aviation Administration bill and to speak out against recent industry pushback on safety qualifications. With heavy hearts, we remember the people of flight 3407 and their courageous families, the flying public is safer today because of their work and persistence. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore thank you. For what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition . Ms. Roslehtinen request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. The speaker pro tempore without objection gentlelady the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. Ms. Roslehtinen thank you, mr. Speaker. Today i rise to remind everybody that february is heart month. According to the american heart association, Heart Disease is the most common form of mortality among both men and women. In fact, one out of every four deaths in this country is cardiac related, and yet many of these deaths are preventable. Small changes in diet and exercise can have an enormous and positive impact on your heart health and life span and we must not forget americas amazing medical researchers and practitioners who are doing their part by pioneering innovative treatments that save lives every day. So please remember to love your heart this valentines day and every day. Thank you, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition . To address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Smith thank you. I rise in support of the president s decision to defer on deportations of some of the 11 million undocumented immigrants that are in this country. This is a decision that every president has made to one degree or another. We do not have the resources to deport everybody, so he makes a decision about which ones should go and shouldnt. There is nothing illegal about that and the house should not be holding up the department of Homeland Security appropriations bill because of that policy issue. First of all, it is a policy issue. Best addressed by a policy committee, not by holding hostage an appropriations bill. There is an authorizing process to go through to have that fight. But second and more importantly the president s decision was the right one. There are millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants in this country who are valuable members of our community. They are wives and husbands. They are fathers, they are working productively, they are paying taxes. Tearing apart families tearing apart communities is not something thats going to help this country. So i think the president made the right decision. We should support it and we certainly shouldnt be shutting down the department of Homeland Security in a misguided attempt to go after that policy. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition . Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks if necessary. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Fortenberry mr. Speaker, the house is not in order. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is correct. The house will come to order. Please take your conversations, members and staff, off the floor. Thank you. Mr. Fortenberry thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the International Campaign to defeat isil depends in great part on the strength and effectiveness of trusted partners in the middle east, trusted partners such as the kurds. The Kurdish People is a moderate and capable force. They are ensuring determined courage in fighting isil and there are winning a number of strategic victories. The kurds are also defending the values of tolerance, sheltering hundreds of thousands of christians, innocent muslim people who have fled isils onslaught. The kurds deserve robust support. Driven by a twisted form of islam, isils militants are acentury barbarians using 21st century weaponry. The recent videotape of a caged jordanian pilot shows their brutality. They are responsible for four american hostages, including kalea mueller, a 26yearold humanitarian who was assisting refugees in syria. Confronting such acts, key allies, including germany, france and britain, should enhance military support for the kurds. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition . Ms. Gabbard i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. Ms. Gabbard i come to the floor today to honor the life of al lewis a selfless and larger than Life Community leader who truly embodied the aloha spirit in my home state of hawaii. He was a husband, a father, a friend, an organizer, a mentor and so much more to so many. If you knew his hometown, you also knew uncle al. He found his passion helping those in need and led through servant leadership, never too busy or preoccupied with himself to take action to better the lives of those around him. He helped by seeking the teen project. In founding the friends, he helped create a literary program, purchase uniforms for schoolchildren and donate to a high school. Every single year, he brought the Community Together from all parts at the community carnival. A respected and Loyal Community advocate, al lewis, better known as uncle al, will be remembered and missed by his friends, family and hawaii. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition . I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. The speaker pro tempore without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Speaker, today once again we find ourselves on the verge of shutdown because congress cant do its job and pass funding for the department of Homeland Security. Mr. Aguilar mr. Speaker, over a year ago the Congress Passed a commonsense plan that the house failed to pass. The house has failed to pass anything to address immigration reform, forcing the president to act. And now congress is playing politics trying to roll back the president s reforms and threatening to force the American People to pay the price for congress inability to agree on funding, to protect our homeland. Mr. Speaker, we cannot risk american jobs, lives and the National Security of the United States. We need to pass Homeland Security appropriations. We face many threats around the world. We cannot play games here. To my colleagues, i ask you, is it more important to score political points or is it more important to safeguard our National Security . Mr. Speaker, im urging you today to bring a clean appropriations bill to the floor so we can fully fund the department of Homeland Security and i urge my colleagues to join this effort. Thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore are there any further requests for oneminute speeches . Under the speakers announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. Pocan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Mr. Pocan thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus, which is having our special order hour today to talk about the nations needs for infrastructure. The fact that we need to keep serious investments in infrastructure, not only to keep our roads and bridges and other important parts of our country together but also to help the good family supporting jobs that come along with these important investments in our infrastructure. You know, i was i serve on the Budget Committee, and we were talking one day with dr. Elmendorf from the Congressional Budget Office our nonpartisan agency that we deal with to talk about budgetary matters. Specifically, i asked the question of dr. Elmendorf about the recovery act we passed in this congress a number of years ago and he said thanks to that recovery act over three million jobs were saved or created because of the investment we put into our nations infrastructure. In my state of wisconsin, i was at the state legislature at the time and we had a report from the road building industry and the vertical Construction Industry that said 54,000 jobs just in wisconsin were saved or created because of the recovery act that happened. And as much as that helped provide a boost to our economy and helped fulfill our infrastructure needs, we still have so many more to take care of. Weve been given a grade of dplus by the very Engineering Society that grades our nations infrastructure. Weve been told that we have 100,000 bridges in this country, 16 of the bridges in this country that are old enough they could qualify for medicare. And as we have known from recent disasters that weve seen in different parts of the country where bridges have fallen and people have literally been killed we need to reinvest in that infrastructure so that we have a country that operates, that businesses can function and also we need to help create those jobs now for people who are still out of work, as the economy is coming back, we know that wages have been stagnant and these are good, strong, familysupporting jobs that can provide it. So the congressional progressive caucus will soon be putting out our version of the budget, as we will among the democrats and the republicans but well put out a budget as the president had with a deep investment in our infrastructure needs because we know that investment is one of the pillars of a strong economy. Id like to yield making sure that america gets a raise and lift our nations infrastructure and why that investment is so important. I would like to yield some time to representative coleman from the great state of new jersey. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman from is recognized for the remainder of the hour. Mrs. Coleman let me thank my colleague, mr. Poke ann in polk and to address the United States of america and im new around here and i like to listen and evaluate before i speak and only speak when i might have something to add of value. If you drive through my district, which is the 12th Congressional District of the state of new jersey and includes a lot of highways and byways and bridges, you will see this iconic sign in the capital of new jersey that says, trenton makes the world. It points out the legendary industrial past of our community. This industrial revolution, it has passed us by and reminder of the employment that the city used to have. Yes the city of trenton was once the place that you found employment. The Trenton Iron Company produced beams from the dome on this u. S. Capitol building where we stand today. And trentons company produced wire rope that was used to make the Brooklyn Bridge and George Washington bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge in california. Trenton was known for its pot erie making and today trenton pot erie can be found on display in museums around of the world because of its superiority. Its industry involves oyster pork rolls bayer aspirin. Yet today, trepton new jersey has a 15 unemployment rate. The city of the citys industrial past does little for thousands of unemployed workers searching for work today. The city has had a turn for the worse since the Manufacturing Sector has left and took with it greatpaying jobs. Were not alone in that problem. The same could be said for Cleveland Ohio or detroit, michigan or gary, indiana or philadelphia pennsylvania. Towns that were once thriving centers of commerce where jobs were plentyful and unemployment was rare. Today these same towns face an Unemployment Crisis where securing work that enables a mother or a father to support a family is an elusive proposition. At the same time we experience this employment crisis, we also have a crisis in our infrastructure. New jersey has 39,213 total miles of road. Were small, but we have a lot of concrete. But 35 of the major roads are in deprived condition. New jersey has 6566 bridges 75 of which are underfunded, considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Over 200 million trips are taken daily across the bridges in the nation. But in total, one in nine of the nations bridges rrated as structural deficient. Are rateed as structurally deficient. The bridge in minneapolis was categorized as deficient collapsed, killing 13 and injuring 145 people. Our bridges are crumbling and we need to invest in building and fixing them. The nations estimated 100,000 miles of levys can be found in all 50 states and the district of columbia. The reliability of these levys are unknown and the country has yet to establish a National Levy safety program. In 2005, new orleans levees failed to hold back the floodwaters of hurricane hurricane katrina, claiming the lives of more than 1800 people and causing 125 billion in economic damage. Public safety remains at risks and the cost to repair or reekt these levees is estimated to 100 billion by the National Committee on levee safety. Mr. Speaker, these numbers are reflective of what america has become. And i take a look at our communities today and i see the vestages of our past. I ask that we stop playing games and get to work for real this time and recognize that here we will have the opportunity to not only create safe infrastructure, not only to create safe bridges not only to protect communities that are subject to flooding some levees, but we will be able to create jobs. Theres no more meaningful Action Program than a good job and we know that government has a history for creating those jobs in times of need, that help not only to build the strong infrastructure of this great nation, but to put families back to work, to make sure they are earning a wage for which they can take care of their children, help provide opportunities for their families, take care of their elderly ensure that their children have access to quality education and ensure that our future is strong and stable. Based upon the fact that theyve had good predictable dependable decentpaying jobs with decent wages. I look to our congress, as many people do in our country, and i know who we really are. And i know that if we put our foot to the pedal that if we decide we are going to put this country back on a strong footing as well i know that if we are understanding that if we build out and support that middleincome layer the working people of this nation that we will create an economy that will grow and prosper everyone from the very, very top to the very, very bottom. That is what we need to do right now in this country from the bipartisan perspective is to introduce, to advocate for to debate, discuss, design and develop an infrastructure bill with bipartisan support that signals to the working families and all families in this country that a we want to make sure that you are safe as you travel our highways and cross our bridges, that youre safe when you live near waterways and need to be protected with levees and you are given the opportunity to give back to your country and give back and make it the strong country that it should be and at the same time create the same kind of jobs that we need in order to grow our economy for everybody. Mr. Speaker, i thank you for this opportunity to speak to the American People today. And i yield back my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman yields back. Under the speakers announced policy of january 6 2015, mr. Olson is recognized the designee of the majority leader. Mr. Olson 22 years ago today, a p. O. W. Came home from vietnam. This special order was put on by the representative from illinois. The man i love came home that day 42 years ago. Hes our colleague sam johnson. Sam first saw combat in korea. 62 hellraising combat missions in an f86 sabers. He told me buzz aldrin and got the first kill of the day. The same buzz aldrin walked on the moon with neal armstrong. Sam shut down one mig in korea. He came home and quickly became one of our best pilots in our air force. He joined the thunderbirds the air forces flight demonstration team. He flew solo in slots, the f 100c super sabers. And became an Instructor Pilot at the air forces Fighter Weapons school, their top gun. Sam saw combat again in vietnam. He flew the f4 phantom into combat. Coming back after dropping bombs on north korea, he was shot down. He was 25th combat mission over vietnam. April 16, 1966. Sam bailed out and fell into hell on earth. He was taken prisoner confined for six years, nine months and 12 days. This was a new war for p. O. W. s. The war of propaganda. And so every minute those men were alive, they were valuable. Their captainors used starvation , disease, isolation physical and mental torture to push these men to confess to war crimes. To bombing hospitals and schools with nepalm. They were beaten every single day they were held in captivity. Viet cong saw a fighter in sam johnson. They saw a man who might incite a riot or rebelion. They called him a quote unquote, diehard. And so with 10 other men, they moved him from the hanoi hilton to a place they called alcatraz hell within hell. Sam was alone for over two years. He stayed in a windowless concrete room nine feet wide nine by four feet. Every summer, he it got up to 11 degrees in his cell. 110 degrees in his cell. His arms and legs were shank willed every minute within shankled every minute within his cell. Jim jeremiah bob, ronald, clay cy jim, george and george coker. 10 came home. One died in alcatraz in captivity. Sam has 10 brothers all learned to lean on each other to survive. At alcatraz, one day sam was pulled out of his cell and beaten and beaten and beaten to make him write a document and sign his confessions of committing a war crime. Jeremiah denton heard a clamor when sam was thrown back in his cell after he took off from his cell with the viet cong. Admiral denton said sam, sam its ok, buddy. Silence for a couple of moments and sam said, i made them write it but i had to sign it. Admiral denton said, its ok, sam. Youre ok. Hang on. You did a good job. And because what sam and others went through, every naval aviator marine aviator, air force pilot, army pilot, navy seal, Marine Force Recon army green berras attend whats known as berets attend whats known at cere school, survive, evade resist, escape. P. O. W. School. I went to sere for one week in the fall of 1991. I was fed little amounts of food. No sleep. Last two days in the p. O. W. Camp i had a small concrete room like sam, alone, stuffed into a small box in the box, loud music and a water board. That train gave me a taste of torture. My strengths and weaknesses. Sam never had that training. He learned it with his blood and broken bones. I want to close by using a tap code, the way sam and his fellow prisoners used to communicate without talking. Its a fivebyfive matrix. 25 letters. It owe mitts the k. It omits the k. Mr. Olson in the hanoi hilton and alcatraz, that says i salute you. And sam if i was there that day 42 years ago when you came home i would say, sam i salute you. God bless them all. I yield back. Sorry. I recognize my colleague, mr. Dold. The speaker pro tempore under the speakers announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from illinois, mr. Dold, is recognized for the remainder of the hour. Mr. Dold i thank the speaker, and i certainly want to thank my good friend from texas for his remarks, talking about sam johnson one of the Great American heroes that we have the honor here mr. Speaker serving with. And that tap code that you just heard was really the lifeline the lifeline for so many of the almost 600 p. O. W. s the vast majority in the prison. And so while you heard those taps, those taps were actually the Communication System that allowed those p. O. W. s to have some sort of contact with another human. And i would argue probably saved many lives. Mr. Speaker, its my pleasure to yield to my good friend from kentucky for as much time as he might need. I thank the gentleman, my friend from illinois for his leadership on this issue and for leading this special hour. I also want to thank my friend from texas for honoring our colleague, sam johnson, a true American Hero, who through his service and sacrifice, his time in the hanoi hilton, his time as a prisoner of war in vietnam really showcased what it means to be a great patriot and an American Hero willing to sacrifice for his fellow countrymen and for the freedom that we all enjoy. Mr. Barr mr. Speaker on behalf of the people of central and eastern kentucky, i too, rise today to recognize the 42nd anniversary of the release of american prisoners of war from vietnam. I would like to honor the brave men and women who courageously wore our nations cloth and made great sacrifices in the name of freedom. As i walk into my congressional office, i am reminded every day of all the American Service members that never returned home from past wars. By the p. O. W. Flag that i proudly display outside of my office. Since the beginning of the revolutionary war kentuckyians have continued to answer our nations call to service. In fact, over 125,000 kentuckyians courageously and unselflessly served during the vietnam era and the people of kentucky honor those who fought and died in vietnam by commissioning the kentucky Vietnam Veterans memorial, which overlooks kentuckys beautiful State Capitol building in frankfurt. I would also like to recognize the organizations that keep the memories of those who sacrifice much for for our country alive, organizations such as Task Force Omega of kentucky Rolling Thunder and the kentucky patriot guard who constantly remind us to never forget the Service Members who have perished and who have not returned home from vietnam and other wars fought on foreign soil. While being held captive, american p. O. W. s found strength in each other and as congressman dolled and congressman olson pointed out those taps were the way that those men in that prison kept each others spirits alive. Through their struggle they found resilience they found faith and through their patriotism they found hope. We are so grateful to have these Service Members home. As we know all too well from recent events in the middle east. Not all prisoners of war make it back to their Family Members alive, but we owe all of them a debt of gratitude. And you know, unlike the veterans of world war ii iraq, persian gulf war iraq or afghanistan, those who served in vietnam had a very different and unfortunate experience, many of them, when they returned home. Some were advised to change into civilian clothes and avoid contact with protestors and it really hurt and they didnt deserve it. They deserved better. And so for all of those veterans of the vietnam war, including those who were p. O. W. s, we welcome them home. Because they deserve our respect and they deserve to be welcomed home to a grateful nation. American Service Members found hope in the fact that a grateful nation would not leave them behind and would do Everything Possible to bring them home. We as americans stand behind that promise today. I thank the gentleman from illinois for the opportunity to honor the 42nd anniversary of the release of american p. O. W. s from vietnam and i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Dold i thank the gentleman for coming and joining us and honoring these really incredible servicemen, each with an incredible story and really as we talk about actually, mr. Speaker, i came to the floor yesterday, yesterday i came to this very spot to talk about my uncle. My uncle was one of the alcatraz 11, lives not far from the capitol here in washington. He was flying off the u. S. S. Coral sea in an f8 crusader and was shot down on a lowlevel mission, flying about 1,000 feet above the ground. Now, for those, mr. Speaker, that dont know what an f8 crusader is, it is a jet that can fly at mack 1. 72, nearly twice the speed of sound, and when it would fill up with smoke after he was hit, he had very little time to eject. He ejected. His parachute opened about 35 feet above the ground and he broke his back on impact. Now, this is an incredible story. Yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of being shot down. That was one of the darkest days, i would argue, certainly in our family but for American Servicemen and certainly aviators, thats certainly a very dark day. Today, february 12, it marks a very different day, a day for us to rejoice because it was the day that marks operation homecoming. The day that nearly well, over 600 american p. O. W. s would eventually be released and february 12 was the day that those first p. O. W. s would be released from the waloi prison. It was a prison was built by the fremple and unspeakable things french and unspeakable things happened at that prison. It is not the darkness that happened at the prison and a prison that we know today as the hanoi hilton. Whats harkable to me is the fact is that these servicemen relied upon faith and honor to get them through and largely each other. So i just want i want those that may be tuning in to put themselves in the place of an american aviator, jumping onboard a jet, put yourself perhaps, in the cockpit of that f8 crusader. Now, mr. Speaker, im not revealing any news when we talk about American Service men and women being a little bit cocky if theyre out there flying. I think some might think theyre invincible. Well, the world changed, certainly for my uncle and for many on the day of their captivity. They didnt have they no longer had that aircraft. They no longer had their sidearm. They no longer had their uniform. All was stripped from them. They were issued in essence a pair of pajamas and a pair of sandles. Sandals. Little did my uncle or sam johnson or nells tanner or Jim Stockdale or Jeremiah Denton or john mccain or many of the other p. O. W. s realize how many this conflict would continue. What they did know was that each and every one of them as an American Fighting man was going to return home with honor. Many of, you may know mr. Speaker, the story of john mccain, his father was very high up in the United States navy. The vietnamese knew they had a prize when they had john mccain, and he was offered early release. They were going to give him a free pass home and comfort to be back here in the United States. The devastation that would have done to the p. O. W. s, the morale would have been devastating and so he turned them down. The vietnamese said it was going to be very bad for you now, mr. Mccain, and indeed it was. And he as well as the other americans in captivity would endure years of torture. The big four mr. Speaker, was name, rank, serial number and date of birth, and these men would be tortured for Additional Information. And every american i say every person, at least everyone that i know, has their breaking point and certainly american p. O. W. s are no different. They set up a military operation. Jim stockdale sent word out that they were if they were broken to give no Additional Information next time. That tap code system that you heard the gentleman from texas talk about the five by five matrix, a b, c d e f g h i k. First the row and then the column. B is first row second column. And the way they did it is shaving the hair cut two bits is how you started this conversation. If you give the rap, theyre going to respond with, and thats when you knew there was an american on the other side of the wall. If they got a different response they knew it wasnt an american and therefore, they were going to stop their communication. What was going on through those walls was literally like hundreds of wood peckers were going nonstop day in and day out letting people now, it was ok. They knew when someone was coming and heard the keys rattling and knew their comrade was going to be taken out tortured and beaten. When they got back, their tap code would go letting them know that somebody was there for them. Incredible. Out of the hundreds of p. O. W. s that went to North Vietnam and were captured there was a crew of the 11 greatest threats to camp security according to the north viet in a ease. They became known as the alcatraz 11. My uncle, bob shoemaker was with demirl stockdale and senior officer present. He was considered to be a trouble maker. And george coker who was shot down in 1966, Jeremiah Denton, who was a United States senator from the great state of alabama was shot down in 196. Harry jenkins was shot down in 1965. Sam johnson, who we have the honor of serving with, was shot down in 1966, on his 25th combat mission. George mcknight, shot down in 1965. James muggy began was shot down in 1966. Harry rut ledge was shot down in 196. Ron stortz who was the only one who did not make it home alive. Kneels tanner has a unique story. The last of the alcatraz 11, he got his ticket to alcatraz by making the vietnamese look bad. When he was being tortured and trying to give information about who was his Commanding Officer nels told them it was ben casey and clark kent. Everybody knows that they are not real figures. And when word got back to the vietnamese that they had been made a joke of, he got his ticket to alcatraz. I want, mr. Speaker, people to understand alcatraz for a minute. The reason why these 11 men went to alcatraz is because they were the thorn in the side of the North Vietnamese and they were the ones that caused the problems. The american prison, the hanoi hilton, also caused problems, but these 11 were singled out and went into a cell that was about four feet by nine. And just imagine that. Four feet by nine. Its about yay big and nine feet in front of you. They spent on average about 2 1 2 years the alcatraz 11 in this prison camp. They were able to get out of their cell for 15 minutes a day to be able to empty their sanitation bucket. They ate in their cell. And they had a tremendous amount of time. What can you do . The most important muscle that they exercised was their brain, which is why the tap code was so important. But they used other methods. They could cough and sneeze and try to do different things. They waved their hands in front of the doors so shadows would be indicative of thote letters and able to communicate. Mr. Speaker, they had my uncle built his home in fairfax station, Virginia Long before any brick was laid. Brick by brick, knew how many bricks it would take, knew exactly how many feet of pipe it would take, and knew exactly how much lumber. These were the exercises. He built it, tore it down and built it and tore it down. These are the exercises that these men would go through. Alcatraz sam johnson learned french through the walls. A product of texas Public Schools, they didnt have the opportunity or he might not have had the opportunity to learn a Foreign Language and used that opportunity in alcatraz to learn french from bob shoemaker. Not the most ideal way to lerch french but the one thing they did have was time. The vietnamese tried to strip everything from these men. But one thing they couldnt strip, they couldnt strip their faith, they couldnt strip their honor. And each was determined that they would return to the United States with honor. That, i think, is just remarkable. One of the things, as we think about february 12, 1973 we cannot miss what was happening back here at home. Their spouses played a vital role and an active role, not only with the government but in the paris peace accords advocating for the release of the american p. O. W. s. Vietnam was not a popular war. The war that went into living rooms, but the one thing that the American Public was able to unite and rally around was our american p. O. W. s. Bracelets were worn identifying american p. O. W. s and the day that they were shot down. I have a bracelet mr. Speaker, in my office that is sitting next to two pictures. One of the day bob shoemaker was shot down, february 11, 1965 and the other was this picture right here. This is the first time that he had the opportunity to see his wife and his someone grant who was a little bit over about eight years and three months at the time. When he had been shot down his son grant was only about three months old. This is the picture of being reunited. In 1973, i know its not the best picture for people to be able to view, but in 1973, the styles were a little bit different. So after the release, bob shoemaker called his wife lorraine and wanted to make sure that she dressed in the fashion of 1965. So you cant see the gogo boots, but you can see the mini skirt and thats how he remembered her and thats how he wanted to see her when he got off that plane. Eight years and a day for bob shoemaker. Seven yearsplus for sam johnson. 5 1 2 years for john mccain. Incredible stories. Torture. I can tell you that some of americas finest servicemen tried to take their own lives because they thought they let their country down when they gave information to the vietnamese. But they were pulled up by their comrades, but their other men who were next to them in the cells. There are a couple of others that i think are particularly interesting, mr. Speaker. Pat alvarez was the First American p. O. W. And was held in captivity for 8 1 2 years. Douglas hegdall was a unique case. Most of the p. O. W. s were aviators, whether flying for the United States air force or navy. He was in the navy, but happened to be on a ship and came up happened to be standing on the deck. The ship zigged when he thought it was going to be zagged and over he went. When the vietnamese picked him up, they thought he was a member of the c. I. A. And when they put him in prison, he started to get along. One of the things with that tap code they tried to do each and every day, they would communicate who was newly into the prison. And trying to member rise the names of all the p. O. W. s because if someone were to rebe released or escape, they wanted the United States to know exactly who was in captivity. It was absolutely critical for them critical for their families to know they were still alive. There were a couple of folks, mr. Speaker, that were released early. Not necessarily the tact that many of the other p. O. W. s would have taken. Doug didnt want to be released but ordered to go because he had a photographic memory and knew every single p. O. W. , knew their hometown and phone number. When he got back to the United States he took his time to go to all of these places to visit the families of the p. O. W. s, to let them know that their son, that their husband, brother was still alive. He member rised their addresses and phone numbers. Bud day another pilot that was shot down sustained significant injuries while flying his f100f. John mccain credits him for saving his life. Bud day was awarded the congressional medal of honor as was Jim Stockdale. All of these men were highly decorated for their efforts. But i think the thing that was most important to them was being able to return home with honor. We look today, mr. Speaker, february 12 2015, as wellly a celebration honoring the legacy that these american tighting men have given us all. An incredible faith and dedication to make sure that each and every one of them was going to return with honor. Theres a ceremony on february 12 as they were discharged and determined to march in rank as an American Fighting force. And then were discharged one by one. First one shot down would be the first one released. Second one was bob shoemaker and they really didnt believe it. They didnt believe that this day had finally come. They saw that c141 come into hanoi. And really didnt start the real celebration until the 141 had lifted off that tarmac and the first group of american p. O. W. s were on their way home. Mr. Speaker, im in awe every time i read stories of these men. Who did incredible things to endure and to overcome. Its an honor to be able to serve with one in this body. But its also an honor to be able to stand here today on the day of operation homecoming and its 42nd anniversary, to say that american will never forget. America will always remember. That we stood by you then and look to stand by all of our men and women in uniform. We are in the midst of a conflict right now on the war on terror. We must make sure we give our men and women the tools necessary to protect our country and to do the job that weve asked them to do. And i hope, mr. Speaker that no one has to endure what these men endured in hanoi. I want to thank my colleagues who joined me here today, but i wanted to take this opportunity for those who may be tuning in to let the p. O. W. s from the vietnam conflict know how much they mean not only to me but to our country. We thank you. We love you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The speaker pro tempore around the speakers announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognized the gentleman from texas, mr. Green for 60 minutes. Mr. Green i would like to thank the gentleman for the recitation, it was very touching very moving. I want to thank him for keeping the memory alive. Madam speaker, im honored tonight to thank the leadership and to thank the members of congress who have been supportive of this resolution that we bring to the floor for a discussion. This is a resolution that honors the naacp. And this resolution is not new to the congress of the United States of america because in 2006, it actually passed the house of representatives by a voice vote. And then in 2007, it passed the house of representatives by a vote of 4100. In 2008 4030. 2009, 4240. In 2010, 4210. I thank the leadership and the members of this body for the support it has shown to the naacp with the passage of this resolution throughout years. And im honored to be a member of the naacp. I take great pride in my membership. I have a life membership in the naacp. I have been fortunate enough to serve on the board of the Houston Branch of the naacp. I served for nearly a decade as president of the Houston Branch of the naacp. And i have been the ben fish year of the naacps works. The naacp has made america the beautiful a more beautiful america. So tonight id like to continue this discussion of the naacp and id like to say just a few words first about the founding of the naacp. It was founded on this day, 106 years ago. 106 years ago. When approximately 60 people entered what was called answered what was called the call. It was a clarion call for persons to come together to talk about and discuss a means by which lynching could be dealt with. Of the 60 people but seven were africanamericans. The naacp is not now and never has been an organization that has been supported by only africanamericans. Or what some might call a black organization. It has always been an integrated organization. And after having been founded in 1909, february 12, 106 years ago, the naacp did embark upon a campaign to end lynching in the United States of america. A sad chapter in our history. But one that we must never forget because we never want to see these things happen again and as things are doing well now in this area of lynching, we dont have lynchings in the United States of america, generally speaking, we understand the adage, the premise, that if you dont remember your history, there is a possibility that it can be repeated. So for this reason, we talk about these things. Theyre a sad chapter in our history but its a chapter we dare not forget. And the naacp, in embarking on this campaign to end lynching published a publication in 1919 that was styled 30 years of lynching in the United States. 30 years of lynching in the United States. Its interesting to note that lynching was so prevalent in the United States that the great Billie Holiday sang a song, she was known for this song, styled southern trees. Southern trees. This was a song that she could only sing in certain places. Because this was one of the first songs that dealt with the protest movement around this notion of civil rights and human rights for africanamericans. This song was first presented in new york at a nightclub. The cafe society. And when she first presented the song, she had much fear much consternation, because she wasnt sure how it woult be received. After she finished singing the song, there was a silence. And for a moment she thought that it would not be well received. And then one person, as is the case with many movements, one person started to applaud. And after that one person, then another. And another. And then she received a very loud ovation for this song. Im going to share the words to the song with us tonight because this song is probably one of her signature songs, but its also a song that predated we shall overcome, which was a part of the Civil Rights Movement, the contemporary Civil Rights Movement. But these are the words to the song. Youll have some appreciation for why i mention it to you. The words are southern trees bear a strange fruit, blood on the leaves and blood at the root. Black bodies swinging in the Southern Breeze strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees. And of course we know that this song is referring to the lynchings that were taking place. In fact, between 1882 and 1968 according to Tuskegee Institute there were 3,446 africanamericans lynched. In the United States of america. A said chapter in our history. But this is why the naacp came into being. In part. It was established to ensure political educational, social and economic equality for all persons. All persons. Not just africanamericans. Not just blacks. Not just as we were known at that time, negros. But for all persons. And it wasest tablied as well to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination. All noble challenges. And challenges that we would easily embrace today, but at that time, when the naacp was founded, because of lynchings that were taking place and because of a desire to make sure that all persons were treated fairly and equally, it was a difficult thing to do. But the naacp, im proud to say has a history of being on the right side of right. It is consistently on the right side of right. The naacp was on the right side of right in 1948 and 1953 when it filed and won the lawsuits shellry vs. Kramer and borrow vs. Jackson. These lawsuits dealt with restricted covenants. There was a time in this country when persons could restrict the sale of property to people simply because of who they were. The hue of their skin. Restrict the sale of property to people because of the way they looked. These two lawsuits taken to the Supreme Court of the United States of america, and were won. If the truth be told, we sleep where we sleep we live where we live, because of the naacp. Because the naacp was on the right side of right. And what is interesting about this proposition of being on the right side of right is the notion that when you are what i call, what i call, what some others would call, a monday morning quarterback but what i call a hindsight quarterback, a hindsight quarterback thats my phrase when youre a hindsight quarterback, its easy to be on the right side of right. Because others have had to suffer the slings and arrows associated with being on the right side of right at the right time in the right place and the right space. But the naacp has dared to be on the right side of right when it was very difficult to be there. 1948 and 1953, shelly vs. Kramer and borrow vs. Jackson were litigated it was not easy to be on the right side of right. To talk about integrating neighborhoods. To talk about selling property to anybody if they had the price, if they can pay the price or the cost of the property. Being on the right side of right means something in the country that we know and love. It means something in a country that stands for the proposition of liberty and justice for all. A company a country that stands for the notion that government should be of the people, by the people, for the people. It means something to be on the right side of right. It means something to have an organization like the naacp that will step forward using litigation when necessary, protests when needed, but always a peaceful means to a just end. The naacp has been there and has always been consistently on the right side of right. The naacp was on the right side of right in 1954 when it won the lawsuit brown vs. The board of education. I would dare say that we eat where we eat because of the naacp. We go to the schools that we go to because of the naacp. The naacp took that lawsuit to the Supreme Court under the leadership of the honorable Thurgood Marshall, with the aid and assistance of the honorable Charles Hamilton houston, and won that lawsuit. Facing the placing the naacp again on the right side of right. Overturning decades of injustice with one single lawsuit the naacp made a difference in the lives of all americans. The truth be told, if we did not have the naacp, wed have to create it because you need an organization like the naacp. You need an organization that is willing to take a bold stand in difficult times. An organization that understands that it is not easy to be on the right side of right. But that understands also that a great country has to move forward and to do so, it must be on the right side of right. Let me pause for just a moment because weve had a great sage to come into the chambers tonight. And he is, of course, the sage from new york we know him as the honorable charlie rangel. I know him as a friend to all of humanity. A person who has consistently been on the right side of right. A person who speaks with clarity with force, sincerity, and actually calls them as he sees them without any fear, without any belief that there are consequences that can be of great harm to him such that he should not speak truth to power. So tonight im honored to ask my dear friend if he would join me and give his commentary on the naacp and i will now yield to the gentleman from new york city, the honorable charlie rangel. Mr. Rangel i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Rangel let me thank my friend and colleague for giving me an opportunity to thank an organization that unfortunately so Many Americans, black and white, have taken for granted. Earlier today, i was sitting on the floor next to one of my republican friends from the south and we were talking about selma and he had recently seen the Motion Picture and he was shocked that Something Like this could have happened. Me being an oldtimer, i was surprised that he did not know that those things had gone on. But it was the graphics of the Motion Picture and the change in attitude that people have and it reminded me that this happened in my lifetime to see somebody from the same culture, the same background now saying these things ive seen should never happen in our country. If people could have stood up 60 years ago and subject themselves, as some people did in selma, and put their life on the line in the early 1960s, as john lewis and so many others did, and id like to remind everybody, i did the march too, it was after bloody sunday. I was not thinking about putting my life on the line and putting my feet on the line for 54 miles was an ordeal for me because i didnt fully understand the concept and the threat to human life that was taking place in the 1960s. Imagine what it was when the imagine the threat that blacks and whites that formed this organization to bring us together during the time that slavery had just been over and this organization has continued. I continue begin to tell you congressman, at my age, the number of civil rights organizations and political organizations and religious organizations that have come through that i have worked through in my lifetime. But no matter what the internal debate is, no matter what state our nation is in, the naacp has managed to during rough Economic Times and hard political times, to keep going step by step and never falling back and when the world was rejoicing over the Voting Rights act and Civil Rights Act and we see what has happened to the recent Supreme Court, why was nobody surprised that once again in front of the Supreme Court organizing the entire nation to do the right thing was the National Association of colored people. And i just wish that without solicitation, that we can find some way to thank those faceless people never get the names and pictures in the newspaper, go out to the meeting, active Voter Registration and anyone who wants to go to the rally, they call the local branch of the naa crmp p to make certain someone should up. Because they dont these things for press conferences. They dont do it because they want their names in the newspaper. They have too much correct and have done too much work and have done too much to risk their reputation for Something Like that. Im so grateful and appreciative that you would focus in the well of the congress that certainly we all admit that notwithstanding what dr. Martin luther king and so many others have done to bring some sense of equality in our great nation, the naacp was there a hundred years ago and doing the same thing and hoping to improve the quality of life for all of us. And guess what . They are still doing it. Thank you. And i yield back. Mr. Green thank you for your eloquent resuscitation. You have arisen and have stepped up to the plate. And we are most appreciative that you took a moment to come over and be with us. We have another member of the congress with us from the 18th Congressional District state of texas, and she is a voice for the voiceless, a very powerful voice, not only in congress, but across the country when it comes to human rights Human Dignity and human decency. The honorable Sheila Jackson lee, who is adjacent to me, 9th Congressional District in houston, texas. Ms. Jackson lee thank you so very much. My greatest appreciation for your annual tribute to the naacp. We are reminded of its great history, and you are the carrier of this dream and this celebration and we are appreciative that you have come to this congress and done many things but brought us to a moment every year to be able to honor the storied organization 106 years old. Let me thank congressman green, my next door neighbor in houston, and a friend of many of the same friends. We know the know the work of the naacp, local chapter in houston dean james douglas. Many president s have ably served our local chapter but we come together to acknowledge the grandness of the naacp and as congressman rangel just mentioned, it is an organization that is everywhere and all ways. It is well to know that many of the successes that weve had in freedom justice and liberty, have come about through the naacp. President truman was the first president to speak to the naacp but not just anoration, if you will. It seeks to work, collaborate and get things done. It was that close relationship that generated a commission that after world war ii, where soldiers came home to a secondclass citizenship soldiers who left the hills and valleys of america the farms and urban centers colored boys, who went into world war ii, came out as a secondclass citizen. And you will hear stories of soldiers coming back home, being forced off trains or in the back of the bus, not being offered food at a train station even with the uniform on. So heroes that had fought in the war and managed to survive and come home still came home to a segregated america. And it was in that backdrop that president truman called for a commission to address the civil rights in america. Out of that, because it was in the realm of the world war ii, out of that came an important announcement that really, i think was the predecessor to desegregating america and that was the executive order that desegregated the United States military. That is the clout of the naacp. And through the years through the years, the naacp has a long history starting in its early birth. But i want to carry it forward into the 1950s and the utilization of Thurgood Marshal and the Legal Defense fund. But the lawyers of the naacp that rose to defend those in the Civil Rights Movement who were the foot soldiers and the actors of the Civil Rights Movement meaning they were the activists and the cerebral leaders, the lawyers, that came together to provide them the legal arm our they needed. Thurgood marshall had a fond expression and appreciation for the naacp. We come through the years of 1950s and 19650 1960s and the kind of support that the naacp provided in lasting and embracing. It embraced the southern christian Leadership Conference which i worked for. It embraced various other organizations and various faiths in our community and embraced any organization that was moving towards justice, as dr. King said, bending that arc towards justice. The naacp was there with providing the education of so many of these individuals that were, in fact i call them foot soldiers in every hamlet of america. If i may cite them in the Civil Rights Movement again, joining those marching across the Edmund Pettus bridge. Lobbyists, Clarence Mitchell was called the 101st senator. He was on the cutting edge of every single civil rights legislation for a period of i believe 40 years. I may be exaggerating the time frame. He was there for the 1964 and 1965 acts. Clarence mitchell was an advocate, not a lobbyist, on behalf of the naacp and met and stood, if you will, to debate the Strom Thurmonds and others who had a different opinion about desegregation of this country. Today i had the privilege of seeing the unveiling of a stamp of Robert Robertson taylor and the first graduate africanamerican graduate of m. I. T. , the naacp was moving along to add to the civil rights aspect of the great outstanding success and leadership that this gentleman, mr. Taylor has shown. The naacp has made a pathway. They have been there to embrace. They have been there to collaborate. They have been there to stand with you when you need them to stand with you. I close by indicating that we have had a challenging year of addressing issues of criminal justice reform. And im very grateful that the naacp has also taken up this issue and will be a partner on this issue of criminal justice reform, working with many of us as we commit to america, not just africanamericans, that we will answer the question dealing with justice, equality and liberty. And i pay tribute finally, mr. Green, to the leader who lost her life in the local chapter of naacp and thank her for the years of her service in the program in houston, texas and to her family. I want to thank her so much for the work that she did and the lives that she touched. That is the naacp. Tonight i say i am the naacp. Congratulations to 106 years. Thank you, mr. Green, for yielding. Mr. Green i applaud you for your kind words about the naacp and complyment you for giving us additional examples of the naacp of being on the right side of right. And one can imagine 100 years from now when someone looks to the vista of time, back upon this time, when the naacp is the champion right now for Voting Rights. Who will be on the right side of right . When we look back . I think thats important for us to consider, because we never want to be on the wrong side of history but we are in a situation right now where it will take some courage for some people to be on the right side of right as we tackle this question of Voting Rights, Voting Rights that have been diminished by the erosion of the Voting Rights act which means there is no coverage. And we have to now find a way to reinstate section 4 of the Voting Rights act. Who will be on the right side of right . Who will be with with the naa crmp p. When we look back at 100 years from now and we understand that it was not easy to be on the right side of right, who will be there so we can accomplish again what the naacp has fought for for many decades in this country . I thank you again, madam speaker. I thank the leadership for this opportunity. Our time has expired. But our energies are still with us. And we will continue to be a part of this great august organization known as the naacp as it continues to be on the right side of right. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Under the speakers announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. Denham, for 30 minutes. Mr. Denham thank you madam speaker. 40 years ago today, the first flight carrying u. S. Prisoners of war out of North Vietnam lifted out of hanoi to take the first 40 servicemen to freedom. These men, some of whom had been held for eight years in a brutal captivity were more than 683 americans known to have been held in North Vietnamese and first of 191 p. O. W. s returned to american soil after the paris peace accord. Sadly, 92 americans died in captivity. And to this day, more than 1,000 americans who served during the vietnam war era are unaccounted for. We honor the men who survived and those who never returned. Their extraordinary encourage, endurance and sacrifice should be an example for everyone in this chamber and across the country. I would like to honor our colleague in the house sam johnson, and others and senator john mccain suffered in prison. The treatment they suffered in treatment was designed to break them, to get information or to serve as propaganda tools for the North Vietnamese. Physical and psychological torture were used. Beatings with bars and whips were common and binding the p. O. W. s with ropes and dislocating their arms and legs was a favorite tactic. The names of the places they were held entered into the lex kohn the hanoi hilton, the alcatraz, and the bog patch. All names that conjure up images of cramped cells, isolation filth, and savage pain. Madam speaker, its worth remembering that these that the North Vietnamese, in order to justify their treatment of the american captives declared all of their prisoners to be war criminals. And denied them all protections of the je knee is va geneva convention. Whats most remarkable is these men never broke. They kept faith with their country, and with each other, despite the extraordinary costs to themselves. When asked what kept them going, many responded that their faith in god and their fellow prison hers prisoners. Commander paul galante stated, what held me together was faith, four of them. Faith in god, faith in my fellow p. O. W. s, many of them i had never met though i felt loser to them than my own family. Faith in my fellow military forces. And in leaders who i knew wouldnt let us down. And finally faith in the u. S. A. Madam speaker, suppose stories and others shared by my colleagues here tonight should remind us of the terrible price paid by those who serve our country and the debt we owe each of them. We must also continue to make every effort to recover the 1,636 missing in action from vietnam war. I would like to thank mr. Dold for speaking earlier tonight on this topic and at this time, i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back his time. Does the gentleman have a motion . Mr. Denham i move that the house do now adjoush. The speaker pro tempore the question is on the adjourn. The speaker pro tempore the question is on the motion to adjourn. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Accordingly, the house stands mr. Ryan mr. Speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Ryan heres what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation today. We are trying to provide some more certainty. Small business, they have to be able to plan for the future. Charities who are serving those in need, they also have to plan for the future. Families need to know whether theres going to be help for them at local food banks. A lot of them look to the tax code ironically, when planning for the future. They need a tax code thats easy to understand. But that is not the tax code we have today. Whether we make a tax code more complicated, well, if we do that we are making their lives more unpredictable. Thats a disservice to the people we are trying to serve. What would really help would be to fix our broken tax system. Ultimately our goal is to get to tax code that is impler, fairer for everybody. Simpler fairer for everybody. We still have work to do on that front and life doesnt wait for washington. In fact, washington has a really bad habit of letting really important provisions expire only to renew them retroactively. This has got to stop and we are trying to fix this. So these bills would make several of these provisions permanent. Number one, it would encourage Charitable Giving. Number two, it would help to let people contribute to charities from their i. R. A. s, individual retirement accounts, tax free. Number three, would let people deduct Food Bank Donation from their taxes. It would make other changes that make giving less expensive. The quick to the short, mr. Speaker, is these are provisions in the code that we know because its demonstrated, make a big difference. It is so important that we have a vibrant civil society, that space that stands between ourselves and our government, which is where we live and lead our lives, that is vibrant and that space is there to help people in need. Private charity is the glue that keeps our communities together. And in so many instances, private charities thrive on the good will and the donations and the generosity of other people, of businesses. And those businesses are affected by the tax code. And so what we have to do is provide certainty to those businesses who want to be generous, to those people who want to be generous, but to these charities who need some predictibility so they can plan their charitable endeavors. So knowing that this is a bipartisan notion knowing that the good work that is done by these groups is absolutely essential to healing people in our communities, getting people on, getting them where they want to be in life, the least we can do is provide some certainty so more of this can happen. Last year we waited until the end of the year to extend these provisions retroactive to the first of the year but only for that year. Oh and by the way, last year we waited until december 11 to tell all these charities, these donors to charities ok, now heres the benefit for the past year but guess what, it already expired at the beginning of this year. So i know this sounds kind of complicated, the point is this is no way to run a railroad. We need to provide families with certainty. We need to provide charities with certainty and thats what this bill does. The part were going to have a debate here, mr. Speaker, is nobody seems to have a problem when we do it one year at a time. No one seems to have a problem when we quoteunquote pay for it. Raise taxes on other people just to keep them the same when we do it one year at a time, but when we say, lets make this permanent, this thing we do once every year, that everybodys fine with, instead of doing it once every year and sometimes retroactively lets do it permanently so people and families and business ks plan, then all of a sudden businesses can plan then all of a sudden its a problem. I dont understand it. It doesnt make sense. Who we are serving is not washington. Who we are serving are the people who are trying to survive, are the people who are the beneficiaries of these charities, of the charities that are doing the good works. So thats why were bringing this legislation to the floor. Im very excited to be a part of this. I want to thank all the members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in this area and with that i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Levin i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Levin the issues here are not the merits. That isnt the issue. The issue is whether we proceed this way. Proceeding this way is the opposite of bipartisanship. Its very opposite. The chairman has said he wants to find Common Ground on common aspects. What this does is essentially pull terrain out from under Common Ground. Its the opposite of a search for Common Ground. And the president has said he will veto. We have the messages right here once again so its the opposite of bipartisanship. Its also, if i might say, the opposite of certainty for taxpayers. We went through this last year. These bills will not become law period. If they were to pass the house and the senate, they would be vetoed. That happened last year. It did not become law. It will not become law this year. These provisions will be continued if we dont pass tax reform. And mr. Chairman, you control the schedule. If you dont want to wait until december, do it earlier if tax reform doesnt become a reality. And thats another problem with this bill and these bills. Theyre the opposite of tax reform. You dont do tax reform in a piecemeal fashion. Dave camp to his credit, understood that so he came up with a comprehensive package. In the Senate Republicans understand this. Senator blunt said last week, and i quote, as long as the finance committee feels theres an opportunity for overall tax reform i think youre going to not see a Quick Response to individual bills coming over. What could be clearer . What could be clearer . This is also the opposite of fiscal responsibility. So you have here three opposites, really four, and four opposites make a big minus. 14 billion is the cost of this bill. 79 billion the next bill, thats 93 billion. We marked up just a few hours ago in ways and means two more bills, one 42 billion and another one 177 billion. Thats 219 billion. And you add up those over up those, over 300 billion in terms of adding to the deficit. Theres been some talk about helping the middle class. Action is the opposite of platitudes. So wheres the action on the Child Tax Credit . Wheres the action on the eitc, also affecting working and middleclass families . Wheres the action on the work opportunity tax credit . Wheres the action on the minimum wage . The answer is were now several months into this session. A reporter said to me, whats bill number one . I said, i have no idea. How about other bills that really address the needs of the middle class of this country . So were as expressed in ways and means, so many very opposed to what is really a counterproductive path here. The merits, again are not the basic issue. The basic issue do we want to fly in the face of bipartisanship, fly in the face of certainty for taxpayers, fly in the face of tax reform and fly in the face of fiscal responsibility . We should not be doing that. We should not be doing that. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Ryan at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. Kelly. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Kelly i rise today to speak very well about the conservation tax incentive easement legs. I get confused of the conversation on the floor. If you do it for a year and two years and dont pay for it, thats good policy, thats good legislation, thats good for america. If you go beyond that time its not good. This is piece of legislation that came up in 2006. In fact, my colleague, mr. Thompson, brought it up. He and mr. Camp did it. He and mr. Gerlach, who retired, last year did it. I can tell you something about this, its not only bipartisan, its bicameral, its in the president s budget. If you talk about trying to Work Together to get somewhere isnt this it . Isnt this it . Sometimes we always try to bend the rules for Something Else but this is about conservation. This is about allowing a landowner to set property aside. So i dont care if youre a farmer or rancher i dont care if youre a hunter or hiker, i dont care if you like to look at birds or hunt birds, theres over 65 agencies associations around the country that say please do more of this. Set this ground apart. Now if youre a farmer or rancher, you can still work that ground. All youre saying is this a is set aside. We cant lose this ground. This is so basic as americans saying, lets preserve what we have. Lets just keep what we have. Lets make sure that our kids can hut and hike and swim. Lets make sure that they can fish. Lets make sure they can do all those wonderful things that this land affords us to do but then it becomes, gosh this is about politics, its not about policy. Its good policy. Its never been paid for. I just dont understand why all of a sudden now why is it paid for and im starting my Third Session here but, my god, you would never do this back home. Im an automobile dealer. I couldnt do this to a customer and say, its ok now. But later on you have to pay me for it. You gave it to me, no, were going to take it back. Theres millions of acres that have been set aside now. Why not give some perm nancy to this . We tax about tax we talk about tax reform. Lets do what makes sense for all of america. Lets talk about preserving americas ground, making sure it doesnt go underdevelopment. People can still farm it. They can still ranch on it. It just makes good more sense. Just a little bit more. Thank you. Im just asking our friends on the other side, lets think about whats good for the people we represent. And not whats just good for the moment. Weve always done this in the past. Its only become a problem now because its not a oneyear extender or a twoyear extender. Now all of a sudden were saying well lets just let people know its the way it is until the end of time. You dont want to give anybody certainty. You dont want to give anybody perm nancy. Theres no time in my life i would ever say to my friends, my family or anybody i represent this is just a temporary thing for me. Tomorrow i may have a change of heart. So i just ask my friends h. R. 641, mr. Thompson son this piece. Lets make sure we move forward for america. I thank you and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields. The gentleman from wisconsin reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Levin its now my pleasure to yield four minutes to our distinguished whip whos going to supply, if the gentleman will wait here for a very clear answer, mr. Hoyer. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Levin for four minutes. Mr. Hoyer the Ranking Member didnt write my speech so im not sure what my answer to the distinguished gentlemans comments, but ill say this. To my friend, im not for one year. I may vote for one year but thats not what we ought to do. It ought to be paid for if its one year, two years, permanent. There is no free lunch. You are in the automobile business. People come into your automobile store and they say id like to have that car for 10,000. And you say look, i paid 20,000 for that car. I cant sell it to you for 10,000. Theres no free lunch. Unpaid tax cuts are a free lunch, a pretense that somehow its just free. But ill tell my friend, its not free. The chairman, who was the chairman of the Budget Committee offered a budget which cut food stamps 125 billion. This bill is called fighting hunger incentive act. 125 billion cut in food stamps and i tell you my friend voted for 40 billion cut in food stamps in the farm bill. Im not for free lunches. Im for a lot of these tax cuts, but im not for taking it out of the mouths of children and feeding im not for talking it for n. I. H. , im not for taking it out of our National Security. We got to pay for what we buy. I vote that way. The chairman and i were one of five or 18 people one time that voted against a very popular bill. Had to deal with Social Security. And we thought it was not paid for, not fiscally responsible and he and i were one of 18 people in this house voted against it. Mr. Kelly if the gentleman will yield for a moment . Mr. Hoyer i dont have much time but maybe we can get some more. Mr. Kelly i say, i cannot be in more agreement with you. I watched for six years an opportunity in the country with the greatest assets our middle income people suffer the greatest harm they had. If its really about getting america back to work, putting foods in the mouths of these children, the only way to do that is to have a dynamic and robust economy. Thats what i think we need to do. I watched it for six years. It is appalling what weve allowed to have happen in the country thats been blessed with so many things but just bad policy. We cant get beyond the politics. Thats whats hurting our people. Its not the fact this is not being paid for. Because were not manipulating it for a year or two. The whole purpose of why we should be, lets raise all america. Lets get everybody looking up, be able to feed everybody. We shouldnt have programs for people that cant take care of themselves because by their very nature we can do that. They have potential. Mr. Hoyer i used to have a magic one minute. I dont have it now. We have had bad policy, i tell my friend. Terrible policy. Mr. Kelly agree. Mr. Hoyer i dont know about you but im for simpsonbowles. The problem for simpsonbowles for some people, it paid for what it did just like the camp bill. The camp bill made tough choices, and it was a zero sum game in the sense it cut taxes and it paid for them. A zero sum game. Just like you had to run your business. Because if you didnt run your business that way you would have gone bankrupt. Now, i fought for that for a very long period of time and voted that way, as i say one of 18 with my friend from wisconsin. But i tell my friend, yes, were following bad policy. This bill you can argue for the merits. I get that. The next bill you can argue for the merits. And the bill after that and the bill after that and the bill after that. And you then caused 600 billion in deficit spending that your kids and my kids will have to pay for because were too old to be around long enough to pay for it. So i rise against this bill, not because im against fighting hunger. Everybody ought to be against fighting hunger. Mr. Levin i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman has another two minutes. Mr. Hoyer when you talk about hunger, dont cut food stamps by 40 billion. Dont cut 125 from food stamps over the next 10 years as the chairman did. I disagree with that policy and i respect the chairman. I like the chairman. Mr. Kelly if the gentleman will yield . Mr. Hoyer no. Mr. Speaker, this is one of two bills that were considering on the floor this week to make tax cuts permanent. And its unfortunate that neither of these bills is paid for. One year or permanently. Together they would increase the deficit by 93 billion. Nobodys suggesting were going to pay for that so our kids will pay for it. Democrats support extending many of the preferences were talking about but were also deeply concerned about americas fiscal future. I voted that way, not just talk that way. I hear a lot of talk from my friends on the other side but that talk fails to translate into fiscally responsible legislation. We cut the debt from the time i came in under reagan 189 , more than any president thats been president in the time ive been here. Weve seen tax bills like this before when republicans brought them to the floor last congress along with several other permanent tax cuts which would have ballooned the deficit by 600 billion, twice what well spend on medical research at n. I. H. I also hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about a broken tax system. I tell my friends, that system is going to remain broken, that system is going to remain broken unless we do what camp did. Did i agree with what camp did . No, but i respected him for putting together a package of tax reform that gives us what we need. People ought to know. These ought to all be permanent. There are tax cuts that ought to be permanent so people can plan. Families deserve the certainty that comes from tax reform not partisan piecemeal reform bills that undermine, undermine tax reform. Thats what roy blunt was talking about. Roy blunt has already been quoted soy wont repeat the quote but what he said as long as the finance committee feel theres an opportunity for overall tax reform, i dont think youll see a Quick Response to individual bills coming over. Thats why this is bad policy. Youre not going to get from here to there unless you have a comprehensive bill that makes the tough tradeoffs and summons the courage of this congress to pass meaningful permanent paid for tax certainty for our citizens. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from michigan reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Ryan i very much respect the majority whip the minority whip. Its not one of those buts, i very much respect the gentleman. Hes a class act legislator. I look forward to his support of our coming work from the committee. If he wants to be part of tax reform. And mr. Hoyer will the gentleman yield . Pll ryan that was the longest magic minute i think ive seen without the magic minute. Mr. Hoyer ive done longer when i had the minute, believe me. I want to tell the gentleman, in all sin centi, i look forward to being able to support a bill that is comprehensive, paid for and gives our citizens an individual and individual taxpayers the certainty they need, to have the confidence they need to grow our economy. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Ryan thank you. I yield myself two minutes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Ryan let me ask about the time allotment, by the way. How much time . Who is where . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from wisconsin has 37 minutes. The gentleman from michigan has 33 1 2. Mr. Ryan i yield myself two minutes. Normally, mr. Speaker, i dont try to get into baseline issues because its kind of arcane budget issues, but heres where i think theres an inconsistency or a problem. So people listening to this debate, you know theres a lot of confusion here. If we were talking about a spending bill lets just say the Highway Trust Fund or tanf, temporary assistance for needy families. And it expired and we said, lets just extent this extend this bill, this law, and the spending in it at its current levels for another five six years. We wouldnt have to quoteunquote, pay for that. It wouldnt cost anything. Its already in the baseline. If we were basically talking about a spending bill here, none of these kinds of criticisms would be would hold merit. Would be usable. So here we are talking about taxes. And so i think people are getting the impression from this debate that were talking about a tax cut here. That were talking about doing something to businesses or individuals and cutting their taxes. These are laws that are already on the books. Charities. Thats what were talking about here in this particular bill. All were saying is, dont raise their taxes. Thats what were saying here. The choice before us is fairly obvious. Either we raise taxes on Small Businesses and individuals with respect to Charitable Giving, or we keep them where they are today and just go raise taxes on somebody else, or we acknowledge reality for what it is is, they have these benefits. Theyve had these benefits. We all agree they ought to keep these benefits. And every year we every year we renew these benefits. But we do it, giving myself 30 more seconds we do it in such an awful way. We wait until the end of the year, then we do it retroactively or do it one year. Nobody knows whats going on. Nobody can predict the tax code. Nobody can make decisions. As a result these charity, thee families, these Small Businesses suffer. Thats what were trying to fix here. With that, id like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. Stock. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Schock thank you, mr. Chairman. I would just say so much has been said, im not sure ill need three minutes. Obviously im here to speak in support of a measure that i introduced in this body last july that passed by a two to one majority. That means nearly every republican and tens and scores of democrats, a whole host of democrats, to pass by a two to one majority, voted for almost identical language contained in this bill. Now, the negotiation and the agreement between the house and senate to make this more permanent fell apart. And so we did what weve always done, which is extend it for another year. Just a few months ago, just a few months ago republicans and democrats came together in this body to vote on identical legislation to extend it a year at a time. In fact this piece of legislation has been extended four times since 2006. Under the same proposal that were submitting here, just not a year at a time but rather permanent. The same payfors or lack thereof written almost identically. So whats at stake . Whats at stake is how much the people of our respective districts are going to benefit and whether they will benefit. Back in my district, the head of they have galseburg Community Foundation said when hes meeting with donors, if they can give them to their i. R. A. , as this bill will allow they give four times the amount of goods and services than they would give without the i. R. A. Donation provision. Four times. This isnt about the donorful its about the recipient. And so i would just simply ask, why dont we give the certainty not to the donor. But rather give the certainty to the recipient. Whether it be food and shelter, whether it be education benefits here in our country and around the world that benefit from this provision, give them the certainty, do what weve always done but do it early and do it now. Rather, i would ask anybody who stands up to oppose this, 10 months from now, where will your vote be on a oneyear extension . Where will your vote be on a twoyear extension . Whats wrong with making what weve been doing since 2006, a year and two years at a time, permanent . Its important for us to give the certainty to the beneficiaries and to the communities who benefit from this provision. I urge a yes vote on this and i hope once again as we did last july this body will pass this bill with an overwhelming 21 majority. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from illinois yields back. The gentleman from wisconsin reserves. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Levin the answer to the gentleman is we pay for certainty. If you make something permanent, you should pay for it. And thats essentially what our chairman did when he chaired the Budget Committee. His budget never assumed these provisions were permanently in the baseline. Or he would never have been able to say he balanced the budget in 10 years. Thats the reality. If you want to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the budget, youve got to face up to paying for them. Otherwise you squeeze out other necessary programs. Its now my pleasure to yield four minutes to a member of our committee a very active member mr. Doggett of texas. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. Mr. Doggett thank you. Certainty, we are told is the key factor here. First words from chairman ryan in support of this bill. I think the first certainty we have here is the knowledge that this bill is part of a package that approved through today is certain to borrow 317. 5 billion. That is basically a request to this house and this congress that we approve the borrowing of 317. 5 billion and when you look at other measures they have approved in the past theyre really on a pathway to borrowing almost 1 trillion to finance these tax cuts. I believe that certainty is important to taxpayers. I think that when someone pays for medicare and Social Security they need to be certain that it will be there. They need to be certain that the water that they drink and the air they breathe is not contaminated. They need to be certain that the food that they put on their familys table is safe. That its been inspected by a meat inspector or another type of health inspector. They need to be sure when they drive home they need to have the certainty that the bridge that they drive over is not going to fall down as it did in minneapolis a few years back. They need to be certain that there is educational opportunity, quality education, for their children. And they need to be able to do all this without just having to rely on charity. This bill certainly selects a subset of tax provisions that benefit a few americans and gives them preference. And i like some of these provisions. In fact, im a cosponsor of some of these provisions, like the conservation easement. But they are measures that can and should be fully paid for instead of asking for another i. O. U. And because they are select provisions they exclude many working and middle class american families. For example, the American Opportunity tax credit, which is based on the principle that we want all americans to be able to get post secondary education in a college or a trade school but a choice that they make and get 2,500 directly off of their tax bill to pay for tuition and books. The Child Tax Credit that so Many American families claim. To help with their children. The earned income tax credit that even president reagan said was a key factor in getting people out of poverty. Those are key provisions that were left over on the side and not selected for borrowing or for anything else. Its certain that Many Americans have been left out of this very costly package. Working families do need to depend on more than charity. They need to be able to depend on this congress to respond to their needs. Now, theres sell seldom a week that goes by in medical research that theres not a gupe here on capitol hill concerned with Alzheimers Research or multiple sclerosis parkinsons cancer, aids any number of dread diseases, basically say find a cure for my Family Member or my neighbor. Find a cure before i get this dread disease. There are groups that come here after the tough droughts we had last year saying the Forest Service and Weather Service need more resources in order to deal with the natural disasters associated with climate change. We have been unable to find the funds for our crumbling roads and bridges. We do not have the investment we need from prek to postgrad in education. And when you dig another puns of billions of dollars, maybe 1 trillion into debt, it provides an excuse that for many of those who dent believe in those programs the gentleman the speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. Mr. Doggett to say we would love to help you with education for your children. Yes, it would be good if we had another meat inspector but we cant afford to do that. So we get to the point that mr. Ryan has raised about why is it that we should raise taxes on some in order to maintain some and renewsom expired tax credits for others . Theres two reasons. One is that some people are still not paying their fair share. Weve got some multinational corporations that dont pay as much as the people that clean up their offices as a percent of their income. The second reason is, if we need additional money for our National Defense or for our educational and Retirement Security at home, we have to come up with the revenues to pay for that, if we are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility. There are some good provisions in this bill. But we need the certainty that we will not be digging ourselves deeper into debt and preventing our ability to meet other Vital National needs for our families. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from michigan reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Ryan mr. Speaker ill yield myself 10 seconds to say, i wonder what the reaction would be if we chose to change the way that spending baseline is treated, such that if any program in its authorization expired then it would expire on the baseline and youd have to offset the spending for renewing any program. Id be curious to see what the reaction would be for that. With that, id like to yield 3 1 2 minutes to a distinguished member from minnesota a member of the ways and Means Committee, mr. Paulsen. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 3 1 2 minutes. Mr. Paulsen mr. Speaker, i thank the chairman for his leadership on leading the effort to simplify the tax code and give some confidence and certainty to those who use it. I want to rise in support of this legislation, the america gives more act. This legislation is absolutely about helping those who are most in need, those are our charities and our foundations across the country that are working day in and day out to help those that are most in need. There are nam of important tax rules that a number of important tax rules that weve already discussed regarding charitable donations but theyve always been temporary. Weve had these provisions in law, theyve already expired. So here we are acting under retroactivity already. Its time to get rid of these shortterm fixes and embrace longterm solutions. This legislation simply makes the provisions permanent, encourages companies to donate food to help feed the hungry, it makes it hes area foreindividuals who might want to makes it easier for individuals who might want to use their i. R. A. Money to help charitable organizations. It intend advises land owners to it incentivizes landowners. I want to address one other provision thats in this bill that i actually offered authored with my colleague, mr. Davis from illinois. To help simplify the tax code for private foundations. Hes been a strong advocate in leading this effort. I think we would all agree that private foundations make a world of difference in our communities. We have them in our states. In minnesota we have 1,400 donations that donate a billion dollars a year an yull to those in need annually to those in need. These are really impressive figures. But the truth is those figures could actually be a lot higher. Heres why. The Foundation Community has come to us and theyre telling us that the tax code is discouraging them from actually giving large donations. Today these institutions face a really complex cumbersome twotiered system of taxation that requires them to pay either a 1 or a 2 excise tax on their investment income. But in order to qualify for the lower rate in any given year, theyve got to go and donate an amount thats greaterer than the average of their fiveyear rolling average. From the previous five years. This creates a very perverse disincentive for these foundations to not make any donations of large amounts in times when we might have a natural disaster, when theres economic tough times. Absolutely now this is because a large donation in these times would significantly increase a private foundations fiveyear average and make it difficult for them to actually qualify for the lower rate. And also make sure that theyre not going to get the lower rate for the next four years. Were eliminating this disincentive by replacing a very complicated twotier system with a simple, flat 1 excise tax on all private Foundation Investment income. Its important to simplify the tax planning process especially for smaller foundations, because theyre the ones that are spending money on accountants and lawyers to navigate the tax code. When that money could be used those are valuable resources that could be used to help give grants to others that need those resources. So this bill simply makes sure the Charitable Giving decisions are going to be based not on the tax code but on the needs of our community. Because the bottom line is, every dollar that these organizations are paying in taxes is one less dollar that theyre giving to those that truly need it. Thanks again, mr. Speaker, i ask my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from wisconsin reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Levin thank you. Its now my real pleasure to yield one minute to our distinguished leader, nancy pelosi. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Pelosi thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on helping to have a budget that produces growth, to reduce the deficit. Today were talking about issues in which we are very much in agreement in terms of the policy toward Charitable Giving. In fact, some of this legislation has been introduced by mr. Levin and mr. Thompson on the ways and Means Committee, in fact authoring an amendment in lieu of last night which was rejected by the rules committee, to go forward in a way that is fiscally sound and was paid for. So here is the problem that we have. We all want to have comprehensive tax reform. Where we can close loopholes and we can lower the tax rate and we can have transparency in our tax code. In order to go to the table to do that, as i know theres bipartisan interest in doing so, we should go to the table with as much freedom as possible. And not constrained by taking rifle shots on the floor of the house for certain pieces of the tax code that will cost the whole package the republicans are putting forget is forth is about 800 billion. Thats a lot of money. Its important for people to know that in our budget, every year, we have a part of the budget that are called tax expenditures. Theyre well over 1 trillion. Some of them are worthy and we want to protect them. Certainly charitable deductions fall in that category. But many of them are not. And those tax expenditures, that means giving a tax break, whether its a special interest loophole in the tax code, to special interests, many of those tax expenditures do not create growth and they increase the deficit. And they are just like spending. Theyre called an expenditure because theyre giving a tax break to certain special interests. How does that fit in here . We want to go to the table, put everything on the table subject it toing a notic s a toing a noes tick scrutiny to to agnostic scrutiny that has fairness, simplicity and transparency. What the republicans are proposing this week is totally in opposition to our being able to do that effectively. What they are saying is let us take 800 billion permanently unpaid for out of the mix and then we have less to negotiate on. And then in terms of what we can do on the other side of the budget, which are investments into the future. I have always said, and i think that most economists would agree that the best nothing brings more money to the treasury or reduces the deficit more than investments in education, Early Childhood education, k12 higher ed, postgrad, lifelong learning. Thats about growth. Thats about bigger paychecks, confidence to spend, demand injected into the economy jobs created, revenue produced. And its all part of how we can go forward with a budget for the future that creates growth, reduces the deficit. And so we have this obstacle. Which sounds very good. How do you vote against these provisions which are good provisions, about nonprofits and conservation and all these other things . We agree, as i say our colleagues have introduced them. But to say that they are permanently permanently unpaid for and, again mixing some of the good with the not so good, its like a trojan horse moving in. It looks good, but wait a minute, theres a lot in the gut of that horse that is not good for growth or for reducing the deficit. So all were saying to everyone today is, we can come to agreement on some of the principles about Tax Deductions for charitable organizations. Its curious to hear our colleagues talk so movingly about people who are providing foot for hungry people, when food for hungry people, when very few of them want to vote for food stamps. Thats a whole other issue. But it just is shows some inconsistency in all of this. So just remember this one thing. If we want to have comprehensive immigration excuse me comprehensive again, comprehensive tax reform, if we want to reduce the deficit, if we want to have balance in terms of investments plus how we produce revenue, we have to do it in a comprehensive way. Thats what a budget is about. And what we are doing today is to throw up, to just stack the deck against any investments in growth, because weve already taken 00 billion off the table 800 billion off the table if we go down this path. What were doing today is saying, other tax reforms that we want to make for fairness are already in jeopardy because of some of what is in this. As i say, some are positive, some are not. Lets be discerning in how we make the judgment. But you cant be discerning by saying, im going to vote for permanent unpaidfor tax expenditures which, as i say, have a blend of positive and negative in it, but its hard to make a distinction without seeing the whole big picture of it. So i urge my colleagues to say, while i support some of what is good in all of this i do not support permanently taking it off the table for consideration and not paying for it at this time. In order to talk this through and have a clear instead of this driveby approach to tax policy an antideficit exploding spree that our colleagues are on, while they profess to be deficit hogs, while worry working this out and having were working this out and having a discussion about this, we in our motion to recommit will have a oneyear extension of the provision that were talking about here so that, ok, in the course of this time, well extend it as a tax extender for one year and hopefully in that time under the leadership of the budget chair who is also from the ways and Means Committee, understands these issues very well in fact, in his own budget would be not consistent with what hes put on the floor today former chair of the ways and means, now of the Budget Committee, no, its the reverse. Its related. Theyre so related. Because how we produce revenue is so esse thow we do our budget. The gentleman knows that because his own budget would be inconsistent with what is on the floor today. So i say to my colleagues, hold on. Vote no on this. Vote yes on the motion to recommit. Which gives us a year to talk this through. But to do so in a way that reduces the deficit, produces growth, makes bigger paychecks from that growth to increase more revenue, and to have these provisions go forth in a way that is fair that is paid for, and that is part of a comprehensive tax reform. With that again, i thank the gentleman for his exceptional leadership. The members of the ways and Means Committee for their courage in opposing something that has popular appeal. And theres a reason why. Because theyre not bad policies. Its just that theyre not paid for and theyre permanent and we should do this. But we should do it right. So i urge our colleagues to vote no on the bill, yes on the motion to recommit, thank the gentleman for his leadership and yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from california yields back. The gentleman from michigan reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Ryan mr. Speaker ill yield myself 30 seconds. I want to say to the gentlelady, the minority leader, i appreciate the tone and temperament of her remarks. I thought that was well done. I disagree with the basic premise on baseline. I wont get into the details. I talked about that a little bit before. So i have some differences of opinion on the facts that she laid out. I see it quite differently. But i thought that that was a good tone and temperament. That speaks well to the need for tax reform thats comprehensive. And we believe that this helps us move us in the right direction toward tax reform. I wont go to the baseline issues again, only to say that i think this is a positive step in the direction toward comprehensive tax reform which clearly the gentlelady meaning both parties agree is something we need to tackle. Id like to yield four minutes to a member of the ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. Roskam. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. Mr. Roskam the gentlelady from california said that we needed to use agnostic scrutiny when were evaluating these and i think its a little bit ambitious to have a roomful ofing a notics when were all true roomful of ag gnostics when were all of agnostics when were all true believers, we all feel strongly. When you look at the four things were contemplating in the bill before us today, of all four of these things, surely these four are not going to get caught up and swept away in tax reform. Surely it wont be how were treating food charities. Surely its not going to be how were dealing with conservation easements. Surely its not how were treating i. R. Ample contributions to charities. And surely its not trying to make private foundations and give them a sure footing. Surely, these are the good things that we can all agree on based on agnostic scrutiny. Did you notice something mr. Speaker . Theres nobody on the other side of the aisle who has stood up today and said, oh, the food charity thing . Disaster. Im against that. Or conservation easement . Ridiculous. Look into that a little more. Or the i. R. A. Contributions, be careful there. Or private foundations, getting them all scared away . Im against it. Not one person said that. So what was their argument . They wrapped themselves up in process. But by wrapping themselves up in process, theyve opened themselves up to a criticism because if we had gone a different route if the chairman had taken a different path, they would have said chairman ryan, why dont you start on things where theres bipartisan agreement . And here the chairman is, wringing bills to the floor that have been enthusiastically actively supported, mr. Speaker by our friends on the other side of the aisle. Why have they supported them . Because theyre good ideas. This is where theres an incredible amount of Common Ground. Theres been some false arguments made on the other side that are just not that persuasive and the argument went from the gentleman from texas who created the impression that if you vote yes on this, then were not going to be able to afford meat inspectors were not going to be able to have bridges or a cure for cancer is somehow out of our reach . Spare me. Mr. Speaker, im reminded at times like this of a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1790 to a man named charles clay. Im going to give you three lines from this letter that ive committed to memory because i think it deeply resonates where most americans are when they look at our house today. Thomas jefferson wrote this to charles clay. He said, the ground of liberty is to be gained by inches. We must be content what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men even to do what is for their own good. Mr. Speaker, that is jeffersons admonition. No stranger to vision no stranger to the big picture, as the author of the declaration of independence. We dont walk away from tax reform, the aspiration we all have, but it is to say looking if were going to be ayostcally scrutinizing these thing ayostcally scrutinizing these thing agnostically scrutinizing these things we ought to vote yes to the bill and move it along. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Levin i yield myself 30 seconds. Essentially what the gentleman from illinois says, well, lets do tax reform by picking and choosing a piece or a few at a time. Thats the opposite of tax reform. He described it, thats the difference. And now let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from california mr. Thompson, a very distinguished member of our committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Thompson i thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today as a democratic lead on the conservation easement bill and to very regrettably say that i rise in opposition to this bill that i think so highly of. I dont disagree with the policy. I dont disagree with the need for certainty, something thats been referred to many times today. And i dont disagree that the way the republicans did it last year in the last two weeks, doing it retroactively, i dont disagree that that was the wrong way to do it. And ive worked for permanency on conservation easements ever since chairman camp and i passed the big expansion in 2006. Ive been the democratic lead on every in every congress to make conservation easements permanent. Conservation easements are good Public Policy. They protect open space. They protect important ag lands. They protect important wildlife habitat. Theyre essential for clean air and clean water. Theyre essential for locally sourced, good, healthy food. Theyre important to hunters, to fishermen, to conservationists. Theyre important to people who live in rural areas and theyre important to people who live in urban areas. And you know and nowhere is that more apparent than what happened in new york, were able to save new york city from having to spend 8 billion in building a Water Filtration system because we were able to protect their watershed area in large part through conservation easements. And we all know that these are important. Every one of us knows its important. Thats why every congress, when we introduce this bill, we get upwards of and sometimes over 300 bipartisan coauthors on that bill. But the problem is, this bill isnt paid for. As youve heard a number of times. Now sadly, i offered an amendment that would have totally offset the cost of the conservation easement portion of the bills that were taking up today. It was an offset with no tax increases didnt increase anybodys taxes, didnt put the taxes on the back of somebody else, didnt shift the cost to anyone else. As a matter of fact it focused on scoff laws who have been able scofflaws who have been able to avoid paying their taxes because of a short statute of limitations. We just would offer to extend that statute of limitations. We could have paid for this whole thing. But unfortunately, my friends on the republican side of the house rejected that amendment. So instead, were here with this bill, not paid for, in instead, today were going to vote on 93 billion worth of unpaid for tax bills that will add 93 billion to our deficit. Now if you add that to what our republican colleagues did mr. Levin i yield the gentleman an additional minute. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Thompson if you add that to what our colleagues did in ways and Means Committee this morning when they passed 225 billion of unpaid for tax expenditures, that means that just today, the republican side of this house spent 320 billion that we dont have. Directly shifting the cost to our deficit and our debt. This is not tax reform. This is not paid for. Its not a good way to proceed. I ask for a no vote. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california yields. The gentleman from michigan reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Ryan id like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. Reid. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Reid i rise in support of the bill, america mr. Reed i rise in support of the america gives more act of 2015. In particular i want to talk about a part thats very near and dear to me, the fighting hunger act, a subpart of this bill. The Ranking Member and i had a conversation recently, last time this bill, this legislation was up before the house for consideration. We got a large, bipartisan vote in support of the fighting hunger provisions. I know the Ranking Member, the gentleman from michigan has worked extensively on this legislation. For years and years and years. And i know in our last debate and conversation here that the Ranking Member, the Ranking Member had some s that i questioned whether or not he cared about the people that were going to be helped by this act. I want to make it clear here today i understand that the Ranking Member cares about those individuals. Just as i do. Just as all of us, as democrats and republicans should be focusing this debate not necessarily always about the arguments of d. C. But about the people that we came here to represent and help. Fighting hunger is a bipartisan issue. We unite as americans when our fellow citizens are suffering. When you look at the millions of americans that are going hungry every day, mr. Speaker, we shouldnt be divisive. We shouldnt be arguing about the deep details of what my opponents on the other side are putting forth today. We should stand for those millions of americans when we say, this tax policy is going to result in tons and tons of food not going into land fills, not going into the garbage, but going onto the tables of our fellow americans that could use that food the most. The hungry. The poor. And we can argue whether theres other ways to do it and theres other things that we can do to help them, but we can agree that this is one piece of a solution to this problem that we can pass today. And move the needle. And care for our fellow americans. Thats why i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. We dont want food going into landfills. We want food to be put on the desk of the people that need it most. We have concerns about the debt on both sides. I get it. But heres an opportunity for us to come together. I am concerned about the debt. My colleagues are concerned about the debt. But heres an opportunity for us to show the American People that sent us here that we care about them, we are listening to the American People, and we are willing to do something about it. In order to make sure that this policy results in that food going to the people, our fellow citizens who need it most. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from wisconsin reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. Mr. Levin could i ask, how much time do we have on each side. The speaker pro tempore 22 1 2 minutes. Mr. Levin on our side . The speaker pro tempore on your side. The gentleman from wisconsin has 21 minutes. Mr. Levin i yield to the gentleman, mr. Becerra. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. Mr. Becerra i thank the gentleman for yielding. I think we should clarify something. Every day, americans donate food clothes, money to charities. Millions of americans do that all the time. Most of those americans dont expect to get something in return. They do it because its the right thing to do. And it makes them feel like theyre part of the american community. 10 every day so Everyday Americans are giving. Now the tax code happens to also try to encourage us to do more giving, which i think all of us agree is good. So lets remove that from the debate. I think were confusing folks who might be watching this. This isnt about trying to give people the an incentive to give, because americans are doing it whether or not the tax code were to say that we want you to do this. The issue is this. Under the tax code some americans, not a majority of americans, not even a third of americans, but a fraction of americans can take advantage of the provisions in the tax code that give them tax breaks for having given something. Youve heard it discussed about food. If you gave canned goods because the boy next door put up the bag and you put canned goods in there and you gave them away this provision isnt about that. No. There are a fraction of american taxpayers, mostly Companies Restaurants and so forth, who can take advantage of that you cant. Americans cant take advantage of that provision. Theres a provision in here that says, you have an i. R. A. , individual retirement account, some americans have i. R. A. s. The majority of americans dont. But some do. Ok. You want to be charitable . Youve done fairly well want to give some of your i. R. A. To a charity. The tax code says, we want to incentivize you to do that. The tax code right now says you can give up to 100,000 in your i. R. A. To charity. And guess what . That wont be recognized as income. How Many Americans make 100,000 . Not too many. But if you make 100,000, how much are you going to pay in taxes . How many of you have 100,000 in your i. R. A. That you can give away to a charity . Well theres some people who can. And theres some people who do. And fwess what, they get a tax break for doing that. Its a pretty big tax break when you think about how much youd pay in taxes on 100000 of your income. They get to give that money away and dont pay taxes on that money out of the i. R. A. And you dont just get to do it once in your lifetime, every year an american can give away 100,000 out of your i. R. A. And get a tax break. How Many Americans do that . Tiny tiny fraction. Tiny, tiny fraction. But guess what . When you take that i. R. A. Rollover tax break and you take that other tax break for those companies that can give away food and you take the other tax breaks for those who have land that they can give away to a charity, guess how much it adds up to . It adds up to what we today provide in funding to do research against cancer Breast Cancer and all the Research Funding we put in to do Alzheimers Research. Same amount of money. So when people say, you dont have to worry about the cost of that, you dont have to pay for this. We could spend twice as much money to find a cure for Breast Cancer twice as much money to find a cure for alzheimers disease if we wencht giving away these tax breaks to someone who can afford to give away 100,000 from their i. R. A. A year to go good. That welty american could give 100,000 out of that i. R. A. Today. But they get a tax breaker to doing it. Would that stop them from giving away 100,000 because they dont give the tax break . I dont think so. Mr. Levin i yield an additional minute. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. Mr. Becerra i dent think so. Because you dont have to be wealthy in america to give. We all want to give. In fact, the folks who give the most are the folks who earn the least. They give what they can. How many times have you been invited to someones home who you know its hard for them to put food on the table and they invite to you eat at their home and they dont expect to you give them a thing . We give because we think its the right thing to do. The tax code wants to intent and thats good because we want to help charities. But to say that it doesnt have to be paid for, when we have to pay for all the cancer research, for Breast Cancer when we have to pay for the research to do alzheimers disease when we have to pay for those food inspecters to make sure that the food that gets on our table is free of car sin generals and car sin car sinogens, we have to pay for those things. Theres no free lunch. Lets do good. If were going to give someone who is wealthy a chance to do good, lets pay for it. Lets figure out a way to do that. Because we want to be charitable. But lets not play this game that it doesnt cost somebody in america for this tax break. With that i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from michigan reserves. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Ryan mr. Speaker, at this time id like to yield one minute to the distinguished House Majority leader, mr. Mccarthy. The speaker pro tempore the chair recognizes the majority leader for one minute. Mr. Mccarthy i thank the gentleman and chairman for yielding. I have to pause for a moment. We debate a lot of things on this floor. And theyre worthy debates. Theyre interesting debates. But lets first mr. Speaker, tell the American People what were debating today. Fighting hunger incentive act. Thats what were debating. Lots of times i question why we have debates on the floor certain times. Right now is one of them. I really wonder if the American People tune in today and said, you were willing having an argument zpwens fighting hunger intendtific act . So let me walk through what were debating. Because just a couple days ago i just went down the road here to the d. C. Central kitchen. Its a nonprofit. Feeds a lot of homeless. Also helps people build jobs. You know how it was created . Because a small businessman saw people who were hungry. Then he saw an inaugural for the 41st president of the United States and said, should that food all be wasted . So he took the leftovers and found someone who needed it. Then he went further and he goes, these people coming to me, what they really need, they need a job. So why dont i create a Culinary School . 99 classes have gone through this Culinary School. You know what . I met this young man who went through class number two. Early in his life he did some things wrong and he was incarcerated for more than 20 years. But you know what his life is today . Hes the supervisor for eight years. He has a 5yearold daughter and he has a college fund for that daughter. Because the current tax code allows it to happen. Mr. Speaker, when i listen to the other side, you would think were creating a whole new bill. Were taking a tax code and extending it instead of having a problem and someone wonders, will i still get that donation . So i ask them, i see how many people you feed here and the of volunteers, if you want to volunteer at the d. C. Central kitchen you have to sign up, the opening is in may. Because people want to give back. They say 60 of all the food they get is donated. They get fish that would actually go into a dump beforehand. But its not easy if youre a small farm somewhere else to donate it. This incentive allows it to happen. Why . Because one person saw a need, he didnt go to government to do it, but he used a system to actually enhance and mr. It up. Build it up. But i dont have to just go to d. C. Tootosee. This i see this in my own community. My wife and i go down to the mission and i see lives changed. I see people fed. But you know what . I see all walks of life. I was down to feed the mission one day and a person that was just a couple lines behind it in there to get food went to the same Elementary School as me and the same junior high and the same high school. Thats the greatness of this country. That were willing to help one another. But mr. Speaker, i just dont understand, if were willing to help each other, why do we have to fight to make it allowed to do that . There are worthy fights on this floor, but this is not one. We are better than this mr. Speaker. And i will tell you this. What i am most amazed and dumbfounded by, this bill has a veto threat. This bill, to help hunger. To help the next dwayne, to help the next individual be fed has a veto threat. So you know what . I read the veto threat. The administration doesnt oppose the provision because its already in law. So many times people say, why do you wait until the last minute in this house . Well, were not now. Were taking it up early, so nobody has a problem. But you know what the administration, the president has said . Hes thretsening to veto this bill because congress didnt pass other bills the president wanted and because the president might oppose future bills that the house could pass. Seriously . Thats just wrong. Mr. Speaker, i believe in this country i believe in mankind. I believe in the goodness of all of us. Its not about party. Its about helping one another. We are fighting with the incentive to end hunger and encouraging others to do it. We shouldnt have to debate about it, we should sell braille it. He look forward celebrate it. I look forward to this bill passing with a large majority and the president signing it and all of us as americans coming together to help the most precious, because its in every single one of our communities hunger. Lets put our political games aside, mr. Speaker, and lets rise to what people expect of this house the house plans to continue working on tax tomorrow. Linda has retained that 9 00 in the morning tomorrow, live coverage here on cspan. Coming up tonight on cspan, fbi director james onlycomey talks about Law Enforcement and larrys race relations. Later, at hearing examining human rights in syria. An article from the New York Times on your screen, surprising speech by fbi chief focuses on police and grace. He delivered an unusually frank speech about the relationship between the police and black people saying that officers who work in neighborhoods where blacks commit crimes, developed a cynicism. It goes onto say he decided to give the speech because he felt that in the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown in ferguson missouri, the country had not had a healthy dialogue and he did not want to see those important issues dripped away. The article also notes that in addressing race relations, he was trying to do something politicians and Law Enforcement leaders, including his boss, attorney gerald general eric holder failed to do without backlash. Now here is the speech at Georgetown University. It is about one hour. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage the dean of the court Public School of john degoia, president of you Georgetown University, and james d comey, director of the federal and best federal bureau of investigation. [applause] good morning, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to gaston hall. It is a great pleasure for our university to host this important conversation this morning. I wish to thank the many members of our Georgetown Community and our guests from the fbi who have joined us for todays event. We gather now to hear fbi director james comey offer his perspective on questions of Law Enforcement and race, a topic that demands our most careful and serious attention as a nation, as its members, as members of our communities. This is a topic whose importance and urgency has been exemplified in the events from ferguson missouri, to cleveland, ohio, to staten island, new york. At this moment when our country seeks a greater understanding, a renewed sense of responsibility for when another a stronger , mutual trust. Were grateful for this opportunity to provide a venue for dialogue on these matters. Were thankful to have our Mccourt School of Public Policy as an academic partner for this mornings event. After director comeys remarks, our audience will have the opportunity to ask questions moderated by our Mccourt School dean, edward montgomery. And i want to thank dean montgomery for playing this role today. I wish to take a few moments top introduce director comey, who took on this position leading the fbi in 2013 after a long and distinguished legal career. A religion major at the college of william and mary and graduate of columbia law school, director comey has served as u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york and as Deputy Attorney the at department of justice before assuming his current role. As leader of the fbi, he has advanced the bureaus mission of protecting the lives of our nations citizens with a personal attention to ensuring that this mission is accomplished in a manner that recognizes and protects the liberties that are at the heart of our shared values as a nation. For many years, the fbi has required all its new agents to visit the United States Holocaust Museum here in washington as part of their training. When mr. Comey became director he added to that training a visit to the Martin Luther king memorial, not far from our campus here, to bring a deeper understanding of our nations history into the bureaus current practices. As director comey put it, a reminder of the need for fidelity and rule of law and the dangers of becoming untethered to oversight and accountability. We gather this morning here in gaston hall as we have throughout our history. Now for more than a century, this hall has served as one of the important places for Public Discourse and discussion here in washington. And today we deepen that history as we come together to engage in this dialogue. It is through such dialogue that we build a more Inclusive Society and strengthen the trust that forms the fabric of our collective well being. So, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming director james b. Comey. [applause] thank you, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for inviting me here to Georgetown University. I am honored to be here. I wanted to meet with you today to share with you my thoughts on the relationship between Law Enforcement and the communities we serve and protect. Like a lot of things in life that relationship is complicated. Relationships often are. Beautiful healy hall, part of and all around where we sit now, was named after this great universitys 29th president Patrick Francis healy. Healy was born into slavery in georgia in 1834. His father was an irish immigrant plantation owner, his mother a slave. Under the laws at that time, healy and his siblings were considered to be slaves. Healy is believed to be the first africanamerican to earn a ph. D, the first to enter the jesuit order, the first to be president of Georgetown University or any predominantly white university. Given georgetowns remarkable history, and that of president healy, this struck me as the appropriate place to talk about the difficult relationship between Law Enforcement and the communities we are sworn to serve and protect. With the death of Michael Brown in ferguson, the death of eric garner in staten island, and the ongoing protests throughout the country, and the assassinations of nypd officers, we are at a crossroads. As a society we can choose to live our lives every day raising our families, going to work, and hoping that someone somewhere will do something to ease the tension, to smooth over the conflict. We can roll up our car windows turn up the radio, and drive around these problems. Or we can choose instead to have an open and honest discussion about what our relationship is today. What it should be. What it could be. What it needs to be. If we took more time to better understand one another. Unfortunately, in places like ferguson, and new york city, and in some communities across this nation, there is a disconnect between Police Agencies and the citizens they serve, predominantly in communities color. Serious debates are taking place about how Law Enforcement personnel relate to the communities they serve, about the appropriate use of force and about the real and perceived biases both within and outside of Law Enforcement. These are important debates. Every american should feel free to express an informed opinion to protest peacefully, to convey frustration and even anger in a constructive way. Thats what makes this democracy great. Those conversations, as bumpy and uncomfortable as they can be, help us understand different perspectives and better serve our communities. Of course, they are only conversations in the true sense of that word, if we are willing not only to talk but to listen too. I worry that this incredibly important and difficult conversation about race and policing has become focused entirely on the nature and character of Law Enforcement officers when it should also be about something much harder to discuss. Debating the nature of policing is very important, but i worry that it has become an excuse at times to avoid doing something harder. Let me start by sharing some of my own hard truths. First, all of us in Law Enforcement must be honest enough to acknowledge that much of our history is not pretty. At many points in american history, Law Enforcement enforced the status quo, a status quo that was often brutally unfair to disfavored groups. It was unfair to the healy siblings and to countless others like them. It was unfair to too many people. I am descended from irish immigrants. A century ago the irish knew well how American Society and Law Enforcement viewed them. As drunks, roughians and criminals. Law enforcements biased view of the irish lives on in the nickname we still use for the vehicles we use to transport groups of prisoners it is after all, a paddy wagon. The irish had some tough times. But little compares to the experience on our soil of black americans. That experience should be part of every americans consciousness and Law Enforcements role in that experience, including in recent times, must be remembered. It is our cultural inheritance. There is a reason that i require all new agents and analysts to study the fbis interaction with dr. Martin luther king jr. And to visit his memorial in washington as part of their training. And there is a reason. I keep on my desk a copy of attorney general Robert Kennedys approval j. Edgar hoovers request to wiretap dr. King. It is a single page. The entire application is five sentences long. It is without fact or substance. And it is predicated on the naked assertion that there is communist influence in the racial situation. The reason i do those things is to ensure that we remember our mistakes and that we learn from them. One reason we cannot forget our Law Enforcement legacy is that the people we serve and protect cannot forget it either. So we must talk about our history. It is a hard truth that lives on. A second hard truth Much Research points to the widespread existence of unconscious bias. Many people in our white majority culture have unconscious racial biases and react differently to a white face than a black face. In fact, we all, white and black, carry various biases around with us. I am reminded of the song from the broadway hit avenue q, everyones a little bit racist, a part of which goes like this. Look around and you will find no ones really colorblind. Maybe it is a fact we all should face. Everyone makes judgments based on race. You should be grateful i did not try to sing that. [laughter] but if we cant help our latent bay yas biases with be woo he latent biases, we can help our instinctive response to those actions. That is why we work to Design Systems and processes to overcome that very human part of us all. Although the research may be unsettling, it is what we do next that matters most. But racial bias isnt epidemic in Law Enforcement any more than it is epidemic in academia or in arts. In fact, i believe Law Enforcement overwhelmingly attracts people who want to do good for a living. People who risk their lives because they want to help other people. They dont sign up to be cops in new york or chicago or l. A. To help white people or black people or hispanic people or asian people. They sign up because they want to help all people. And they do some of the hardest, most dangerous policing to protect communities of color. But that leads me to my third hard truth something happens to people in Law Enforcement. Many of us develop different flavors of cynicism that we work hard to resist because they can be lazy, mental shortcuts. For example, criminal suspects routinely lie about their guilt and nearly everybody that we charge is guilty. That makes it easy for some folks in Law Enforcement to assume that everybodys lying and that no suspect, regardless of their race, could be innocent. Easy, but wrong. Likewise, Police Officers on patrol in our nations cities often work in environments where a hugely disproportionate percentage of street crime is committed by young men of color. Something happens to people of good will working in that environment. After years of police work officers often cant help but be influenced by the cynicism they feel. A mental shortcut becomes almost inresistible and even rational by some lights. The two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others that officer has locked up. Two white men on the other side of the street, even in the same clothes, do not. The officer does not make the same association about the two white guys, whether that officer is white or black. And that drives different behavior. The officers turns towards one side of the street and not the other. We need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between the police and the communities they serve. So why has that officer, like his colleagues, locked up so many young men of color . Why does he have that lifeshaping experience . Is it because he is a racist . Why are so many black men in jail . Is it because cops, prosecutors, judges and juries are racist . Because they are turning a blind eye to white robbers and drug dealers. The answer is a hard truth. I dont think so. If it were so, that would be easier to address. We would just need to change the way we hire, train and measure Law Enforcement and that would substantially fix it. We would then go get the white criminals we have been ignoring. But the truth is much harder than that. The truth is that what really needs fixing is something only a few, like president obama, are willing to speak about, perhaps because it is so daunting a task. Through the my brothers keeper initiative, the president is addressing the disproportionate challenges faced by young men of color. For instance, data shows that the percentage of young men not working or not enrolled in school is nearly twice as high for blacks as it is for whites. This initiative and others like it is about doing the hard work to grow drug resistant and violence resistant kids, especially in communities of color so they never become part of that officers Life Experience. So many young men of color become part of that officers Life Experience because so many minority families and communities are struggling. So many boys and young men grow up in environments lacking role models, adequate education and decent employment. They lack all sorts of opportunities that most of us take for granted. A tragedy of american life, one that most citizens are able to drive around because. Because it doesnt touch them. Is that young people in those neighborhoods too often inherit a legacy of crime and prison and with that inheritance they become part of a Police Officers life and slap thehape and shape the way that officer, whether white or black, sees the world. Changing that legacy is a challenge so enormous and so complicated that it is unfortunately, easier to talk only about the cops. And thats not fair. Let me be transparent about my affection for cops. When you dial 911, whether you are white or black, the cops come. And they come quickly. And they come quickly whether they are white or black. Thats what cops do. In addition to all of the other dangerous and difficult and hard and frightening things that they do. They respond to homes in the middle of the night where a drunken father wielding a gun is threatening his wife and children. They pound up the back stairs of an Apartment Building not knowing whether the guys behind the door theyre about to enter are armed or high or both. I come from a Law Enforcement family. My grandfather william j. Comey was a police officer. Pop comey is one of my heroes. I have a picture of him on my wall in my office at the fbi reminding me of the legacy that i have inherited and that i must honor. He was a child of immigrants. When he was in the sixth grade his father was killed in an industrial. Industrial accident in new york, so he had to drop out of school to support his mom and younger siblings. He could never afford to return to school. But when he was old enough he joined the yonkers, new york Police Department. Over the next 40 years he rose to lead that department. Pop was the tall, strong, silent type. Quiet and dignified and passionate about the rule of law. Back during prohibition he heard that bootleggers were running beer through fire hoses between the bronx and yonkers. Now pop enjoyed a good beer every now and then, but he ordered his men to cut those hoses with fire axes and then he needed a protective detail. Because certain people were angry and shocked that someone in Law Enforcement would do that. But thats what we want as citizens, that is what we expect. And so i keep a picture of pop on my wall, in my office to remind me of his integrity and his pride in the integrity of his work. Law enforcement ranks are filled with people like my grandfather. But to be clear, although i am from a Law Enforcement family, and ive spent much of my career in Law Enforcement, i am not looking to let Law Enforcement off the hook. Those of us in Law Enforcement must redouble our efforts to resist bias and prejudice. We must better understand the people we serve and protect. By trying to flow deep in our to know deep in our gut what it feels like to be a law abiding young black man walking down the street and encountering Law Enforcement. We must understand how that young man may see us. We must resist the lazy shortcuts of cynicism and approach him with respect and decency. We must work in the words of new York City Police commissioner bill bratton to really see each other. Perhaps the reason we struggle as a nation is because weve come to see only what we represent at face value, instead of who we are. We simply must see the people we serve. But the seeing needs to flow in both directions. Citizens also need to really see the men and women of Law Enforcement. They need to see what the police see through their windshields, and as they walk down the street. They need to see the risks and dangers of Law Enforcement encountered on every typical late night shift. They need to understand the difficult and frightening work that they do to keep us safe. And they need to give them the respect and the space they need to do their job well and properly. If they take the time to do that, what they will see are officers who are human, who are overwhelmingly doing the right thing for the right reasons and who are too often operating in communities and facing challenges most of us choose to drive around. One of the hardest things i do as fbi director is call the chiefs and sheriffs of departments around the nation when officers have been killed in the line of duty. I call to express my sorrow and to offer the fbis help. Officers like wen jien will you liu, and rafael ramos. I make far too many calls and there are far too many names of fallen officers on the national Law Enforcement officers memorial and far too many names etched there each year. Officers liu and ray moss swore ramos swore the same oath all in Law Enforcement do and they answered the call to serve the people, all the people. Like all good Police Officers, they moved toward danger without regard for the politics or passions or race of those who needed their help knowing the risk inherent in their work. They were minority Police Officers killed while standing watch in a minority neighborhood. Bedford stuyvesant in brooklyn. A neighborhood that they and their fellow officers rescued from the grip of violent crime. For a couple decades ago bedstuy was a shorthand for a place where people could only sit on the front steps and talk. Good people had no freedom to shop or walk or play on the front steps. It was too dangerous. But no more. Thanks to the work of those who chose lives of service and danger to help others. But despite that sacrifice, that selfless service, of these two officers and countless others like them around the country, in some American Communities people view police not as allies but as antagonists. And think of them as someone not to be treated with gratitude and respect but someone worthy of suspicion and distrust. We simply must find a way to see each other more clearly. And part of that has to involve collecting and sharing better information about violent encounters between police and citizens. Not long after the riots broke out in ferguson, late last summer, i asked my staff to tell me how many people shot by police were africanamerican in this country. I wanted to see trends. I wanted to see information. They couldnt give it to me. And it wasnt their fault. Demographic data regarding officerinvolved shootings is not consistently reported to us through our uniform Crime Reporting program. Because reporting is voluntary our data is incomplete and therefore in aggregate unreliable. I recently listened to a thoughtful bigcity chief express his frustration with that lack of reliable data. He said he didnt know whether the Ferguson Police shot one person a week, one a year or one a century. And then in the absence of good data, all we get are ideological thunder bolts. What we need are ideological agnostics who use information to try to solve problems. Hes right. The first step to understanding what is really going on in our communities and in our country is to gather more and better data related to throws we those we arrest, those we confront for break being the law breaking the law, and jeopardizing public safety, and those who confront us. Data seems like a dry and boring word, but without it we cannot understand our world and make it better. How can we address concerns about use of force . How can we address concerns about officerinvolved shootings if we do not have a reliable grasp on the demographic and the circumstances of those incidents . We simply must improve the way we collect and analyze data to see the true nature of whats happening in our communities. The fbi tracks and publishes the number of justifiable homicides reported by Police Departments. But again, reporting by Police Departments is voluntary and not all departments participate. That means we cannot fully track the incidents in which force is used by police, or against police, including nonfatal encounters which are not reported at all. Without complete and accurate data we are left with ideological thunder bolts and that helps spark unrest and distrust and does not help us get better. Because we must get better, i intend for the fbi to be the leader in urging departments around this country to give us the facts we need for informed discussion, the facts all of us need and to help us make sound policy and sound decisions with that information. America isnt easy. America takes work. Today february 12th is abraham lincolns birthday. He spoke at gettysburg about a new birth and freedom because we spent the first four score and seven years of our history with fellow americans held as healy as slaves president healy his siblings and his mother among them. As a nation we have spent the 150 years since lincoln spoke making great progress, but along the way treating a whole lot of people of color poorly. And Law Enforcement was often part of that poor treatment. Thats our inheritance as Law Enforcement, and it is not all in the distant past. We must account for that inheritance, and we, especially those of us who enjoy the privilege that comes with being the majority, must confront the biases that are inescapable part of the human condition. We must speak the truth about our shortcomings as Law Enforcement as fight to get better. But as a country we must also speak the truth to ourselves. Law enforcement is not the root cause of the problems in our hardesthit neighborhoods. Police officers, people of enormous courage and integrity in the overwhelm inging overwhelming main are in there risking their lives to protect folks from offenders who are a product of problems that wont be solved by body cameras. We simply must speak to each other honestly about all these hard truths. In the words of dr. King, we must learn to live together as brothers, or we will perish together as fools. We all have hard work to do. Challenging work and it will take time. We all need to talk and we all need to listen. Not just about easy things, but about hard things, too. Relationships are hard. Relationships require work. So lets begin that work. It is time to start seeing one another for who and what we really are. Peace, security and understanding are worth that effort. Thank you for listening to me today. [applause] so i want to thank the director for these very important remarks and let you know that he has some time to answer some questions. We asked people to come up to the mike and form their question. Please, when you do, let us know your name and your affiliation and we appreciate given the importance of the topic if people want to have questions to focus them on the issues that the director has raised here today. So with that, the microphone is open if anybody wants to come up, ill let i see somebody coming up. Dont be shy. Hi. Good morning. My name is anabe. Im a junior. Government major, spanish minor. I was wondering, mr. Comey, what has been your most disappointing moment as fbi director and how did you and the bureau bounce back from that. And on the flip side, what has been your proudest or happiest been your proudest or happiest moment as director and how has that impacted you and affected you Going Forward . Thank you for the question. Maybe ill take it in reverse order. My proudest moment as fbi director, something ive said throughout the fbi, is actually related to the topic were talking about here today. I sent dozens of agents wearing rain jackets to ferguson and they knocked on hundreds of doors and every door opened and everybody spoke to us, whether they were white or black, young or old, male or female. I think because they saw the fbi. Youve seen the jackets on tv, right . They saw the kind of orangeyyellow fbi. I speak about this to graduations of agents. I said, that is a priceless gift, to be believed, to be seen as somebody who cares about the facts and getting it right. We have to protect that gift. That was my proudest moment in my 18 months so far. Most difficult, theres been a lot of them that relate to other subjects. Terrorism and the loss of innocent life. Obviously i deeply am involved in our hostages overseas trying with lots of other folks to get them home. Thats been heartbreaking to me. One of the reasons im giving this speech though, one of my other disappointments has been i felt like we have not i dont want to tell people what to say but i have felt like we havent had a healthy dialogue and i dont want to see these important issues drift away. We have a tendency to move on to other things as busy people. But these issues, especially about race and Law Enforcement have always been with us and we cant let it drift away and then talk about it another day. So one of my disappointments has been ive seen dialogue i didnt think was balanced, but ive also seen it start to drift away. And ive been determined not to let that happen and to try to encourage good people who all see the world differently than i do surely to talk about it. Thank you. Hi. Good morning. My name is nicole mckim. I am a freshman in the school of Foreign Service. And i would like to know, sir, besides an improvement in the manner in which Police Incidents are reported, what other major infrastructural changes would you like to see within the Justice System of america . Thats a big one. There is a lot of things that are being talked about. I mentioned body cameras. Thats an important discussion. I actually think the most important thing is i guess there is a risk in saying this it will sound vague but i think it is critical. I think it is hard to hate up close. And that the police in our country need to get out of their cars, both literally and figuratively and get to know the people they serve and the people in the communities need to know them. One of the things weve experienced with economic challenges weve had over the last seven or eight years is Police Departments have lost funding for all kinds of things that used to allow that to happen. Police athletic leagues. Right . We run in the fbi citizens academies where we invite citizens to come in and learn about us. Most Police Departments used to have those kinds of things. They started to be eliminated and drift away because of lack of funding. That seems like as i said kind of a vague thing but that is actually critical to Peoples Trust in the entire Justice System. And if we neglect it, we can have all the rules and all of the technology in the world but underneath it will be a lack of trust and a misunderstanding that will be corrosive, no matter how good our process and technology is. So i think thats the way i think about that. Thank you, sir. Hi. Im claire. Impeam sophomore in the college. If i understand you, i think what you were what i understood is that you said that the disparate treatment of blacks and whites by Law Enforcement can often be traced to different situations facing black and white communities. So i was wondering how you would explain then the disparate proportion of drug arrests despite almost equal levels of drug use in those two communities. Thats a hard question. The best answer i can offer is i dont know enough about the data on drug use arrests, but i flow a lot about the drug dealing arrests. And so i think in the communities where police are patrolling, especially where were focusing on the hardesthit communities where the dealers overwhelmingly turn out to be people of color. Not just black folks but hispanic folks as well. End up being locked up a lot for drug dealing. Lot of overwhelming users of drugs are caucasian. Something we dont talk about enough. I think youve alluded to it. Ive often thought just focusing on the dealing is like dealing with a hole in your boat just by bailing all the time. You got to deal with the demand side of it which is overwhelmingly driven by employed people who are from the suburbs and caucasian. Another hard truth people dont talk about a lot. Hi. My name is jack lynch. Im a freshman in the college here at georgetown. My question is, you mentioned earlier that officer ray moss and officer liu, the assassinates officers in the nypd were both minorities working in a predominantly minority neighborhood. Do you think it is part of american Law Enforcement to try to ensure that the racial diversity of their Police Forces working in certain neighborhoods are approximately equal to the proportions of racial groups in the neighborhoods theyre working in . Yes. In fact, i dont think it is just a goal. Its actually i dont know whether there is a word more important than goal. It is imperative for all of us in Law Enforcement to try and reflect the communities we serve. Big challenge for the fbi. Right . The fbi is overwhelmingly white and male among my agent force. Ive got nothing against white males. I happen to be one. But i the first email i sent to my entire work force was about this topic. I said it is a matter of morality doing whats right and effectiveness. So if youre not sold on the morality of it, the effectiveness is critical. Right . We cant understand the communities we serve. We cant understand the perspectives of the people we serve if were all 68 tall white guys who are slightly awkward and grew up in the new york area. We just cant. Ok . So it is an imperative and we have a crisis in a lot of parts of Law Enforcement. Nypd has done a spectacular job. Other departments less so. My own organization struggles with that. So the answer is yes. Sorry for the long answer. Thank you. Im nicholas. Im in the school of continuing studies and my question is, the problem with a lot of ferguson and some of the other incidents that have happened also stems it can also be as much to blame on the culture and the communities that were in. As it is, the Law Enforcement environment it seems the blame is equally because they both have their preconceived attitude so to change one communitys attitude towards Law Enforcement and Law Enforcements attitude towards a community, it would seem that the logical step would be to incorporate the two. So what is the fbi doing to hire or incorporate young black men and women or young men and women of different backgrounds into the agency, into the department of justice as a whole, because i think if we lack young black men,men men, seize a number of black fbi agents and officials that are going to be more receptive and more trusting than not to say affirmative action is needed, but how are you addressing being able to hire people of more diverse background . Because right now the standards are nearly unobtainable for someone who grew up with nothing. Great question. I dont think the standards are unobtainable. I think there are lots of great agents of color, women who could come work at the fbi would love work rg ating at the fbi. I just got to get them interested in it. I could talk all day about this but ill try to be very short. One of my challenges is the average age of entry for an fbi agent is 29 because were going to give these folks great power. We want adults who have developed judgment through experience and so i dont know what your plans are after graduation but my challenge is if youre as good as you probably are, because you go to school here, cocacola is going to be after you, microsoft is going to be after you, apple is going to be after you, exxonmobil is going to be after you and theyre going to throw all kinds of dough at you. Then when youre 29 youll be thinking, not so much. Go work for the government. So im trying to figure out how do i get people in earlier. So i put tremendous amount of effort in my 18 months into hiring right out of college, because if i can get you right out of georgetown . You will find out how amazing it is to do good for a living in a different role, in a support role, in an Intelligence Analyst role. Then when youre in your late 20s youll be so in love with this work that you will stay with us and become a special agent. That appeals to me as a strategy to deal with this. But a big part of it is getting people to know us. So we are now devoting tremendous resources to going out to campuses, historically black colleges and all kinds of colleges, get to know us. What kind of people we are, what we care about. Because as i said, it is hard to hate up close. It is hard to misunderstand up close. If you see our work, the things we care about, the kind of people we are, and i can get my hooks in you before the private sector puts the golden handcuffs on people, i think i can change my numbers. Because i agree with the premise in your question i have to change the numbers. Thank you. Thank you. So well see you i dont know when youre going to graduate. Well see you in a little while. Hi, mr. Director. My name is jason smith. Im a first year masters candidate in the security Space Program here. You mentioned before that these discussions, they all wane off after a while, whether it is a couple weeks or months. In your interaction with local Police Departments or any other level of policinge inging or Law Enforcement, how do you think that kind of these issues can be more formally institutionalized into the actual departments and how can we make these so at the local Law Enforcement level so they dont just become passing issues . Great question. The answer is we have to make sure that we. Law enforcement take this conversation and push it out to our police leadersing with, all Law Enforcement leaders, and encourage and push and prod and beg them to continue the conversation in their communities. All politics is local. All relationships are local. One of the challenges we face in this country, we have almost 18,000 police organizations. We got the big cities, but we got lots of little jurisdictions. Ferguson is a little teeny jurisdiction. It is not just about reaching the big city chiefs who are a very thoughtful bunch in my experience. It is about pushing the conversation beyond that to the hundreds of others that are smaller. One of the things i did is i talked to all of my fbis in nearly every community in this country. I have almost 500 offerses. Ive asked all of my field commanders, take my speech. We have citizens academies, we have lots of relationships with local authorities, engage them. Im not telling them they should think about it the way i do be with but take this into the community and see if we in the fbi can help foster this conversation. The good news is the chiefs, ive already talked to a lot of the big city chiefs. They are grateful for the conversation. They dont want to see it drift off because they know well have to talk about it at some point. It is not going to go away by virtue of us just moving on to Something Else. Thats what were trying to do. Thank you. Good morning. My name is kevin mr moreore rel. Im a stun yore at the school for Foreign Service studying history. My question relates to historynd a the question of Law Enforcement. Llg Martin Luther king said that an unjust law is a human law that is not tethered to an eternal or natural law. And it seems to me that in our discussion of Law Enforcement and justice, the conversation is mainly focused on the question of the rule of law. But, what discussions of the rule of law and enforcing rule of law can sometimes miss is at times the laws that Law Enforcement are commanded to enforce are in fact unjust. Weve seen that in our own nations history. So my question is what is the role of the fbi and of Law Enforcement in. General when theyre commanded or ordered to enforce laws that are in fact unjust . Thats a very thoughtful question. If we believe them to be unjust, i believe our obligation is to raise our hand and to speak out. To raise it within i sit within the justice department. To raise it to the attorney general. To raise it with those who make the laws that we enforce. I dont think our job and one of the things i am very proud of the fbi about, the fbi today is full of people who care about doing the right thing, not just doing the thing. If that makes any sense. And so i think our obligation is to try and understand this is why it is critical to understand that people we serve and protect and are locking up, are we doing something that seems off track to us and inconsistent with our notions of what the right thing is . If we see those things, we got to raise our lands and we got to shout about it. Good morning, mr. Comey. My name is erica. I am a freshman here in the college. You mentioned the lives of the two fallen officers in new york and i was wondering what you think we can do to restore the relationship between our criminal Justice System and the citizens they serve, not only to restore the faith in the system, but also to preserve the safety of those officers. Well, i think a critical part of it is what i emphasized phrasing i took from bril bratill bratton, this notion that we need to see each other. I think we, in Law Enforcement have to drive an effort to have people understand us and the kind of people we are. Weavers flawed because were human beings. But who we are in the main people need to see that. And as i said, that is a block by block, precinct by precinct local effort inviting people in. I mentioned getting out of your cars, both literally and figuratively. Invite people in, have them see us and understand us, especially in hardest hit neighborhoods. Those Police Officers were there in bedford to protect a great historical community. And it was i think it is critical that we continue to just see each other up close. Theres lots of other smaller things but frankly, the most important thing to me is, do we know the people we serve and do they know us. Empathy is often very short supply in human experience. Thats where i mentioned the empathy to understand what that young black man walking home from the Library Might be thinking when we encounter him . Thats critical for us. And it is really important for him to be thinking about how we see the world and why were in that neighborhood patrolling. I think that i worry that sounds vague and mushy but that actually is i think the answer. More so than fixes to policy or technology. Thank you. Good morning, mr. Director. My name is tomas. I am a spanish student. I am a freshman. I wanted to ask a twopart question. The first is about the trend in the military implementation of Police Coming from europe seeing police with handguns or machine guns is something that seems strange. And the second is whether you think prisons or jails are accomplishing the role of not only putting away criminals but also of helping them throughout their time in prison to then come out and be able to live in society . The second one is easy to answer. No. Better. Lots of good people. Its one of the things that i think unites sort of dont know whether spectrum makes sense, right and lefrtt in america and understanding we have to do a better job at equipping people. Every arrest, every conviction is a failure of us as a community, of a family, of an individual, helping that person come back out and be productive. Weve long not done a good enough job weve long not done a good job at that. Thats easy to answer. The military one is harder. Here is how i think about it. It is not about the stuff. The stuff is neutral. A shield, body armor. Automatic weapon. We in Law Enforcement need that stuff. In this country, unfortunately we often face adversary barricades in a location who are firing high powered weapons trying to e kill lots of innocent people. So i expect in every garage of every fbi officer in the country there will be an Armored Vehicle and automatic weapons and the ballistic plating. I need the stuff. The issue is how do we use that stuff . And how do we train people to use that stuff. Do we use that stuff to confront people who are protesting when they are concerned about something in the community . Do we use a sniper rifle to see closer to a crowd . That is where it breaks down. So i see this in chiefs and sheriffs all over the country. Ive been all over a the country and visited all 56 field oufszs. Said to every chief it is about the training and the discipline and judgment how we use it. It is not the stuff. That is how i think about it. Good morning. Im jamie scott, a staff member here and a recent graduate. I appreciate your discussion of the need for good data and im curious to hear your thoughts why you think local Police Departments dont report data fits voluntary and what specifically the fbi can do to compel or mandate or otherwise encourage departments to provide data . I dont know fully the reasons why. I suspect among them is, especially for smaller department, it seems like a lot of work. Filling out a federal form may be a big deal to folks. We have developed a system called nibrs, National Incident based reporting study guide which is data. So im limited in my way to compel anybody. But i think i have a bully pulpit in a way to be able to encourage departments to use the nibrs system to collect the data. I can go and google right now and figure how many people does the cdc count went to Emergency Rooms of flu systems last week. You can tell me the absolute number who bought a particular book on amazon. It is ridiculous that i cant tell you how many people were shot by the police in this country, last week, last year, the last decade. It is ridiculous. So i intend to take that notion that its ridiculous to the men and women in uniform and say its ridiculous. Do you agree . If you agree we got to fill out and form and collect it. And i suppose the next step is Legislature Getting involved to compel it. I dont have that authority. I have the persuasion of argument and reason. Thank you. Good morning. Karina robinson, graduate of 2004. And having served in the army in combat along the jttfs and certainly learning through my denominator program in Homeland Security, im so glad you brought it full circle to probably what we really need the discussion to be about community or oriented policing. Where you get out there and know the community and spend several years building that are rapport and trust. Remember hearing chief la near talk about how anonymous tips. As soon as they came in she dispatched a team and there was immediate respect from the community that they are there to help us. So perhaps the challenge for state and local sheriffs and Police Departments is not to buy all that hightech militarized commitment, new patrol cars. It is to really get the training to build their confidence to get out in the communities, not to be afraid, establish that security and stability. But i feel that the lynch pin is really getting the stats and the algorithms and all the data up to members of congress so they truly believe that the funding is necessary so get that job done and it is not going to be easy. So the fbi, department of justice, major organizations seem to have a lot more, i guess, clout in getting that money a lot faster than the local or state level folks. So what would you hope from a Community Member that we call our mayors, we call our state legislators and members of congress and say dont forget Community Oriented policing. In many places they are starving the Police Department making it really, really hard for them to follow my advice to get out of their cars and get to know people. Take the city of detroit. I met with a detective there and he was explaining to me not long ago there were 5 nousthouls Police Officers in detroit. Today there are 2,000. How do you patrol a city of that size with less than half of the officers you have long had. How do you walk out your car and see people . You are covering an area that is enormous. And cities across the country have cut costs. For things that seem small but vital. Citizens academies and other things that are maybe less high profile. But those are investments in the future. What were doing now in cities around the country is like home owner thinking. Well, ill save money. I just wont invest in repairing the roof. You are going to be sorry. We all feel some of that right now. You must invest in that kind of maintenance with the community and support Community Policing which requires resources. We have time for one last question. Im grace bren. A sophomore in the college. I have a question how to prompt a National Dialogue with different perspectives. A lot of people now see the value in seeing different perspectives from both Law Enforcement and race. However a lot of this dialogue is prompted through polarized Media Outlets from both left and right. How do you see sort of the tone changing national, peopling seeing both sides . And what leaders can do to sort of change this perspective. That is a big, hard question. Im probably not qualified to answer it well but ill take a shot anyway im here with a microphone. Not to wax all idealistic on you. But i think we own the Media Outlets. They reflect us. They are not creating us. Were creating them. So i think it starts with all of us saying, you know, what im going to do . Im going to try to imagine how others might see the world. The central challenge of human existence, right . I can only experience the world through me but i must work to see it through you. And if think we all start to feel that way in a way we own the Media Outlets, the media is factionalized because of the us. We are responsible if for that. The way we change that is interact with each other. I want to thank the director for coming here and hosting us on this topic. I think it is clearly something that we think reflects our very values as a country and shapes our future. And something that we need to come to grips with both in Law Enforcement and as a community at large. So we appreciate your coming and adding to this conversation. Georgetown is committed to continuing that dialogue. For those who are interested in participating in additional events, tomorrow at 12 45 in healy Family Center there is a lunch sponsored by our center for social justice. The office of Student Affairs and office of mission of ministry to continue this conversation on george toups campus. We really appreciate you coming and talk to us at georgetown today. Thanks for having me. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] coming up on cspan, the Senate Armed Services Committee Hears from the commander of afghanistan operations. Then a hearing examining human rights in syria. Later, another chance to see remarks by the fbi director on Law Enforcement and race relations. On the next washington journal mike conaway of texas, a member of the Armed Services committee, discusses the president s proposal for new authorization to use military force against isis. Then more about the president s request with congressman ted lieu of california, the democratic freshmen. Live every morning at seven eastern. You can join the conversation with phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. The house Armed Services committee holds a hearing friday on the threat of isis. The former director of the Defense Intelligence agency Michael Flynn will testify. Here are some of our featured programs. Saturday morning, live coverage of the book festival with nonfiction authors and books on the disappearance of michael rockefeller. In the former Senior Adviser for president obama on 40 years in politics. Saturday morning the 100th anniversary of the release of the film the birth of a nation. The showing of the entire film followed by a live callin program. Sunday at eight on the presidency, George Washington portraits, focusing on how artists captured the spirit of the first residence and what we can learn about him through the paintings. Let us know about what you think about the programs. You can email us or send us a tweet. Join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. Thursday the u. S. Senate voted to confirm Ashton Carter as the next defense secretary. The five no votes came from republicans guseman of arkansas and mark kirk of illinois. Minority leader harry reid and the senator of get those were not present for the vote. Next, remarks by Mitch Mcconnell and the minority whip. Mr. President , later today the senate will consider the nomination of ash harder to be the next secretary of defense. If i can place one demand on him, it would be to leave his successor with the armed forces in a better position to deal with Global Threats than they are today. I have noted in the past the overall consequences of many of the president s policies have been to weaken our ability to combat al qaeda and its affiliates, the taliban, and associated groups. The president inflexible commitment to Campaign Promises made in 2008 have led to a rushed withdrawal from iraq and executive orders to on him oh and set the detainees back guantanamo and said detainees back. It also ended americas ability to detain terrorists. The truth is al qaeda was at war with us before we went to war with them. Isil, intent on striking america and its allies. The next secretary of defense needs to explain that withdrawal based on an artificial deadline risks losing the gains we have made there. The taliban continue to threaten our allies. The next secretary of defense must do all he can to declare a policy of making it a real one. Past drawdowns and failures to modernize have time time to invest in the so its time to p invest in the platforms and capabilities that will be needed to effectively address china as i military buildups. The joint chiefs when he provides his best military advice to the president , especially when that advice is ignored in the white house. Here in the senate, ill do all i can to support the next secretary. That starts today. I intend to support ash carters nomination but my