Transcripts For CSPAN House Session 20240622 : comparemela.c

speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists commit smithed by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: mr. speaker a few weeks ago i was on the h.b.o. show real time with mill maher on friday night and had a chance to talk with ann cowl ter. as you might have guest guessed i don't have my speed dial. it was several days after donald trump was running for president. when it was my turn i told mrs. colter what they were saying about mexican immigrants would serve as a vote rergestration machine to turn grow charge the imgrapt community because of their particularly mean and frankly, let's be honest, racist attacks on mexican immigrants. it was particularly important that i was in california for the show because i was watching the republican party make exactly the same mistake it made in the 1990's when it lost control of the politics in california. by supporting extreme anti-immigrant policies, it kicked kids out of school and cut off families from being part of our society. california went from a purple state that had given the republican party important leaders like richard nixon and ronald reagan and just a few years was transformed into a deep shade of pacific blue. why? because millions of immigrants became citizens, millions of immigrant citizens registered to vote, and millions of registered voters voted to punish the republican party for being mean, shortsighted and offering them not real solutions. which brings me back to mr. trump who was trying to be the standard-bearer of the anti-immigrant wing of the republican party and trying to define the party as one that will fight against immigrants it sees as murderers drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. january brewer has endorsed trump. democrats could not paint a clearer picture if we try. just you should understand when donald trump said mexican immigrants are criminals, what do i and other puerto ricans hear? i am saying all puerto ricans are criminals. as far as republicans are concerned, we all are. millions of others here, hon curians, dominicans, it is clear to all of us what he is really saying is that all latinos are suspect whether we were born here or not. look, trump's stereotype is nothing new. every single wave of immigrants has met the same resist tense. they say they are lazy, they are not like us coming to kill our sons and rape our daughters. whether you came to chicago from next core a decade ago from mississippi in the 1950's to escape jim crow, they are the same thing. if you came to new york or ireland or sicily a century ago, it has been the same thing. latinos should do what the irish, polish, and italians did become citizens and vote. to my constituents and anyone today that is offended by what donald trump stands for, i have a simple message becoming -- become a citizen. there are more than 8.8 million immigrants who hold green cards and meet the residency requirements and are eligible to apply for citizenship today. that includes about five million latinos who can apply to become citizens today. and, mr. speaker let me fill you in on a little secret with d waivers, up to 20% of all of those 8.8 million will pay absolutely nothing for their citizenship application. becoming a citizen for free so you can make it clear that you are offended by donald trump is poetic and patriotic. rather than renew your green card for $450, become a citizen for about $230 more. or zero if you're part of the 20%. look, mr. speaker, almost all of the immigrants in this country are going to remain in this country until the day they die. let's be honest. for the millions who meet the requirements of citizenship i say take the step. learn the language, learn our history, and how our government works and take the test. every time you see trump's face on your tv, vote to learn a little more english or few more history facts so you can take the citizenship test. let's turn the ignorance and hatred of a tv personality running for president and turn it into something that strengthens democracy for all americans. and you know what? if millions of people naturalized become citizens and we add to that the million latino citizens who this year will turn 18, plus all our allies in the african-american community, the lgbt voters and younger voters, environmental voters women votes asian voters union voters that are being pushed away by the republican party, all the people they don't want in their coalition constitute a majority of americans. together we are the new american coalition that will dominate politics for decades to come and together we will create a stronger, more inclusive and more equal nation. let's turn trump's negative words into something positive. that's what you do with bullies and big got. -- big gots. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada, mr. hardy, for five minutes. mr. hardy: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last friday the president signed away more than 700,000 acres of liningon and nye counties as a monument in my district longing up these lands for economic development and the region depends on. this is unacceptable. mr. speaker, i stand here today to give a voice to what nevada's argument is and what nevada's argument is not. some on the other side of the aisle wish to paint those who oppose the designation as enemies of our public lands. when nothing could be further from the truth. southeastern rural nevada is in my blood. as a fifth generation son of farmer and ranchers from mesquite nevada, i'm directly decentant from the same mountain men and the settlers whose bravery and resolved blazed the founding of our great state and who are mentioned in the president's proclamation. i grew up to explore the rugged landscapes of lincoln and nye counties hundreding -- hunting hiking, camping. i love nevada as much as the next. we refuse to be lectured by those who feel we are first among equals in matters that concern our future. our argument is not about whether or not to preserve our national treasures contained on our public lands. i wholeheartedly agree that we have a responsibility. we must protect what needs to be protected. it comes down to this. the antiquities act is antiquated. the law is rooted in the last century and has been manipulated over the years to exceed its original intent. it has become a tool of political patronage, burnishing the legacy of those privileged enough to hold the nation's highest elected offices. it also furthers the insidious notion that washington knows best. the primary orchestrator of this monument maneuver, even went over to say to the concerned people of lincoln and nye counties, don't worry. this is going to be great for you. but despite the orwellian refrain the people in nevada demanded the right to think for themselves and they strongly disagree. according to the letter i received from nye county, the entire county board of commissioners opposes the basin monument designation stating the dire concerns about the absence of any consultation with the federal government. and the harmful economic constraints. with 90% of nye county already under federal control, it can ill afford to lose additional economic opportunities. as for lincoln county commissioners have expressed grave concerns about having such a large swath of county administered or singular specific preferred use rather than for multiple use management resource plan. despite what the white house asserts, this outcome would particularly be harmful to the county that already holds 97% of federally controlled. mr. speaker, at the end of the day, there is no doubt in my mind the antiquities act is a hold over of a bygone era. we continue to see presidents pay lip service to the requirement that the boundaries of national monuments should be confined to the smallest area compatible. 700,000 acres, really? i would like to encourage my colleagues and those in the administration to remember that nevada's culture and resolve is that the people are not things that can be locked away for an outdoor museum. they live on in today's generation who continue to carry the traditions of those who came before them and respect the land they call home. with the proper consultation across all levels of government and the local buy-in, i'm confident that democrats and republicans can work together to protect america's natural heritage while also preserving its people's way of life. this photograph is a great example of the possibilities. the twoly springs national monument is a case study of a successful effort to preserve nevada's national heritage and was given due consideration and had a widespread community backing. that is why congress passed legislation to create the tulie springs fossil bed national monument in nevada last year. if i can pose for a picture smiling wide holding a sign with the words national monument on it, there must be a right way to go about protecting our public lands. mr. speaker, we need local input, we need votes in congress, we need to fix the antiquated antiquities act. with that i yield back. senator santorum: the gentleman yields back. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. for 35 years the united states relationship with iran has been frozen in amber locked in a series of proxy wars and covert struggles. circumstances have occasionally thrust us together. like our shared actions against the taliban after 9/11. or more recently working together against some of the most barberous forces in the middle east. no one is under any illusions that the military leadership and hardline clerics are bad actors opposed to the united states. but that's only part of the story of a complex narrative. the new and potentially more significant chapter of that relationship is an effort to contain iran's nuclear ambition not through force but a combination of tough multinational sanctions and diplomacy. this all started in the bush administration a decade ago and has continued. congress is now beginning the analysis of this historic agreement. for the first time iran's nuclear activities have been reined in. they have followed what they said they would do for the last two years. for the first time in history we have an agreement that would last for a decade or more reached not just by the united states alone. we could not have done this alone. but with all five members of the security counsel -- council and jearm and the cooperation of potential consumers of iranian oil like india and japan. we must be prepared to hear people starting with prime minister netanyahu attack it. we will hear that it's not good enough. that it contains potential downsides. iran might well try to cheat. netanyahu will make his arguments with the same certitude as when he appears in washington before the iraq war and talked about those benefits. he would have more credibility with me if he weren't so wrong then and if he had any credible alternative. he has complaints, but no solution. indeed, he doesn't even have a peace plan for dealing with israel's own ongoing festering problems with the palestinians in the israeli occupied territories. a man with no plan and no alternative attacking the best option that we have seen. with this agreement in place we will have more tools than we have ever had to inspect, to monitor, and enforce. and more allies to make it work. if the united states walks away from this agreement it's certain that the countries that helped us reach this point will walk away too. along with starting with russia and china. without this perfect alignment of interest for punishing sanctions they will fall apart and we will lose this moment. despite the huffing and puffing, military action is not viable. talk to your constituents about what their appetite is for another military engagement in the middle east. particularly with the horrific costs and consequences that would follow. military action would only strenen the most reactionary evil forces in iran to unleash the next escalation of global terror, which is frightening to comprehend and an attack will strengthen iran's resolve to secure their own nuclear weapons just as north korea has done and you cannot bomb away the knowledge that iran has. . 10 15 years is a lifetime in international affairs. who could have imagined what has taken place in the last 15 years of our history? the world was a much different place in the year 2000. we ought to work to keep this coalition in support of the agreement alive and well and work to implement it and to enforce it, because we can snap back these sanctions if iran crosses the line. the evidence is that the american public and especially the majority of jewish americans want to give diplomacy a chance. congress should reject the alternative for people who have no alternative. recognize this as a major achievement and work together to make diplomacy work. let's seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker there is a cultural and religious cleansing sweeping across the middle east. isis has made it clear that there is no compromise on religion. it is intolerant of any religious belief different than its own. if a person's not a muslim they are forced to pay a tax, convert or be executed. in the face of this ugly terrorist group that preaches hate, christians are persecuted but isis is just one example of groups that are intolerant of christians. egypt is a hotbed of persecution of helicopteric christians. some people thought after the fall of mubarak things would get better, but that hasn't been true for coptic christians. a school teacher told a teenager to hide his cross that was on his necklace. he wouldn't do so. so the teacher encouraged the class to punish the boy to protect the name of allah. his classmates beat him to death. he died because he was a christian. a mere rumor that a muslim girl was dating a christian boy led to church burnings and a curfew for christians. since 2011, the u.s. commission on international religious freedom has deemed egypt a country of particular concern. in 2013, the muslim brotherhood blamed coptic christians for the downfall of president morsi even though egyptians were tired of his oppressive rule, so they tore down the cross and torched the church. they set the church on fire with molotov caulk tailts and gas liens and -- cocktails and gasoline. and they spray painted egypt is muslim. black x's are painted on christians stores so attackers know which shops to target. dozens of shops hotels and vehicles belonging to christians have been burned and looted. the military said it would help rebuild churches that were destroyed, but the law requires non-muslim places of worship to receive presidential approval before rebuilding a church and, of course, presidential approval is very difficult to obtain. so this is the government's way of stopping construction of christian churches across egypt. the government is still not protecting orthodox christians and their churches. coptic christians are often treated as second-class citizens by the government. a bishop was charged with blasphemy in 2009 because he wanted to change his religion on his national identity card from muslim to christian. after receiving multiple threats, his wife and his children were forced to flee the country. the prosecutors have ignored court deadlines for his trial, and he remains in prison today. the president has staked his legacy on fight against terrorism, isis and the muslim brotherhood. ensuring human rights for christians must be given priority. a tax against christians have not stopped. in february 21 egypt coptic christians were beheaded by isis. the brutal mass murder was filmed in a five-minute video and disseminated by isis propaganda arm. when they got permission to build a church in memory of the martyrs they were attacked by rock-throwing radical mobs. christians just want to be left alone and exercise their religion. they want to be able to gather on sunday without fearing the church they are in will be bombed or burned. they want to live in peace without having to hide from radical intolerant mobs ready to attack them. these are not unreasonable requests. they are basic freedoms. our ally, egypt, must do a better job of protecting all religious groups. religious freedom is a human right we guarantee in our first amendment, and, mr. speaker it is the first right of the five rights mentioned in the first amendment. that placement is not accidental. the right to practice one's religion is a basic human right. egypt should protect all religious groups, including coptic christians from religious cleansing, and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. clark, for five minutes. ms. clark: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to share the story of a determined woman who took a traumatic personal experience from her past and is using it to help people. erin is a survivor of childhood sexual assault that began when she was just 7 years old. in her book erin shares quote, the only message i got as a child came from my abusers, and that was to stay silent or else. i went to bed night after night crying and keeping my secrets locked away in my childhood diary. tragically erin's is not an uncommon story. childhood sexual assault is a silent epidemic that exists in every one of our communities and i am asking us to come together to do something about it. i am asking as a mom of three boys, first, and as a lawmaker, second, because every six minutes a child is sexually assaulted in the united states. one in four girls and one in 20 boys are sexually assaulted before they turn age 18. and yet only a 10th of children who are sexually abused will tell someone. survivors of child sexual assault carry the corrosive burden of this heinous act with them the rest of their lives. survivors often experience guilt, isolation, problems with self-esteem and building relationships. erin shared her story to educate and protect thousands if not millions of children and today thanks to her work, policies that require schools to provide age-appropriate sexual abuse prevention education for teachers and students are called erin's law. and as members of congress, as parents, as neighbors, we owe it to our kids to follow erin's example and be their strongest advocate. children, teachers and parents are on the front line of this problem, but they often don't have the tools necessary to identify it or get kids to help -- the help they need. and while erin's law is a first step to implement it every child in america should benefit from the policies that prevent sexual abuse. children learn tornado drills, fire drills, bus safety drills in school, but too often they learn nothing about how to protect themselves from predators and how to report abuse. congress can and should do more to help and that's why today i'm introducing the child sexual abuse awareness and prevention act. this legislation will help schools implement and expand child sexual abuse awareness and prevention programs by authorizing funding through existing grant programs. it is common sense that we teach our children to stay safe and how to reach out to an adult when they are in trouble. by passing this bill, we can help schools across the united states, protect some of the most vulnerable children in our country. i am grateful that representative joe heck for partnering with me in the house and to senators gillibrand, hiller and feinstein for introducing the bill in the senate. i'm grateful for the rape abuse and incest national network for their leadership on this issue in ending abuse and violence. most importantly, i'm thankful for erin, for her bravery leadership and determination. no child should ever feel like they have nowhere to turn when they are being abused and with the child sexual abuse awareness and prevention act we can take a critical step toward making sure they don't. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. desantis for five minutes. mr. desantis: thank you mr. speaker. i rise to discuss one aspect of this iran deal which i think is a fatal flaw, and in addition to other fatal flaws but this one in particular and that is the issue of inspections. now, the crucial part of any type of deal dealing with nuclear disarmament involves inspections. you got to inspect to make sure they are not, in this case iran, building a nuclear weapon. the best is to sanctions remain in place until iran affirmatively dismantles their program and then you have inspectors go in to verify that the program has been dismantled and as long as the program is in fact dismantled and they don't have a nuclear infrastructure, then the sanctions are relieved. the minute they are caught trying to rebuild, then the sanctions go back on. but that's not what this deal is at all. what this deal is is a huge, huge influx of cash, hundreds of billions of dollars upfront to the iranian regime which will be used, no doubt much of that money to fund terrorism and to expand iran's influence throughout the middle east and we are affirmatively recognizing iran's nuclear program. they are not required to dismantle their infrastructure. so they get to keep that. so a huge influx of cash and they keep the nuclear program. the only way -- you're not going to sell me once you go down that road because i don't think they have any right to any nuclear material, but other people will say, well as long as we can inspect then maybe it's going to be ok. and here in this deal, we don't even have legitimate inspections. now, the administration has drawn a lot of red lines with this iran deal. one of them was, of course we're going to have anywhere anytime inspections, and they said that repeatedly. just a couple months ago in april, ben rhodes, deputy national security advisors, said the deal would include anytime anywhere inspections. energy secretary moniz said, of course, you have to have anytime anywhere inspections. and guess what, the deal comes out. rhodes is asked on tv, what about anytime, anywhere i thought that was part of the deal? he say the, we never sought anytime, anywhere inspections. so the administration is recognizing the reality that this deal does not include anywhere anytime inspections. what it does have is a convoluted bureaucratic process that if we or the iaea or the u.n. suspect that iran is developing a nuclear weapon and say one of their -- in, say, one of their military sites, you actually have to petition to be able to inspect it. iran gets to weigh in of whether they want to. there's a convoluted bureaucratic appeals process. basically iran can drag it out for 24 days, and that's even assuming you get a positive resolution which, by the way, is going to require the ascent of russia and china and they may not even get approval. if you get that that's three-plus weeks where iran will have the ability to conceal any of the offending conduct that they were suspected of. so the bottom line is a 24-day delay, makes the inspections regime utterly useless. so this is a country that's sponsored terrorism consistently for decades, they've lied to the united nations for decades and then we're in a situation where somehow they should be able to block access to their potential weapon sites? the bottom line is iran should not be able to interfere with any inspections for any reason at anytime, and unless you have that, this is not going to be something that has any chance of success. and guess what, not only are the inspections not valid, but you're lifting the arms embargo over a couple years and you're releaving sanctions on the kuds force. niece are designated terrorists. our country has viewed them as a designate terrorist organization. so the bottom line is on its own terms, this deal will not succeed. it's a dangerous mistake. congress has the ability over these next 60 days to scrutinize it, to debate it and ultimately, god willing, to stop it. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. beatty, for five minutes. mrs. beatty: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in honor of the 31 gives foundation that is a philanthropic arm of the 31 gifting which is the 17th largest direct selling company in the world. i am so proud to have both based in my ohio third congressional district. the 31 gives foundation is an organization dedicated to celebrating girls, women, and families by providing them with the support and self-esteem to lead to successful lives. since its first meeting, just in 2012 31 gives has donated over $80 million in product and cash to nonprofit organizations committed to their same mission. they have proudly partnered with many well-known national organizations such as the ronald mcdonald house, girl talk salvation army, the american heart association, the girl scouts, and the ywca of central ohio to advance this philanthropic mission. clearly and cleverly built around their name, 31 gives with over 16 consultants they volunteer on the 31st day of every month with 31 days. mr. speaker, i salute their volunteers for providing services such as preparing and serving homemade meals to families staying at the central ohio ronald mcdonald house. helping give stability and strength and these families homes away from home. volunteering also to serve meals at the ywca family center of central ohio which provide emergency shelter and critical services to stabilize homeless families. as a long time advocate against human trafficking and one of the sponsors of legislation included in the justice for victims of trafficking act, senate bill 178, which was recreptly signed into law by president obama, i salute 31 gives for assisting over 15,000 women in transition from human trafficking, domestic violence, and homelessness. mr. speaker, during my recent district job tour, hi the opportunity to visit 31 gives, meet founder c.e.o. and president cindy monroe. today i salute this incredible civic leader self-starter, and entrepreneur and her team for making a difference in the lives of others and presenting a unique solution to the emotional and economic empowerment of women, locally, nationally, and worldwide. i look forward to welcoming and joining this inspirational organization on sunday, july 26, when some 16,000 -- 16,500 leaders from 31 gives travel to my congressional district for their annual national sales conference being held right in columbus ohio. as the members of 31 gives know, when we all work together and give a little peace of our -- piece of our heart, we can make a huge difference. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, for five minutes. mr. meehan: thank you, mr. speaker. good morning. i want to express my deep appreciation to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and i was proud to be part of this body last week when together in a bipartisan fashion we in strong numbers passed the 21st century cures bill. let me yell telly that bill matters. -- tell you why that bill matters. it matters because of people like this. this is a picture of rhoda a woman that i had the opportunity to spend some time with this monday when we sat together for a period of time talking about a number of issues but most specifically her life. rhoda is an attorney of some distinction. she worked with a major pharmaceutical firm dealing in complex legal issues, traveling throughout the world. about 2007 she began to feel a little droop in her foot. it continued to move further up . ultimately she after numerous consultations with physicians, was diagnosed with a.l.s. better known to many as lou gehrig's disease. and thus began the slow but continuing challenge to the ability for her to move about. but rhoda and much to the inspiration, didn't allow this to hold her back. quite the opposite. she embraced the challenge of the moment and reached out to become a voice a voice of those some 30,000 people in our country every year who are victimized by the disease lou gehrig's disease, a.l.s. she came to be a voice for those people. it's one of the reasons why what we can accomplish with 21st century cures is so important. let me talk for a second about the fact she was a voice. today this body is very likely to deal with the issue of something called the steve closeon act. it is an act which will enable the voice recorder that allows rhoda to speak to be able to be approved in such a manner that they will not have to have these important communication tools tapped by a rental policy that has been part of c.m.s.'s attempts to try to deal with the costs associated with these devices. one of the things that we are working on is to allow people to have continued access to these technologies, to see the courage of rhoda, not only becoming a person, vibrant woman in her mind, who isn't capable of feeding herself or dressing herself is able to speak with me inside this mind there are tremendous things going on. and as she moved to that voice box and communicated with me, it inspired me to say we've got to continue to fight for people like loada -- rhoda who has been given a voice and we must stand here an give her a voice as well to fight for passage of the steve gleason act today and to reach out to our colleagues on the other side of this building to make sure we fight for the passage of 21st century cures. a.l.s. is just one of houses of conditions -- thousands of conditions which we have no real cure. we have made tremendous advances in medicine in the last two decades. there is still much we do not know about conditions like multiple sclerosis and alzheimer's. i have some good news to share with rhoda. just last week the house approved the 21st century cures act that will direct money towards research into cures for conditions like a.l.s. it expands lifesaving research into conditions that affect millions of americans increasing the budget of the national institute of health by $10 billion over the next five years. it cuts the red tape and bureaucracy just as importantly, it stands between us and groundbreaking new treatments. and help us train the next generation of doctors, scientists, and researchers. millions of americans with conditions like cancer, alzheimer's, a.l.s., cystic fibrosis and others stand to benefit from this research. mr. speaker i urge my colleagues on the other side of the senate to get behind us and pass the 21st century cures and i urge my colleagues in this house to stand up today and express an important vote in support of this act. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. weber, for five minutes. mr. weber: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak on the p-5 plus one nuclear agreement with iran. no longer do we have to guess at rumors or wonder what the deal is. we now know. we know that enrichment despite earlier promises will continue. we know that the arms embargo will be removed. we know that the entire sanctions regime covering problems with human rights abuses, terrorism, and ballistic missiles programs will cease to exist. we know that iran has the capability of usurping any time, anywhere inspections program thanks to required advance permission for each individual inspection. up to 24 days sometimes. after decades of animosity on the part of iran toward the american people, we also know that our americans are still sitting in iranian prisons. i wonder how many 24-day periods they have been there? we know that iran still views the united states and israel as their enemy. as stated earlier this month by multiple members of the iranian regime. we know that iran's sponsorship of terrorism will continue unabated. only now they will have more money and increased market access to ensure that weapons and funds continue to flow into the very hands of those who wish our deaths. president obama announced quote, that america negotiated from a position of strength and principle, end quote. really? that was our beginning position? when did they cease to push that position? all i see is capitulation to a regime which has repeatedly violated the terms of the negotiations. all the while sitting at the very negotiation table. america's failure to truly lead is what has caused both president obama and secretary kerry to state that this deal had the support of the international community. obviously they forget that our greatest ally, israel, is part of the international community. as well as other gulf coast countries. aren't they all members of that same international community? now it is incumbent upon congress to seek answers to a number of questions prior to finalizing our votes on an expected resolution. number one, do we really believe it will prevent a nuclear armed iran? answer, no. do you really believe it will prevent a nuclear arms race in the middle east? answer no. do you really believe that the removal of a comprehensive sanctions program that brought a terroristic iranian regime to the negotiating table in the first place can truly be snapped back? answer, no. have we lost decades of work? unfortunately, answer, yes. do you believe this deal makes the world a safer place? as for me, the answer is no. the answer to all of these questions is no. as such, i cannot nor will i support approval of iran's deal of a lifetime. all i can say, mr. speaker, is it's a good thing president obama wasn't on the decades of the u.s.s. missouri to end world war ii because had he been, we would all be speaking japanese. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the recognition. you know sitting here listening to my colleagues i find it just so incredibly interesting that nearly everyone that is coming to the floor today is talking about an issue that centers on our nation's security. it whether it is our national security it it writ large in the world. what is happening in the middle east, or what is happening here at home. and as i talk to female constituents, it is amazing to me what comes up over and over. how are we going to be certain that we are safe in our homes, in our communities? how do i know that my children are going to be safe at school? or how do i know that we are going to be safe when we are out at events in the community or driving in the car or going to church? these are questions of concern to so many moms who like me, worry about their children and their grandchildren. and this is one of the issues that brings me to the floor today. i have legislation that i first filed in 2007. it is called the clear act. clear. it is h.r. 2964. the clear act dresses the issues with the criminal illegal aliens that are in our country. and the policies that have arisen around sanctuary cities. you know, these sanctuary city policies in the executive amnesty really have turned every state into a border state and every town into a border town in this country. and here's why. there are lax, permissive, liberal policies that have created an open border society here in our country. you know what? it makes americans less safe. every single day. the clear act isn't a big bill. it's 20 pages. let me tell you what it does specifically. it withholds funding from section 241-i of the immigration and nationality act to sanctuary states and cities. . that's important to do. those liberal and permissive policies have now allowed over the last seven or eight years to create a total of nearly 300 sanctuary cities in this country. this should disturb us because we're becoming a sanctuary country. so i would ask my colleagues, will you support that provision of the clear act? the second thing the clear act does, when a state or local law enforcement agency arrests and alien and requests that d.h.s., homeland security take custody of that alien, the clear act requires d.h.s. to do two things. take the alien into federal custody and incarcerate he or she within 48 hours or request that the state or municipality temporarily incarcerate the alien or transport them to federal custody. the clear act requires d.h.s. to train state and local police and enforcing immigration laws and to repay them for the money that they have spent. now sanctuary cities first start ready to happen in the united states in 1979. los angeles was the first sanctuary city. that means these cities choose -- choose to stand in violation of federal law and to not comply with federal immigration law. i think it's instructive that the department of justice has never taken one of these cities to court, but you let a state like arizona try to strengthen their immigration laws and the d.o.j. takes them to court. there is something wrong with that. another thing that has happened is that the illegal alien crime rate which has continued to grow around, you know what the illegal alien crime rate should be? zero. zero. there should not be tolerance for this. we see it all across our country. certainly we saw it on a san francisco pier. in tennessee, a tennessee highway patrol officer made a traffic stop on i-40 that led to the arrest of a man with an order of deportation and the recovery of a 19-year-old who may have been the victim of human sex trafficking. it's time to address this issue. i encourage support for the clear act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for five minutes. mr. cohen: mr. speaker, the city of memphis lost one of its most outstanding citizens on sunday evening. the army bailey who served as a judge in circuit court for nearly window -- two decades was a recognized figure, recognized in "the new york times" with a very large and meaningful obituary. the army bailey was singularly responsible for the creation of the national civil rights museum in memphis, tennessee. there was a time when the lorraine motel, which is the site of the civil rights museum and site of martin luther king's assassination. bailey, then an attorney, saw that as wrong and knew that the civil rights museum should be built at the site of the assassination of dr. king. that site should be preserved for generations for them to learn, people to learn about civil rights and learn about dr. king. so he got together and raised money from individuals and the city of memphis and was able to save the lorraine from foreclosure demolition, and he then put together the idea of the city and the county and the state governments funding the beginnings of a national civil rights museum. there was private funding as well, but it was the initial work of the army bailey coming to nashville where i was a state senator and working to get the governor and state legislature onboard and the city of memphis and county of shelby and now there is a phoenix that's risen from the ashes. a great civil rights museum in memphis, tennessee, and there is one man who had the idea, refused to see the site destroyed and sought out the funding when people said it couldn't happen and made sure it happened. that was judge bailey. he was recognized because he spoke truth to power and he spoke truth to power in baton rouge during the civil rights movement, in berkley when berkley was an evolving center of thought and questioning of values and where he was the city councilman and on biel street where he brought students to memphis to march with dr. king. bailey was a respected figure in the city of memphis crossed all boundaries in the city, economic racial and all because of his gigantic intellect. many members in the house asked me about his housing. he had an effect on this country and an effect on this city. his was a life well lived and he will be missed. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday i participated in a hearing on criminal justice reform before the oversight and government reform committee. a second hearing is being held today on this issue in the same committee. both hearings conservatives and liberals are joining together to urge that we stop or at least try to slow the growth of our federal police state. conservative columnist george will wrote a few months ago said that quote, overcriminalization has become a national plague. paul larkin, senior research wrote in "the washington times," quote, perhaps there are 4500 federal offenses and more than 300,000 relevant regulations on the books. no one knows exactly how many. the justice department and the american bar association each tried to identify every crime and failed. mr. larkin continued no reasonable person, not even a judge or lawyer could possibly know all of these legal prohibitions, although criminal penalties are attached to each. john baker a retired louisiana state university law professor said quote there is no one in the united states over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. he added, that is not an exaggeration. i have special interests in this because for 7 1/2 years before coming to congress i was a criminal court judge in tennessee trying the felony criminal cases. i believe in being tough on crime, and i have been a very strong supporter of local law enforcement, the people on the front lines who are fighting the real crime, the violent crime that everyone is so concerned about. but i remember in 1993 reading an article in "forbes" magazine, one of the nation's most conservative magazines. this article said that we had quadrupled the justice department just between 1980 and 1993 and that federal prosecutors were falling all over themselves trying to find cases to prosecute. we have kept on expanding the justice department since then and had explosive growth in the number of federal crimes. we have had far too many cases where overzealous prosecutors had prosecuted high-profiled defendants just so that prosecutor could make a name for himself. i remember the totally unjustified case against president reagan's secretary of labor ray donovan, of which he was acquitted, made the famous statement where do i go to get my reputation back? our federal government has become far too big. it is far too powerful. we all have heard how particular the i.r.s. is running roughshod over individual citizens. "newsweek" had on its cover the i.r.s. lawless, abusive, out of control. unfortunately, while there are many good federal prosecutors, there are far too many of them and unfortunately some who, like the i.r.s., are lawless, abusive and out of control. there are now so many laws, rules and regulations on the books today that people are being prosecuted for violating laws they didn't even know were in existence. paul larkin, who i quoted earlier, said we needed a mistake of law defense. an innocent mistake is not supposed to be criminal, but a zealous prosecutor can make even an innocent mistake look criminal and there is no saying that a prosecutor -- there is an old saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he wants to. almost every person in any type of business has unknowingly violated some law rule or regulation for which they could be prosecuted. that is why yesterday we had at our hearing a conservative republican like senator john cornyn, a former justice of the texas supreme court, and senator berker a liberal democrat and a conservative, like jim sensenbrenner, and a liberal like representative bobby scott, all joining together to urge reform. lastly, let me mention one other aspect of our nation's crime problem. in my years as a judge, i handled over 10,000 cases because probably 97% or 98% of the defendants enter some type of guilty plea and applied for probation. every day for 7 1/2 years i would read several eight or 10-page reports into the defendant's background and it said defendant's father left home at 2 and never returned or left home to get a pack of cigarettes and never came back. over 70% of the defendants came from father-absent households. drugs and/or alcohol are involved in most cases but they are secondary to the absent father problem. years ago i read a report that said 57% of marriages break up in arguments, disputes or disagreements about money. as government has grown so much at all levels, federal, state and local, over the past 40 or 50 years, it has become a major factor in the breakup of the american family by taking so much money and making it so much more difficult for families to stay together. this, mr. speaker, has had a major impact on our nation's crime problem. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice, for five minutes. mr. hice: mr. speaker, i rise today in order to stand in strong support of a foundational american law and principle that i feel has been woefully neglected recently. i rise in defense of the first amendment which in part states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. but due to the recent supreme court decision on marriage, i feel that the first amendment is at risk of being horribly violated in the name of judicial activism. i am deeply concerned for the first amendment rights of all american citizens and feel strongly that the court did not act within its limited constitutional constraints. and due to this decision, there now exists a direct conflict between the law of man and the law of god. and we have tens of millions of americans who are now facing a dilemma to choose between their faith and their religious convictions and the government. and as christians we must obey the law of god. this decision by the supreme court is devastating, and it directly ignored the will of the people, the will of most states. it was a direct rejection of previously held decisions. it rejected dozens of state laws and constitutions, and, yes, it rejected god's law. in effect, this decision took the people's prerogative and the states' prerogative and threw it out the window in favor of incorrectly defining and interpreting that which is detrimental to our first amendment, the first amendment which guarantees not only the freedom of speech but also the freedom of religious expression without fear of harassment or penalty from our government. and now, mr. speaker, we must find different avenues where citizens and lawmakers can get involved to address this egregious offense to our first amendment. in my home state of georgia, local legislators are considering the pastor protection act which would endeavor to ensure no pastor or minute store or house of faith would be force -- minister or house of faith would be forced to have a wedding that would violate their beliefs. we must do more. it's a good first step but frankly it's my hope that other states would raise the mantle of our constitution and protect it and protect not just pastors and ministers but all citizens including business men and women. in addition to state action, congress also must be heavily involved at this time, and as an initial step, i'm personally proud to have co-sponsored h.r. 2802, the first amendment defense act offered by my good friend and colleague representative raul labrador from idaho. this bill includes many provisions that would both reaffirm and safeguard our first amendment rights. it would ensure that the federal government could not penalize institutions churches and individuals for simply exercising their first amendment right. further, it prohibits the federal government from blocking access due to deeply held religious convictions from those who are seeking grants or licenses or contracts accreditation or tax-exempt status, and i believe this bill would help greatly to deal with the uncertainty that currently is held by millions. in closing, mr. speaker it's my sincere hope and desire that we can all come together to defend our first amendment. i think daniel webster said it best when he said, if we abide by the principles taught in the bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper but if we in our prosperity neglect its instructions and authorities, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound on security. . i for one will continue fighting for our first amendment. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, for five minutes. mr. ribble: thank you, mr. speaker. this afternoon this body is going to come together in a bipartisan fashion. i think that normally a good thing, bipartisan fashion applaud themselves for fixing the highway trust fund. and like the proverbial magician that takes the shiny object in one hand and distracts you, they will with sleight of hand with the other hand borrow $8.1 billion when the american people aren't watching. i want to refer you to the chart on my left and you will see three lines. i want to talk about the bottom two first. the very bottom line is the revenue line. that's the amount of money we receive from excise taxes and gasoline taxes to pay for roads and bridges and infrastructure. the red line above it is the expenditures. that's the money we are spending and the difference between the two is the deficit. that's the borrowed money. i will show you what it is. for decades, for decades we have been adding red ink to the american people's debt. we have been borrowing billions of dollars annually each year to spend on our infrastructure rather than telling the american people the truth. that if we believe, as members of congress and this body, that roads and bridges and airports are important enough to buy, they are important enough to pay for. but we don't want to do that. we don't want to tell the american people we are going to raise taxes, but i want you to know that this afternoon we borrow $8.1 billion to build roads and bridges, we are going to raise taxes. here's what i mean. we are going to raise taxes on kids, on our children, on my 11-year-old grandson. you want to know why? because we don't want to tell them, we don't want to tell adults today that they have to pay for the roads and bridges that they buy today. what we'd rather do is say you can have these things for free, we are going to wave the shiny magic object here, we are going to borrow money while telling the american people it's paid for, and ask our children when they grow up to buy our roads and bridges when the bill comes due. so we are perfectly fine raising taxes on kids. raising taxes on children. you want to know why? they can't vote. let's tell them they have to pay for this stuff. rather than us paying for this stufment remember, all -- stuff. remember all deaf spending is nothing more than future taxation. what is the top line here? the hash line? back in 1992, the last time we raised the national gas tax, congress before i came here, many of my colleagues came here, decided not to index the gas tax to inflation. so our purchasing power is disappearing because we have left it where it is. i'm going to use a green pen here. j.f.k., o'hare, international airports, they are the international gateway to the united states economy and they are also an international embarrassment on a global scale. we continue to let these places degrade and fall apart and yet none of us in our own spending would do that in our homes. if the roof leaks we fix it. if the house needs painting we paint it. we take care of these things and maintain them because they are our assets. they are what we are passing on to the next generation. and we have lost all this opportunity. what i would much rather see is either we are honest with the american people, mr. speaker, and say, if it's worth buying and worth doing we should pay for it. and then raise the taxes necessary to do that like ronald reagan did, like george bush did, like dwight eisenhower did, all republican presidents, it's worth paying for. let's not burden our children. let's not tax them. if it's worth doing that, do it. if it's not worth doing that, we should bring our expenditures down to the revenue level and not spend the money in the first place. so that we are sending a clear message back to each of the states that are getting federal largess on highways and roads and we are not going to do that and you need to raise your taxes to cover the gap. both of those ideas would be better than what we are doing right now which is nothing but a magic trick on children and we ought to stop it. with that mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i don't know how adequately to express my alarm and outrage over the president's agreement with iran. it is a breathtakingly dangerous act. some have compared it to neville chamberlain's munich accord with nazi germany. that doesn't fully illustrate the danger n this case we are talking about a rogue state with all of nazi germany's again sidal intentions. this one will be armed -- genocidal intentions. but this one will be armed with nuclear intentions. the agleement asserts that iran will comply with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty it signed long ago. wait a second. if it obeyed this treaty we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with now would we? the fact is iran has a well established and consistent record of routinely violating international law. its intention to acquire nuclear weapons is obvious. the immediate effect of the president's action is to release hundreds of billions of dollars of direct and indirect resources to iran with which its government can pursue its military and terrorist activities activities that aren't even addressed in this agreement. it's sobering to consider that iran's extensive terrorist operations, which reportedly now reach into south america, are about to get a huge infusion of cash. but lifting the sanctions does far more damage than merely releasing resources to this outlaw regime with which to kill israelis and americans as its leader vowed to do just last week. the sanctions were having a major impact on destabilizing the regime, according to all of the iranian expatriate i talked with. relieving these sanctions undermines what had been a rapidly building uprise against the regime from within. over the last several years the iranian opposition had grown dramatically for two reasons. there was a strong and growing perception among the iranian people that the iranian dictatorship was a pariah in the international community, and that the resulting international economic sanctions had created conditions that make the regime's overthrow imperative. that is until barack obama blundered on to the scene. this agreement cannot be verified. we are now learning that the 24/7 access to inspections promised by the president does not exist. under this agreement the regime can stall any inspection for many weeks or even months. the president's promise that violations will result in a snapback of sanctions is also completely empty. restoring sanctions would require the assent of china and russia something much less likely given our rapidly deteriorating relations with them. and even if iran scrupulously abided by every detail of the agreement they can continue to run center fugse for -- centrifuges for low level enrichment, continue their heavy water research, and within eight years acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles. that means even under this agreement p within a decade iran will have a nuclear breakout capability and the launch vehicles necessary to deliver those weapons anywhere in the world with this solemn vow of its government to wipe israel and united states off the map. indeed, just last week the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff warned, quote, under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms tracking, yet a week later, that's exactly what this agreement does. the president says there is no alternative. this is utter nonsense. the sanctions were working. the domestic resistance to the islamic fascist dictatorship mustered over 100,000 iranian expatriate at its annual meeting in paris last month, this movement desperately needs the moral and material support of our nation to bring down the regime from within. that is precisely what this administration has denied them. last month i fear congress became complicit in this agreement by adopting a completely extra constitutional process for ratification. and i believe it's a sham. instead of the 2/3 vote of the senate to approve treaties, it requires an almost impossible 2/3 vote of both houses to reject it as an agreement, at this moment in time nothing is more important in the world than for 2/3 of this congress to repudiate this dangerous folly. despite all of the indignities retreats, and self-inflicted wounds our country's endured these past 6 1/2 years, the freedom loving people of the world still look to us for leadership and support. we are still what lincoln called the last best hope of mankind. it is imperative that congress now rise to the occasion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday president obama announced that the final framework for a nuclear deal with iran have been reached. i am supportive of a strong deal that would prevent the nuclear armorment of iran and thereby easing tensions with our ally, israel, no deal is bert than a bad deal. -- better than a bad deal. of concern has been the relief of congressional sanctions implemented years ago. by authorizing sanction relief the iranian government will have billions of dollars at their disposal to use for the same secretive activities we have grown accustomed to seeing them support. as such hundreds of members on both sides of the aisle have expressed their opposition to a deal that does not appropriately address the shortfall of transparency or cooperation that iran has demonstrated repeatedly. merely threatening them with a snapback sanctions does not go far enough to institute a level of accountability, nor does it prove to be a viable option once the sanction relief has been in motion. mr. speaker, as i have stated i joined with a significant majority of both democrats and republicans communicating exsmectations -- expectations to the president on behalf of the american people for any negotiated deal with iran. i'm very concerned these expectations have not been met in this announced proposed deal. the deal should never provide iran a pathway to a bomb. this deal does not prevent that, but rather prolongs the time until iran develops nuclear weapons. to achieve security and peace, this agreement must be long lasting. any deal that allows iran to access conventional weapons in five years and ballistic missiles in eight years is anything but long term. anything but peaceful. anything but appropriate. relieve of sanctions should be earned by full compliance, access, and transparency regarding the iranian nuclear program. sanction leaf loaded up front is unacceptable. this -- sanctions relief loaded up front is unacceptable. it will only provide the financial stimulus to fund the number one exporter of terrorism iran. during this 60-day congressional review period i encourage all of my colleagues and the american people to take a very detailed look at this agreement. and determine whether it is a good deal for america. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until n c-span3 will be live as the senate commerce subcommittee looks into allegations of corruption and bribery at the international soccer governing agency. the justice department has indicted more than a dozen officials. witnesses include the head of the u.s. soccer federation. consumer financial protection bureau director richard chord ray providing the semifinal annual report. >> now the agency received more than 650,000 complaints through the hot line. could you give us a since director chord ray just a ballpark figure, how many of those complaints were to the consumer satisfaction and how much consumers recovered financially through this process. mr. cordray: i'll say that the arc of consumer complaints continues to decrease in terms of volume and i believe that's a function of a lot of lack of visibility. people not necessarily know what the cfpb and they'll know more over time, i hope, and we aim to provide value. we have 700-some credit card complaints in our first month and we're about to 25,000 complaints per month across the entire range of financial services. what happens then is we give the consumer a chance toll us whether they were satisfied with the resolution of their complaint or if not what they continue to be concerned about and we then prioritize issues for further investigation or perhaps enforcement action or supervisory activity and the institutions know that and i think that pushes them to be more thoughtful how they try to resolve those complaints in the first instance. and it's -- i don't know the exact numbers on this but i think it's 20% of consumers continue to feel they have a dispute once we worked through our process and then we have, as i say, further steps that we can take. in terms of how much resolution has been for consumers it's been many millions of dollars. it's hard to know exactly for sure. they don't always tell us how the matter was resolved. though many come back to, tell your storyline and often with real gratitude that they did get a resolution and they couldn't get a resolution for months and months but after speaking to us and us working they got one promptly. and that really thrills us when we hear that. but the other thing is there's a lot of nonmonetary relief people get from those complaints. getting something fixed on their credit report can loom very large for them and it's hard to quantify. >> although i take it certainly has financial ramifications. mr. cordray: maybe they can get a mortgage that is worth thousands of dollars to them. it's hard to quantify. debt collections is a constant source of irritation for consumers. the wrong debt or not the right person or whatever and they can't get people to stop calling their phone, i don't know how to put a price on that but to get 12 calls a day and calls in the workplace and it's not the right person or whatever it is, us being able to stop that is large for people. and it's sometimes easier -- it's easier to quantify relief we give back to people what happened to them before today and we can't easily quantify the benefit to them of things that will not happen to them tomorrow because of changes made today. you know, those go on into the future and can accumulate extensively over time. we don't have a price tack on that. >> great. you created this website. we're getting reveille 25,000 people a month. mr. cordray: and rising. or phone. >> and get some resolution. it looks like roughly 80% gets some kind of resolution there. the agency also just recently went live with this consumer complaint database. senator warren: and here you have a collection of thousands of narratives from real consumers about problems they're having with financial products or with companies. and it's all sortable now online. so it's possible to go online and see it by product, by date, by where the consumer lives. for example, just this morning i went to the database and looked for all the complaints from massachusetts about mortgages. so it's a powerful way to see what kinds of issues are propping up in the communities that all of us represent. now, i know it's only been online for just a few weeks, but i wondered if you could describe how you think this will help improve the market for financial products? mr. cordray: so the database has actually been online longer although it was broken into very generic categories which i think it was less inciteful for people than hearing in the own consumer's own words how they saw it. we described the narrative as really the heart and soul of the complaint. for me to make a complaint and then have it be categorized as somehow debt collection, wrong amount, one of a number of complaints and that's all you know about it, it's not nearly as inciteful as to be able to hear -- insightful as to be able to hear. it's just tangible. it's real. it's the difference between statistics and actually stories and to me that's very significant. the database i think is really causing institutions to have to compete on customer service which is a good thing and the good ones are competing very well on customer service and others are having to improve and that's a kind of pressure that i think is a positive pressure. i'll also mention there are many members of congress, many members of this committee who are referring complaints over to us when they come to their office and we encourage you to do that. we're supposedly the experts and we're happy to work those complaints and then you can see and keep track how they go. we want every american who has a problem to potentially know to come to us and see if we can get it resolved for them. we can't always but we will always try. senator warren: i see this as a prime example of how government can take small steps that will have a very positive impact on the market. there's a bit more accountability for companies that mistreat or just plain cheat their customers. on the other hand, there's some public acknowledgment for the companies that treat their customers well and resolve their complaints quickly. mr. chairman, if i can, i just want to slip in one little follow-up to the point that senator brown made earlier and that's about forced arbitration clawses. as senator brown highlighted -- clauses. as senator brown highlighted the report contained some damning findings how arbitration clauses fundamentally tipped the process against consumers and keep them from effectively fighting back even when they've been cheated. now, it's clear that the biggest banks and some of their republican friends in the house of representatives see the writing on the wall here and that is the rule is coming so they're pushing legislation that would force the cfpb to redo the report before you issue any new rules. i think this is a stall tactic, plain and simple. the report took three years and 728 pages to complete. it carefully documents a wide range of problems. it is thorough and extensive. i just want to ask you very briefly, because the chairman is indulging and i'm over time here, but can we get on record the steps the agency took to ensure that this study was complete and accurate, including soliciting and considering comments from the financial services industry? mr. cordray: sure. first of all, we did a request for information at the very outset to ask people how we should go about doing the study. so we really broadly solicited to people's thoughts and heard a lot from both industry and different kinds of markets and also from consumer groups and others. and we erred toward the side of being comprehensive what they told us to do in the study and doing it as much as we possibly could. this was breaking brand new ground. there wasn't data easily accumulated on that. we did go to the american arbitration association. we were able to get significant data about the arbitration process, which really shed light on that that people had not had before. we looked at a number of different ways of trying to get judicial resolutions of similar matters. we were helped in part because there were some class actions involving certain institutions who at one point had stopped doing their arbitration agreements, so you could actually see what the before and after was. did it actually save consumers' money for them to have this enforced arbitration process? and we were able to map that and discern that. we looked at enforcement actions as another means of affecting the marketplace, and people talked more about our consumer complaint process as a new element here. it was a very comprehensive report. i honestly don't think we could think of a single thing we could have done that we didn't do. we're always happy to hear more and we had tremendous input all along and now sense we've given round tables and other opportunities to digest the report, talk to us about it and that's an ongoing process. as we now embark on a rulemaking process, there will be small business review panels. we found that useful. and there will be notice and comment process on that. everybody will have their say. we will listen to it all, digest it as best we can and do what we're supposed to do as congress told us to do, act in the best interest to determine what to do about this. senator warren: thank you and thank you, mr. chairman, for your indulgence on this. i really appreciate it. it's an important issue. >> thank you. >> director cordray, earlier and several members of the panel requested information concerning the collection of data. probably the reason why it's really an item of real interest is because of o.p.m. and the loss of the data there. a lot of our employees have come in and concerned about the loss of their personal data. senator rounds: i think when you talk about the collection process you use and the data you wanted to do the market analysis with, i think the comes into really, are the organizations that are required to submit data to you, are they submitting from them through perhaps a third party that scrubs it or are they providing data to you that's been scrubbed by the organization itself? do you have -- are you aware of how that works in terms of how you actually scrub the data or how it gets scrubbed to begin with? mr. cordray: i'm generally aware of it and we have people who are very carefully focused on that. and it depends on the data clks. some of it is negotiating with industry because that's who we're getting the data. they know everything you're doing. they know everything i'm doing. they use it to market it to us. i don't have myself objection to that. some privacy folks do. it can be positive. it can be negative. the repositories of data that are much more troublesome than anything we have. where we can get the data on a sampling basis and ask specifically for certain fields and not for other fields and it comes to us in that form, the credit card database i believe is vetted through expeerian which is a credit reporting -- one of the leading credit reporting companies that scrubs the data before it comes to us and removes certain fields. we're trying very hard to make sure our employees do not have access to personally identifiable information. that only causes me trouble in our work -- and let me just say. the o.p.m. breaches, they affect my employees as well as your employees and we're very sensitive to that and it's something that we're now dealing with to make sure employees know what their rights are, what's available to them and i'm sure you are too. the objection we would contribute to that ourselves is not something we ever want to happen. senator rounds: what it did know is it brought to light that we need to protect that data. what i was curious about is whether you actually received the data and then scrubbed it or it was delivered to you by a third party who would then have that responsibility. it sounds like what you're -- what you've indicated is in the case of some of the larger bulk data amounts it's being scrubbed by a third party before it gets to you. mr. cordray: a credit card company that typicallies that this information anyway. i would have someone to present to you -- i want you to be comfortable about it. i read and see the stories about the n.s.a. i'm an american citizen. i have the same concerns i think you do about that. but i think that that's very distinct from what we're talking about here but i'm happy to have our folks come and spend time. if you remain concerned to know you're -- senator rounds: that's a good way to leave it. let me move on. rural appraisals. i'm from south dakota. we had challenges. i'm not sure how deep into this you've gotten. but rural appraisals have been really tough to get. i'm not sure how they are in the more urban areas. in rural south dakota trying to get an appraisal has been very difficult. two things. number one, i know you tried to set it up so we could identify rural locations. i'm asking, is there another way in which we can get a third or fourth look at it? we have some communities in western south dakota that are clearly rural in nature, but they're not identified that way. is there a process in place today where we can get the challenge set up to get them placed in the fropet category? mr. cordray: when we first opened our doors, we had a number of mortgage rules we were required to do by law. and one of them had to do with appraisals. another one was an interagency rule with the federal reserve on appraisals. and i've always been somewhat concerned as to whether we get that right. one of the big issues you're describing, and i'm familiar with it, in rural areas tr fewer comparables. appraisers might have to come from greater distance. it's difficult to make rural transactions. i think we're working to alleviate that. i would encourage you to press upon that. you are pressing upon me so i'll take it back. if there's more relief we can get on that because it's a peculiar circumstance of few and far between areas and we want people to get mortgage there is like the dense areas. senator rounds: the appraisals themselves and comps with regard to rural areas which many cases don't exist and along with that i think you're seeing legislation proposed right now that would actually create the ability for some of the banks who are lirlely holding -- literally holding those mortgages because they can't qualify in the secondary markets, they are holding them inside and we want to make sure that's an appropriate asset for those banks that end up doing that. if i could, mr. chairman i have one more question and i know when you worked through the qualified -- the consolidated statements and the goal was to perhaps simplify some of it. last year, as i was moving around south dakota, one of my community bank remembers said i just got a copy of the recent -- the most recent release or the qualification statement. and he says, the new disclosure statement as proposed is 164 pages. that was the p.d.f. the only reason why i bring this up, if that's actually the case and he's accurate in his definition and his -- mr. cordray: he's not. senator rounds: we have to have disclosures that people read. mr. cordray: that's not correct. what he's talking about is the regulation, the rule that actually implemented these forms is lengthy. i wish it weren't but it is. the forms themselves is not 164 pages. that would be ridiculous. they were shorter than before. they are not as short as my friend over here, senator warren, really wanted it to be, one page, application. one page at the closing stage. it's five pages and three pages. senator rounds: remight find something we can agree on. mr. cordray: congress legislates. we are at five and three pages. it is the key information. to me it's the executive summary of the whole transaction. we're looking to try to do electronic closings and push the industry in that direction so a lot of the paper gets taken off and you can focus on the key form here. we've tested those forms with consumers and they found them to be much easier and accessible and understandable. whether it's two pages or three pages, you know, might matter in some sense in the abstract. these are not lengthy forms. they're meant to be key summarized forms and that's what we're doing. again, on the rural and underserved -- i'd be glad to hear more from you. i heard a lot from senator johnson when he was share of this committee from south dakota and heard from senator tester and others about western states that are -- the population is more spread out. we have been working to give more latitude toward community banks and credit unions to portfolio mortgages in their own portfolio and have them be given all the protections of the rule. i think we're getting to a good place on that but we'll hear more from them as we go. and what i would say there is -- senator rounds: my time has been up. mr. cordray: community banks are increasing their market share in the mortgage market and it's a good thing. >> senator warrener. senator warrener: -- senator warner: i have two areas i want to touch on. i'll try to be brief. one is when we started to see all the hacking, obviously, concerns about o.p.m. as well and i'm hopeful that acting director colbert will -- when we started seeing thon the private sector side in terms of credit card and debit card hacking was an area i was not familiar with of the differential consumer protections between credit cards and debit cards. mr. cordray: yes. senator warner: and i think particularly so many young people using debit cards rather than credit cards, i know they have different business models but how do we kind of lean in this a little bit to make -- senator corker and i have legislation that would harmonize it. how can we better inform, particularly our -- as parent of daughters that use debit cards rather than credit cards all the time how we can equalize these protections? mr. cordray: it's interesting because some of the regulation grows to historical circumstances that don't necessarily make logical sense. credit card protections were developed at a different time and for different purposes than debit card protections. by the way prepaid cards. that's another card people have in their wallet. there is no protections. we're working to get that rule finalize so we can cover that gap. what you're saying is credit cards and debit cards, they started out as being distinct. credit cards were about credit and a way to get away from just store cards and give you credit generally. but debit cards were seen as having to do with a.t.m.'s and other things. they've become -- they kind of merged more together as just payment mechanisms. i think people often now may pull out one card or the other and not think that carefully about them. although some people are quite careful. there are differential protections. i think fraud protection on credit card is $50 limit exposure and debit cards is $500. it would make more sense when it was about the a.t.m. and taking out a fair amount of cash. i don't know if it makes sense today. it's something i would invite congress to think about and you may have guidance for us on that. whether we could fix it ourselves or would have to have a statutory fix, i'm not clear on that. senator warner: this is an area where i found within the industry i think there's some interest in harmonization. at least folks ought to know there is very different protections. let me move to another subject. one of the areas i spent some time on last eight or nine months is looking at this dramatic growth in the sharing economy or ondemand economy. particularly amongst any lynnials. one of the -- millennials. one of the good sides and bad sides to that. some folks it's quite lucrative to cobble together these different revenue sources. there are a whole host of questions there is a lack of a social safety net in workers comp. not from your purview but something we have to work through. not with a top-down solution but a opt in and opt out model. one of the areas which has fallen in your areas, we've been starting here as more and more -- there's some estimates as much of a third of the work force falls at least somewhere along this contingent workers, but as we think about qualifying for mortgages within q.m., we've got some concern -- we've heard some concerns that this emerging new kind of 1099 or contingent work force that traditional banking system doesn't record their income in an appropriate way so their ability to qualify for q.m.'s are somewhat undermined. abend icks q is the section within q.m. that includes guidance for varyfying or documenting income. is this an area we've taken a look at? far and away is the fastest growing sector of our economy and we ought to get ahead of it. mr. cordray: anytime anybody asks that question and says appendix q they are in the weeds. senator warner: i didn't know about appendix q until my staffer. mr. cordray: the point is you made is a good one and one i have become increasingly aware of and concerned about. so there's different aspects of this. i would say several aspects. we are moving to an economy in which we have fewer full-time salary employees in the old model. just as we moved overtime away from defined benefit pension systems to defined pension systems. this is happening. interestingly, i read that the health care laws actually pro-liberty as a piece of legislation in the sense it doesn't cause people to have to be stuck in a job to get their health care. they can actually consider being an independent contractor, other things and still now get health care. i would say several things. it does create more complications for people qualifying for a mortgage because it's harder to document their income. their income may be more fluctuating. but you start adding up and you start adding up who's intermittent employees temporary employees, seasonal employees. it's a huge portion of the american population. so i think we need to look again at our mortgage rules in light of that. it's not an easy thing to figure out how to handle but it's something we need to go back and think more about. i would also say that from a standpoint of wealth and retirement accumulation for americans, this is going to be an increasingly big problem because pension plans and even 401-k contributions tend to be limited even in companies that have multiple types of work forces to the full-time full-salary people and other people don't have access to the ability to put away savings for retirement or get a match by an employer. we have to think hard about what we do about that. treasury is developing a my r.a. account that may be an example in this area. i think illinois just did something legislatively. it's something we need to think about because otherwise people will be falling behind in income -- income disparity but also very much falling behind in wealth and retirement disparity. senator warner: thank you. >> senator corker. senator corker: mr. cordray, thanks for being here. in our office we talked about q.m. i know we were all working on this issue way back when in the bad old days when so much was happening. we were all concerned about a 5% risk sharing if you remember. that's where everybody's focus was and trying to figure out how to get that right. one of the things we looked at in legislation is dealing with qualified mortgages and there seems to be this focus to only deal with it at community banks. only smaller institutions. and i guess if you look at qualified mortgage that's held on portfolio, that means the institution's keeping 100% of the risk, and i guess i've wondered why we've tried to differentiate, if you will, between smaller institutions holding qualified mortgages but larger institutions being unable to do so. and i know we talked a little bit about it. i just wondered if you might address that, and i have one other question. mr. cordray: we don't have as much time to talk about it today and i'm happy to talk about it more with you. we generally are trying to find ways to continue to encourage community banks and credit unions to do mortgage lending because if you look at the data going through the crisis, they had lower defaults than anyone else. they are the most responsible lenders we have. and the more lending they do in accordance with their traditional underwriting models the better it is for consumers the better it is for our economy. that's why we focused portfolio provisions to benefit them. i'm concerned about it as upper levels because i don't -- the logic of it, you know, may or may not obtain at larger levels but we had an -- i'm aware we had a number of institutions that had a lot of portfolio lending that blew up didn't get it right. washington mutual, countrywide ameriquest. some of the companies really threatened the economy because they made a mess of things. at the did portfolio -- they did portfolio lending. although it feels to me that credit unions have been highly responsible about it and we're looking to encourage them. i'm pleased to see that the community banks share of mortgage lending seems to be on the increase. that's good for america, i think. senator corker: so it just seems to me that -- i agree with much of what you just said. but it seems to me if we on the portfolio lending component there's something different than just stopping at $ billion or whatever and then people just going $2 billion or whatever and then people to certain levels, that ought to be something than just that stark line and i think we ought to explore that together. on manufactured housing. look, i live in a state where, you know, we have a lot of people that have difficulty affording housing. senator rounds lives in a state where there are a lot of people that have difficulty affording housing. i know senator cotton does. no offense. but the fact is that, you know, for some of the lower income citizens we represent, manufactured housing is an outlet. i know senator brown and i sponsored legislation back in 2012 that actually was more expansive than what was in the shelby bill this time, and yet we have these rules that are in place that really make it difficult. i mean you and i talked about a fact that on a smaller loan, a $25,000 loan, a $30,000 $40,000 loan the costs associated with it end up bumping against some of the regulations we have. and i just wondered if you might address that and at least address the fact that you understand that's a problem and i'm wondering if we might collectively generate a solution for that. mr. cordray: yeah. so to me the problem i'm concerned about and it's not limited to manufactured housing, it's you go to the lower end of the spectrum in terms of the size of loans the smaller the loan there's still a certain amount of cost that has to be incurred in order to make that loan. and so at a loan that's $200,000 $300,000, $400,000, in california, maybe $800,000, the costs are spread over a big base. at $25,000, $50,000, a lot of houses in my state are that kind and manufactured homes are very much that kind, the costs start to get larger. the law as it now currently exists and that we implemented does provide for that. it says under $14u7bd,000 the 3% -- $100,000, the 3% can rise to 4% and 5%. lower levels to be a hard dollar amount. whether those numbers are set exactly at the right spot is worthy -- point worthy of intention. again, it's not specific to manufactured housing but manufactured housing falls very much at that end of the spectrum. and i want to know that people at the lower end of the cost spectrum can get access to mortgages and aren't blocked from that by something in the administration or just cost of this. just as automobile lending actually is going farther down the spectrum people need their cars and to me that's a good thing. so i'm happy to talk further about that. we've been trying to look at the data on manufactured housing to understand people have been raising this problem. is it really a problem or not really a problem? what we do see is that every month of last year from the census bureau survey data, manufactured housing lending was up from the month the year before. and some of the leading manufactured housing manufacturers are quite profitable so i don't know what to make of some of the concerns people are raising to me. but i will say that this issue of cost on a smaller loan is a universal issue and problem and one that maybe we should be thinking further about whether the thresholds are exactly right. senator corker: mr. chairman, thank you for the time. i would just close by saying i appreciate you looking at that data and i understand that in a growing economy you're likely to see more people doing these types of things. we've seen some data that shows that numbers of these people are unable to be served, and they're ending up paying more for rental housing than they could be paying for actually purchasing again, a lower cost home of either type, whether it's conventional or manufactured. i hope we'll -- mr. cordray: it's not optimal from anybody's standpoint. senator corker: thank you. >> at the risk of going down this rabbit hole one more time, i just want to kind of begin with where we are with data collection because i've listened and i think in some ways i feel like we're ships passing through the night here and not really hearing. you do not require the transfer of personally identified information other than to do consumer services. based on a complaint. senator heitkamp: am i correct? mr. cordray: where we're giving money back to consumers, we ultimately will need to have information to get the money back to consumers. senator heitkamp: this would not be individual complaints. it would be a broad sweeping kind of investigation where you then would require individual information? mr. cordray: so, for example, i could name names of institutions, but they're public, where we had credit card data matters, ultimately we have to get money back to consumers. either we can work with the institution to do that. senator heitkamp: in terms of your data collection the only way you would have personally identified data would be if it were necessary to serve the consumer either in a broad complaint or an individual complaint? mr. cordray: i believe that's exactly correct and there's no purpose having it otherwise. i just get in -- gets in my way and my team's way. senator heitkamp: do they send you bulk information having that information in it requiring you to scrub it or domation that's been scrubbed and where social security numbers and personally identified information has been removed? mr. cordray: so on that i would like to have my staff come brief your staff. senator heitkamp: i think there's enough interest here that a report would be fine. mr. cordray: i believe it's through all circumstances but i'm all hesitant to say all unless my staff tells me that's correct. senator heitkamp: and i want to make one point which is interesting to me. where we are deeply concerned what you have, we should be equally concerned about the cybersecurity of the information where it resides which is with the companies that you access every day. and so they are going to have -- any breach of their data is much more damaging than access to your -- to your data that is being used for market analysis? mr. cordray: target, home depot. accounting information, social security numbers, very problematic. senator heitkamp: i think another thing that will be helpful and we found great response from your agency what's rural and what isn't, we think you probably have made the right decisions in north dakota. but i'm curious as to the percentage of land mass in this country you determined is in fact rural. if you could get back to me that would be great. also would reiterate senator tester's concern about consultation and would be interested in follow-up on consultation with tribes as well. that's part of the scheme in a government-to-government relationship. we need all -- mr. cordray: and i know you got me come visit you. senator heitkamp: and i wanted to mention that. i do have to say where we can disagree i think your personal integrity is unimpeachable and i think you're doing a very difficult job director. i want to thank you for your service. someone with your credentials having i believe clerked with the supreme court at one point, with your great academic background is someone who is extraordinarily valuable. and i'm -- i want to reiterate some of the points you've been hearing about where we're at with the people we're trying to protect. and i think what we're all trying to get at is how do you balance protecting the consumer against access to necessary credit whether it is in small dollar lending, whether it's in manufactured house resolution, whether it is access to rural communities or native american communities to the market. i think there's a balance there, and i know i told you frequently my story i was the first person to get beat up trying to shut down payday lending. sometimes people need diverse -- sometimes people need gas and they have a flat tire and they can't fix it and those people are living on the margin. i understand the need to protect people but i also understand the need to have some form of small dollar, short-term lending. what do you think those products -- and i'll -- this will be my last question. what do you think those products should look like and how do we achieve that balance and how do you as the director, you know i think address the concerns that we have which is let's give people access to credit, it helps build their credit, it helps build america but let's also protect them. and that's a tough balance with this population. mr. cordray: it really is. by the way, we first saw this issue with our mortgage rules where we in the dodd-frank act they passed certain things that we were required to do on mortgages at a time when the mortgage market was all overheated and quite irresponsible. and the underwriting had deteriorating -- deteriorated. the mortgage market was now frigid. credit was very tight. it was a hugely different situation. so as we wrote those rules we really became very keenly aware face to face with this problem of, how do you balance protections, which we want, with access to credit, which we do not want to choke off? and that's something we tried to balance in the mortgage. i think we did pretty well with it but it's something we're constantly monitoring and trying to think about. same thing in these small dollar rules. we know people have a demand for small dollar credit. they had it for over 100 years and they get that demand served in several ways and some products are more responsible and some are less responsible but people have a demand. and we can't choke off a supply to them. at the same time we are concerned about this issue of the debt trap, people ending up thinking they're getting in and getting out but many of them end up rolling over and getting stuck at very high cost over a long period of time and that's the issue we're trying to address. now, whether the industry business model relies on that to subsidize the single demand loans, i'm not entirely clear on that. they say they don't but maybe they do. it's something we're trying to figure out as we're working on these rules. i have the same objective in mind that you described. people need to have access to money and not everybody has an uncle or a sister or mother-in-law that they can go to for $300 or $500. if they've done it once or twice they may not be able to do it a third time. we get that. at the same time we don't want people to end up in products that harm them further. i'm not sure i'm the right person to say what all the right products are. what we are trying to identify there are certain wrong products we want to rein in a bit while still leaving access to credit. how to get there though, as complex as you say, it's a difficult issue and i'm hopeful and we're working hard to try to understand it enough to try to get it right. senator heitkamp: thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think senator heitkamp raised an important issue and we talked about this before, mr. cordray. is we don't want to drive the small marginal consumer underground where there is no regulation, because that's what we had before. i believe that goes right to the thrust of our question. senator shelby: how do we do this without overregulating this and how do we have access to some type of credit? because there will be credit. the question is will it be legal or illegal? now we can have our -- senator cotton coming up. we can have that ivy league debate that you referred to. senator cotton. senator cotton: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director, for appearing before us. i want to return to a topic that senator corker touched upon affordable housing. since this and h.u.d. data indicates there may not be a single county in this country that currently has affordable housing, this is particularly acute in the kind of rural state that i represent or rural county where i live. there are not a lot of new single family homes being built. there's not a large stock of multifamily rental units which is why many families find manufactured housing to be the most affordable option they have, as senator corker described. they end up paying less on a mortgage for a manufactured home than they would pay for a very limited supply of rental stock. as you described, there's a basic math problem. it takes a certain amount of time and resources to process any loan, whether the loan is $40,000 or $400,000 or $4 million. and over a bigger loan, that cost is spread out across a bigger base and therefore the percentage costs don't appear to be as high. over a smaller loan like you have for manufactured housing, it's a much smaller base right out so it appears higher even though that's the preference of the consumer. you have regulatory flexibility under the dodd-frank act, under section 1431 to address this, to raise those percentage rates. yet you haven't used that yet. could you explain why you haven't used that yet, and maybe if you're looking ahead to using it to grant some relief to families and lenders? mr. cordray: we did consider this and pretty carefully with a lot of input at the time we adopted our mortgage rules, our big set of mortgage rules in 2013. and this issue was raised and the 3% was not seen as appropriate for loans under $100,000. and it went to 4%. at certain levels 5% at lower levels and dollar figures at the lowest level. now that was an effort to try to address the issue that you're raising that i see as a very legitimate issue. whether we got those numbers right, whether we should reconsider them and think further about them just as we reconsidered and thought further about the rural and underserved issue is a fair point and it's one i will take back from this hearing. i do remain concerned that credit at the smaller -- at the lower end, dollar end of the spectrum is tight. it is tight. it's tight for people who often have lower credit scores and more difficult to access credit. i don't want to try to pretend -- underdo underwriting that's being done by these institutions on that. but whether those numbers are set at the right level, whether $100,000 is the right level are things i am not entirely clear on. i think we should look at some more. you should look at it some more. we should have a fruitful discourse on whether there should be changes there. senator cotton: thank you for that. you referenced in your answers to senator corker you have seen some encouraging data. i have seen as well. it's limited to the sale of new manufactured housing. i believe that -- mr. cordray: i see. senator cotton: and a robust market for refinancing and for secondary sales. manufactured housing obviously doesn't have the same lifetime that single family housing does, but oftentimes families need manufactured housing at a time in their life when they're going through a lot of change and they're newly married, have children. they're also going through economic change, hopefully getting higher wages, moving up the economic ladder and ready to move into a different kind of home when there's another family who is willing to buy their manufactured home. director i'd like to turn to another question now. last year, you brought an enforcement action against a mortgage lender, p.s.h. you went in front of an administrative law judge and that judge ruled for them and issued a judgment of $6 dch 4 million. -- $6.4 million. you imposed a fine of a judgment of $109 million. could you explain your thinking both why you pursued an administrative law judge as opposed to a an article 3 court and what evidence went into your thinking to overturn your own l.j. and impose a fine 17 times his initial judgment? >> continue to watch this hearing at c-span.org. we leave it now as the house is about to return for legislative business. members will debate today five-month extension of the highway trust fund. the program provides federal funds for highway and transit projects across the country. it's running out of money. temporary extension infuses some $8 million into the fund to keep it going until long-term funding is agreed to. live house coverage here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain reverend dr. william langford great bridge baptist church, chesapeake, virginia. the chaplain: our heavenly father as we stand here today we cannot help but first be thankful for your providential hand that has guided and blessed our country. i'm also very thankful for the members of this people's house, for their willingness to serve and to represent the citizens who have called upon them. and as they take on the issues of this day, i ask, dear lore, you first give them a spirit of humility, to recognize our limitations but to also recognize our need for you. i pray, lord you would give them a heart to seek you are infinite wisdom rather than relying on our finite understanding. i pray, lord, you give them clarity as they discern your direction and that i pray you would give them the courage to follow you and to lead us and protect us in these challenging and increasingly dangerous days . father i pray that you would give us the assurance that whatever -- whenever we stand resolved to seek your wisdom and resolve to act on your leadership, that you will, indeed, bless our tomorrows. and i pray all these things in the name of jesus who is eternally faithful and forever trustworthy. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker pursuant to clause 1 rule 1, i demant a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker i object to the vote on the grounds a quorum is not present and make a board. the speaker pro tempore: -- point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by this morning by the gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer. mr. kilmer: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, is recognized for one minute. mr. forbes: mr. speaker, i rise to honor today's guest chaplain, pastor will lankford. he's the led pastor of great bridge baptist church in chesapeake, virginia, where i'm proud to say i have been a member for over 50 years. he's served for almost 30 years as churches in ohio kentucky, and virginia. he received his doctor of ministry and master of divinity at southern baptist theological sem nary. he's the author, speaker and host. he's dedicated his life to serving his congregation and the community in chesapeake. i'm personally grateful not just for the wisdom he shares from the pulpit but for his day to day example of the impact one can have on his or her community state, and nation, when they personify the teaching of jesus christ. he's joined today by his wife of nearly 30 years, and they are the proud parents of two daughters, brittany and bethany. plose join me in welcoming pastor lankford. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields bafpblgt for what purpose does the gentleman from -- yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent the text of h.r. 2722 as proposed to be passed under suspend the rules be modified by the amendment i have placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment to the manager's amendment offered by mr. luket mire of missouri, strike line 15 all that follows through page 8 line 12, page 12, strike lines 22 and all that follows through page 13 line 6 and insert the following b distribution. subject to section 5134-f of title 31 united states code all surcharges received by the secretary from the sale of coins issued under this act shall be promptly paid by the secretary to the breast cancer research foundation, new york, new york, for the purpose of furthering breast cancer research funded by the foundation. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 15 2015, at 9:05 a.m. that the senate passed, senate 1300. senate 1756. senate 1482. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now len jenttain up to 15 further requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas 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. johnson: mr. speaker, the nuclear deal president obama has reached with iran is dangerous and delusional. he says it will stop iran from getting the bomb. well, i'd like him to tell us how it would do so when it puts us at the mercy of iran. this deal does not provide for any time anywhere inspections. we would have to ask iran permission which they could deny. the idea that iran will not go nuclear with this deal defies history, worse yet, it will undoubtedly start a nuclear arms race in the middle east. i say that as a veteran of two wars this deal reflects obama's disastrously naive foreign policy of appeasing our adversaries and stiffing our friends. we have a duty to protect american citizens from harm. that's what i will be voting against this deal -- why i'll be voting against this deal. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? it >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we are 16 days away from the latest expiration of the highway trust fund. this is nothing new. over the last six years congress has passed 33 stopgap funding bills to extend transportation funding. today we'll vote on the 34th. congress has repeatedly failed to provide the long-term investments in transportation that we so badly need. without serious long-term investments, we simply will not be able to compete in today's global economy. europe now invests twice as much as we do in transportation. china invests four times as much. our crumbling infrastructure rated a d minus by the american society of engineers is slowing our economic growth. state and local governments are being forced to cut back on their construction projects. private sector companies are being forced to stop hiring workers and investing in capital. it is time to provide american businesses and american workers with transportation funding certainty. it is past time to pass a long-term transportation bill that will grow our economy and create jobs. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the american people have an expectation that the hard earned money that they pay in taxes will not be wasted or used fraudulently. however we have seen far too many examples of the federal government squandering taxpayer dollars. mr. paulsen: take the i.r.s. for example. we have learned the earned income tax credit as an error rate of over 27%. that means taxpayer money is wasted to the tune of $15 billion. compare that to the private sector where visa has a maintaining error rate of 0 .06%. another shocking revelation is even discovered a single mailbox received 24,000 fraud leapt tax returns totaling $46 million. one mailbox. in addition to fixing a broken tax code by making it simpler and fairer, washington needs to be good stewards of the taxpayer money making sure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted, are not misused, and there is appropriate oversight over the i.r.s. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? -- washington. without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. older americans want to spend their golden years living in dignity and for many that means being able to stay in their own homes. mr. kilmer: in concert with the white house conference on aging, this week i met with a group of home care workers that turn that wish into a reality. they work tirelessly to cook meals and help with therapies and make sure medication is taken properly, help people live under their own roof. the work of caregivers is so valuable so i want to call on this congress to actually value them. what does it say when the people who care about our most vulnerable, our parents and grandparents are so poorly compensated? when one of the caregivers i met with expressed her concern that her pay was so low she wasn't building up enough in social security to retire herself. we need to work for better wages for the notion that when someone works overtime they get overtime. we need to expand training and apprenticeship opportunities so those working hard in these notwithstanding positions can move up. mr. speaker, i have a grandmother who is now 105 years old. i want the caregivers taking care of her and her generation and future generations to know that we respect what they do. not just with words but with policies and pay that supports them. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields bafpblgt for what purpose does the gentleman from -- back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss a simple solution to a straightforward problem. a constituent of mine came to me with this issue, it created college funds to each of his grandchildren in a 529 college saves plan. some of his grandchildren decided not to go to college, while others went to college and graduated but with student debt. mr. nugent: i want to use left over college savings to pay off those loans which makes sense because the loans were the same expenses as the 529 plan money is intended but they are not able to spend that money without being hit with both a capital gains taxes and additional 10% penalty. the same as if he was using the money for some other purchase. today i'm introducing a bill to strike the additional penalty to a 529 college savings plan. money is used to pay for student loans that were taken out for qualified educational expenses. in this age of rising college costs, there is no reason to penalize families for paying down student debt. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. ms. kelly: as students enjoy summer break we need to make sure our kids remain intellectually engage. today we hear so much of our youth being glued to screens, tablets, and apps. it's caused concerns among parents who worry that their kids remain idle in the summer. i know our kids can be just as enthusiastic about reading as they are about mind craft. last year i started robin's readers. i was blown away by the response. more than 3,000 kids participated and read over 20000 books in a 10-week period. this past april i hosted an awards event for these kids and saw firsthand their passion for reading. chicago's mayor has also started rahm's readers which will ensure the love for reading continues to burn strong over the summer months. i urge my colleagues especially my illinois colleagues to work with me to promote literacy. i call on you to start your own reading program. together we can instill a lifelong love of reading in our children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday my colleague from alabama, congresswoman martha roby, spoke eloquently on the floor following an extremely disturbing and unsettling video that surfaced showing planned parenthood's top doctor caught on camera explaining how abortion industry professionals illegal sell the body parts of aborted babies. i rise today to thank you for her conviction and join her in araising awareness of the development. planned parenthood still is the largest abortion provider in the nation and still somehow receives federal dollars. the video literally states a graphic horrendous detail the procedure and how she can crush the baby's body without damaging the organ issue brokers are seeking at the rate of $30 to $100 for fetal body parts. allowing this organization to profit off taking a life of an unborn child. these revelations not only inhumane and barbaric they raise many questions of legality and integrity. federal law prohibits the harvesting sale and use of tissue and body parts of aborted children for payment. i urge my colleagues not only to watch this video but take a serious look at the practice of this organization and i will join efforts to demand a conditioningal investigation -- congressional investigation into the practices of planned parenthood and organizations like that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition 8? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . mr. higgins: the serviceman's readjustment act of 1944 is one of the most significant laws in our history. it provided education to millions of americans and created economic opportunity for a generation. subsequent g.i. bills were signed into law to cover the soldiers of subsequent conflicts, but these benefits came with a catch. they had to be used within 10 or 15 years. mr. speaker, the sacrifice of our soldiers is immeasurable and timeless, and our gratitude should not come with an expiration date. many returning veterans postpone education to support their families or rehabilitate from war injuries. a recent v.a. report found that 21% of veterans had not used their educational benefits because their period of eligibility had expired. moreover, placing limits on educational benefits is out of step with the increasingly competitive global economy. today, many workers will need specific skill training throughout their entire career. i have introduced the veterans education flexibility act to remove these outdated deadlines and retroactively restore the benefits to the americans who earn them. i encourage my colleagues to join on this bill and correct this terrible injustice. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, yesterday a disturbing video surfaced of dr. deborah planned parenthood discussing the sale of fetal organs as they casually eats launch. the way she describes how planned parenthood clinics kill innocent children and then harvest their precious hearts, lungs and livers to sell is sickening. in 2014 alone planned parenthood was directly responsible for killing over 350,000 unborn babies in their clinics. it is unconscionable and inexcusable that we are giving the hard-earned money of american taxpayers to an organization that callously kills an innocent unborn child every 90 seconds. at its core, planned parenthood supports the systematic recollection termination of the most vulnerable among us. it's past time that we end federal funding of this organization which views the life of the unborn as a revenue generator. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, 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. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in memory of a dear friend and mentor who passed away over the weekend. professor david grossman was a talented lawyer, a dedicated teacher and a passionate advocate. he committed his life to the fair implementation of the law, believing that it applies to all of us and protects each of us. throughout his career, he showed how words like justice and fairness were not just ideals for discussion but principles that had to be fought for, protected and defended. he made the law come alive. he gave it a face and a family. serving at the helm of the harvard legal aid bureau for nearly a decade, he trained, supervised and worked with over 180 law students and served roughly 2,700 low-income individuals and their families. through his service, he protected thousands of people in need and inspired hundreds of young lawyers. our community has lost a champion. his values and vision live on through all those he touched. my thoughts and prayers are with stacy during this difficult time. may his memory be a blessing for us all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guinta: 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. mr. guinta: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate a granite state teacher who is a leader in our nation with their innovative and engaging approach to teaching. stephanie burke a middle school science teacher at west running brook middle school in dairy has excelled not just in the classroom but also in her community. her work and dedication to educating granite state youth have earned her the distinct honor of the 2015 presidential award for excellence in mathematics and science teaching. only 108 teachers nationwide receive this honor. the granite stater through and through, stephanie graduated from the university of new hampshire and obtained her masters degree from new england college. throughout her career, she has worked tirelessly to engage and mold the young minds in her classrooms. oftentimes the teachers don't get the thanks or the credit they deserve. stephanie burke represents the best in teaching and i applaud this incredible and well-deserved accomplishment. stephanie, it's because of you that our nation remains the world leader in innovation, ideas and excellence, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, 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. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the men and women of the central fire company in rhode island who is celebrating their 100th anniversary this weekend. a nonprofit organization, central fire company number one was registered first on july 30, 1915, to provide volunteer firefighting services for the people of time of warren. the defenders of the north end and protectors of the world, as they are known, not only serve as critical first responders for the people of warren, they've also helped raise thousands of dollars for those less fortunate in their community. in february 2003, the central fire department provided critical assistance during one of the most destructive fires in our nation's history, the station nightclub fire. first responders put their own lives in the lives of danger so they may protect their fellow citizens. i salute the central fire company on 100 years of service to the people of warren, rhode island, and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request permission 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. mr. farenthold: yesterday at a judiciary committee committee hearing, homeland security secretary jeh johnson didn't know who kate steinle was. i hope he still remembers his own border patrol agent javier vega jr., a father husband and south texan. both of these fine americans were gunned by by illegal aliens who had been deported multiple times but were brack in our country. mr. johnson couldn't tell me what percentage of the border was secure. you know, last month i visited the border, talked to some hardworking border patrol agents who are very frustrated. they keep apprehending the same people over and over again. they're frustrated by the catch and release program. coyotes, less than four or five people are simply let go. we got to secure our border to avoid tragedies like kate steinle and javier vega jr. for that matter, we need to secure the borders to keep us safe. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, 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, i rise to urge the republican leadership to bring up the long-term funding transportation bill. republicans want to pass a short-term extension to the highway trust fund that fails to make the proper investments that our economy needs. mr. gallego: our nation's infrastructure is in a bad shape. it is critical we make the necessary long-term predictable investments in our country's roads, transit system and highways that will create jobs grow our economy and offer certainty for states to invest in larger, much-needed projects. mr. speaker, 42 state chambers of commerce agree that our deteriorating national infrastructure is an issue that directly affects our ability to compete in the global marketplace and provide financial security for millions of middle class american families. it's time for the republican leadership to stop kicking the can down the road with short-term fixes that are costing us more money in the long run and hurting our economy and costing jobs. i call on the republican leadership to bring up a long-term bill and stop playing games with america's crumbling infrastructure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. foip without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to address a glaring issue of the persecution of christians around the globe. mr. davis: our nation was founded on the principles of religious liberty and tolerance and the united states continues to promote these ideals. we must remained steadfast in our effort for individuals who are prers cuted simply due to their faith. mr. dold: everyone around the globe, mr. speaker, should be free to live a life of faith, to worship as they choose without fear of persecution from a ruthless regime. the basic freedom, which is enshrined by our founding fathers, must not only be promoted here but also around the world. as the shining city upon the hill with the world's eyes upon us it's our nation's duty to be a leader to fight against the persecution of christians. as isis continue to afact christians in the middle east, we must continue to show that our nation will stand up and defend those that cannot defend themselves. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, request perm mission to address the house -- permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. less than two months ago, house republicans refused to take the opportunity to extend the highway trust fund and instead decided to be reckless and kick the can down the road. mr. aguilar: to no one's surprised, we're faced with the same predicament. how long will republican leadership continuously refuse to govern? they played the same political games with the funding of the department of homeland security, which keeps our nation safe from national security threats and allowed the export-import bank to expire, punishing american business owners across the nation. and now they want to gamble with the safety of millions of americans who rely on our transportation and infrastructure which is crumbling beneath us. enough is enough. we need a comprehensive and long-term surface transportation plan, not a short-term fix. the highway trust fund supports critical projects which include improving the i-10 freeway in the inland empire as well as countless other projects within the country. it's time we start governing and bring a long-term extension measured in years, not months. we don't need another short-term patch. it's time for real solutions. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania 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 i have deep concerns about the direction the obama administration has taken in reaching this agreement with iran. while i support all diplomatic efforts to promote peace and cooperation, there is little reason to believe that this deal will halt iran's nuclear program or that the iranian regime is truly committed to rejoining the international community. mr. fitzpatrick: iranian leaders have spewed hateful language toward the united states israel and the jewish people and have unapologetically continued their state sponsorship of terrorism. next week the bipartisan task force to investigate terrorism financing that i'm proud to chair will take a closer look at iran's role in financing terrorist groups around the world. information that i feel is vital to the administration, to congress and the american people when reviewing any nuclear agreement with iran that includes sanctions relief. in the end, this announced deal is under congressional authority to review and i will only support it if it meets the simple benchmark of forever preventing a nuclear iran. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: i rise in support of h.r. 2713, the title 8 nursing work force re-authorization act, a bipartisan bill that i authored with my nursing caucus co-chair, david joyce. when president johnson first signed these programs into law, he observed that the nurse training act of 1964 was the most important nursing legislation in our nation's history and indeed it has been. over the past 50 years, title 8 programs have bolstered nursing education at all levels, from entry level preparation through graduate study. not only supplying our nation with needed health care providers but also strengthening the nursing education pipeline to train the nurses of tomorrow. these programs are targeted to address specific needs within the nursing population nursing work force and america's patient population. simply put title 8 nursing work force programs are a direct investment in our nation's health. the nursing work force re-authorization act of 2015 is a bipartisan effort to simply ensure that these critical programs are available for years to come. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to co-sponsor h.r. 2713, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> 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 is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about a matter that is drit cal -- critical to the future security of not only the united states but to our allies and international security. yesterday the president announced a nuclear agreement had been reached between iran and six other nations led by the united states. throughout these negotiations i have been skeptical of the concessions made by this administration to iran despite its history of dangerous and defiant behavior. iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. and has consistently shown a pattern of noncompliance. i have serious concerns this deal will fail to prevent a nuclear iran while rewarding the iranian government and their past actions with billions of dollars of sanctions relief. as congress continues to evaluate the deal, i believe we must reject any agreement that further bolsters the iranian regime, endangers our allies, especially israel, and fuels instability in the region. far too much is at stake to accept a bad deal that puts the security of our nation and our fight to combat violent extremism at greater risk. mr. speaker, how can you have a deal with someone you can't trust? i yield back the balance of my the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request 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 we are going to be asked to vote on another short-term funding patch for the highway trust fund. mr. bera: we have done this over 30 times. but what we need is a bipartisan plan and a long-term transportation bill that's fiscally responsible. it's what we have always done throughout our history. think about it president lincoln built the transcontinental railroad. put thousands of people to work. and helped lead an economic boom. president eisenhower invested in the interstate highway bill. built our interstate commerce system and transport system and put thousands of people to work and led to an economic boom. let's think big. that's what we do as americans. let's invest in ourselves. let's come up with a long-term highway trust fund bill that invests in our infrastructure, puts thousands of americans to work, and lets us lead an economic recovery not just in the united states but in the world. that's what we do as americans. we think big, mr. speaker. let's get this done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute >> thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in response to the obama administration's announcement of reaching an agreement with islamic republic of iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, regarding its nuclear program. this agreement jeopardizing our national security and that of our allies by giving iran the ability to continue its march towards nuclear capability. where are the restrictions that the american people and her allies were promised? where are the any time anywhere inspections? mrs. hartzler: where is the dismantling of iran's nuclear infrastructure? i do not see these restrictions mr. speaker. additionally, this deal will hand iran billions in sanctions leaf for it to continue funding terrorism and promoting instability in the region. this agreement jeopardizing our closest ally israel, and relies on the hope that iran which has proven to shirk agreements in the past complies with the terms. in short, this agreement does not stop iran from being on the doorstep of nuclear capability. we cannot allow that to happen. any deal that ends in a nuclear iran is a bad deal and should be rejected. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, today we wear red to bring back our girls. this week boko haram said it will free the girls in exchange for the extremist groups' leaders. we who have raised our voices to shout bring back our girls, we knew that this would come. mr. speaker, boko haram could not risk killing the girls, but to hold 219 girls hostage for more than a year and then parade them out only as bargaining chips shows how little boko haram values these precious girls. if i can speak to the girls i would tell them, we value you. your friends and family who pray for you daily, they val you you. your new president who has taken steps to defeat boko haram, he values you. your friends in congress who wear red on wednesdays to bring attention to your values and to your cause, we value you. and we will continue to tweet, tweet tweet hash tag bring back our girls. tweet, tweet tweet, #, join rep wilsonlogical we bring back our girls. i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if you work, you should be better off than if you don't work. that's why earlier this week i introduced the drug testing for welfare recipients act. this bill is designed to improve welfare programs by requiring recipients who have a known history of drug use to pass a drug test for eligibility. i am a firm believer we have a moral obligation to help those in need who cannot help themselves. yet it is critically important to get the incentives right so that these programs are not abused. most employers require workers to pass a drug test as a condition for employment. the government should expect the same of people who receive welfare benefits. if recipients can't meet the basic standards of employment, in essence they are trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency. mr. speaker, i believe this bill is one step in the right direction to improve our wfl programs and i encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, roughly one year ago today the carlton complex wildfire broke out in okinawgin in my district. burning over 250,000 acres, destroying hundreds of homes and businesses, and devastating the environment. communities in the valley continue to deal with the fire's long-term consequences. and are still working to rebuild and recover. one year later we recognize the heroic efforts of thousands of first responders, firefighters, and volunteers who worked around the clock at great personal risk to fight the blaze. i saw first hand how the community pulled together to help one another volunteers provided shelter to survivors, cooked meals, and unloaded trucks of relief supplies. the outpouring of support from volunteers from all over the state is a testament to the spirit and determination of washingtonians. we must remember the losses caused by this catastrophic wildfire and congress must continue to push to improve forest health, to ensure that this does not happen again. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> thank you mr. speaker. i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today saddened and horrified at recent media reports that planned parenthood as an abortion provider is harvesting or attempting to harvest and sell baby organs preserved in partial-birth abortion. it shocks and sickens the conscious of our nation and each of us as human beings that these providers would use these innocent children ripped from their mother's womb and their skulls crushed to sell their organs for profit organs that they never had a chance to use. it's a sad day. mr. yoder: mr. speaker, we are becoming a compassionate pro-life nation each and every day and all of us must speak out against these practices. we must ensure these providers are prosecuted under the law and we should pass whatever legislation necessary to ensure that we appropriately punish these acts. we shall also ensure that not one penny of american tax dollars goes to planned parenthood or any organization that performs or profits. no organization that enriches itself from unborn human life is worthy of hard earned taxpayer dollars. let us come together as representatives of the american people and declare with one voice we will not tolerate or condone something so despicable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in light of the third greek bailout announced this week, i rise with great concern over our own nation's finances. mr. speaker, last month the congressional budget office released their 2015 long-term budget outlook. this report paints a troubling picture with interest rates expected to rise and aging population increasing health care costs per person, and more and more recipients of government payments and subsidies, our nation's debt held by the public is expected to rise to 100% of our economy in just 25 years. only one other time in our history, the end of world war ii has it ever been higher. mr. speaker, doing nothing about this coming crisis is not an option. we can avoid the very predictable fiscal mistakes that has caused so much turmoil in europe. we need policies that spur economic growth. just yesterday the white house revised down their g.d.p. growth estimates for this year from 3% down to 2%. mr. speaker let's rein in our government's out-of-control spending, balance our budget, which will get our economy moving again. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. again that's h.r. 2722rk the breast cancer awareness commemorative coin act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. newhouse: mr. speaker by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution number 362 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 48 house resolution 362. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2898, to provide drought relief in the state of california, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-23. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally quided and drold by the -- divided and controlled by a prone opponent and opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house or any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the ail bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with wore without -- or without instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3038, to provide an extension of federal aide highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded occupied of the highway trust fund and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally he divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. and two, one motion to recommit. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one hour. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the good gentleman from florida my friend, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. also mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. newhouse: on tuesday, the rules committee met and reported a rule, house resolution 362 providing for consideration of two very important pieces of which is the western water and american food act of 2015 and h.r. 3038, the highway and transportation funding act of 2015, part 2. the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 2898 with a structured rule with eight amendments made in order that are evenly split between democratic and republican members of this body. the rule also provides for consideration of h.r. 3038 under a closed rule. mr. speaker, this rule will allow us to consider the western water and american food act, which is an important bill that will help us respond to the severe water shortages facing california, which i'm sure many of you have heard, and much of the western united states. many people are confronting the worst drought that they've seen in many, many years, and a growing number of communities across the west have been acutely impacted by these arid conditions. while certainly these conditions have been caused by the drought our environmental laws as well as misguided and outdated regulatory restrictions have exacerbated the situation. this bill addresses these policy failures and seeks to alleviate the impacts of drought in the short and in the long term. my own district in central washington is dealing with serious water supply shortages. actually the whole state is declared a drought area. these are impacting the agriculture energy and manufacturing sectors as well as families and small businesses that rely on adequate and stable supply of water. these conditions are also increasing the threat of dangerous wildfires and increasing the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire which could destroy homes businesses and large amounts of land as well as crippling many communities throughout the west. over the past two weeks in my state of washington, we've already seen wildfire outbreaks across the state. in cities like quincy and counties such as benton, grant adams and douglas. sadly with an extremely low snow pact and continuing -- snowpack and continuing drought conditions, we're likely to see even more fires. mr. speaker, as a third generation farmer, i know firsthand the challenges facing many in our western agriculture communities and the critically important role that water plays in agriculture success. in recognition of this fact earlier this year, i introduced h.r. 2097, the bureau of reclamation surface water storage streamlining act. this measure will speed up reclamation's feasibility process on surface water storage, spurring the development of new projects across the west and i was very proud to have it included in this essential legislation that we are considering today. water is not just a resource. it's the lifeblood of farming and ranching communities all across the west, and we must act swiftly and decisively to mitigate the impacts of the crisis we're facing. the importance of water to agriculture production cannot be overstated, and we must take steps to support this vital industry that's responsible for feeding billions of people around the globe. in fact, today i'm proud to say the average american farmer is responsible for feeding upwards of 144 people. a drastic increase of just 50 years ago when that number was around 25. the reason for this change is simple and complex. our modern farmers are growing more disease and pest-resistant crops that require less water, less pesticides and better conserve our natural resources. although modern agriculture allows us to use less water, for agriculture to flourish we still must have a reliable supply of water. mr. speaker the western water and american food act represents a comprehensive and bipartisan approach aimed at alleviating the drought's impacts through short-term and long-term measures. this bill will address the root causes of the crisis complex and inconsistent laws faulty court decisions and onerous regulations at the state and federal level that have exacerbated an already devastating drought. in california and across the west, millions are facing water shortages and rationing. yet, many of the drought's damaging affects are preventable, and h.r. 2898 aims to fix our broken regulatory system and bring our water infrastructure into the 21st century. this brings rief to millns who are facing madatory water rationing and investing in new water storage facilities to prepare for future droughts. additionally, it will provide farmers with the certainty they need to produce the majority of our nation's fruits and vegetables, which feed our nation as well as people around the world. this rule also provides for consideration of h.r. 3038, the highway and transportation funding act of 2015, part 2, a bill that will extend federal surface transportation programs as well as the hazardous materials transportation program and the dingle-johnson sport fish restoration act until december 28, 2015 and fund these programs at the fiscal year 2014 authorized level. this extension will provide the committee of jurisdiction with additional time to continue their important work towards a long-term highway and surface transportation bill. mr. speaker, this extension will provide the house and senate with time to work out a long-term surface transportation re-authorization bill in a bicameral bipartisan manner. every state transportation department in the country currently has numerous multiyear transportation projects that would benefit greatly from the increased certainty a six-year transportation bill would provide. my hope, and i think the hope of everyone in this chamber, is that this short-term extension gives us time to reach an agreement that can provide certainty for all of our constituents. additionally this legislation will also allow us to work on a resolution for the highway trust fund, which is facing a $90 billion shortfall. failing to address the trust fund would have disastrous impacts across our country. if the trust fund were to go insolvent, many state transportation and infrastructure projects grind to a halt, leading to furloughed workers and loss capital from investments on existing projects. the cost of shutting down and then restarting all of these projects would be astronomical and would end up costing our taxpayers much more in the long run. mr. speaker, another short-term extension is not what any of us would have wanted. our states need certainty, and that will only come from a long-term transportation authorization. while the bill before us may not be what we all would have preferred it is a good steppingstone to something greater. i believe passing h.r. 3038 is the right thing to do and will allow us to consider a long-term six-year authorization in the very near future. mr. speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for consideration of two critically important pieces of legislation, h.r. 2898 will help drought-stricken communities in the west by providing critically needed reforms to the broken regulatory system as well as bipartisan solutions to help provide relief to families, farms, the environment and the american economy. h.r. 3038 will ensure that many important transportation programs do not lapse and will extend the highway trust fund expenditure authority, guaranteeing that this vital fund will remain solvent and available for infrastructure projects across the country while working towards a lasting solution. with that, mr. speaker, i support the rule's adoption, i urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bills and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i seek recognition for purposes of going forward on the rule. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: first, mr. speaker, i'd like to thank the gentleman, my friend, mr. newhouse, for yielding the customary 30 minutes for debate. mr. speaker, we already know what the 2898 and 3038 are called, but they're follow-up legislation to the short-term temporary transportation funding bill that was signed into law last may. i'm concerned about the underlying bills that we are considering today. first, as i have stated on numerous occasions, i take serious issue with the manner in which the majority has chosen to consider legislation in this chamber. grouping or combining multiple unrelated pieces of legislation into one rule has become the new normal, precluding the members of this body from making informed judgment about the proper floor procedure for each measure and creating often confusing debates about an assortment of unconnected issues. the majority's insistence on the continued use of grab bag rules prevents the thoughtful deliberation that important legislation requires and does both the members of this chamber and the american people an immeasurable disservice. next, there are only nine legislative days remaining before congress recesses in august, and much important work remains. for example, millions of americans continue to suffer dire economic ramifications from the g.o.p.'s failure to re-authorize the export-import bank, the charter for which expired june 30. the ex-im bank supported 164,000 private sector american jobs in fiscal year 2014 alone, and over 1.3 million jobs since 19 -- 2009. what's more the ex-im bank has received support from the last 13 presidents, ronald reagan george bush, george h.w. bush, bill clinton. it's highly time republicans allow a vote on its re-authorization. in the face of realities such as these, republicans in congress continue to put forward legislation for consideration that has very little bipartisan support and stands even less chance of becoming law. indeed, president obama has issued a statement of administration policy advising that if he is presented with h.r. 2898, the water bill we are considering today he will veto it. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to include that statement into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: even more offensive in a display of colossal incompetence, last week the republican leadership was forced to pull their entire interior appropriations bill to protect their conference from having to defend the display of the confederate battle flag on federal land. imagery long recognized as a symbol of hatred and entolerance. as a result funding for -- intolerance. as a result, funding for the environmental protection agency whose programs protect wildlife, the environment and public health, continues to hang in the balance. this rule provides first for consideration of the western water and american food security act of 2015, which republicans claim will alleviate the drought crisis currently unfolding in california and other western states. but this bill is just another example of the countless partisan attempts made by the majority to roll back important environmental protections while also preempting state laws. let me put a footnote right there. preempting state laws. these are the people that argue states' rights and now would preempt them in western portions of our great country particularly california, and reducing water management flexibility. mr. speaker, this bill undercuts the endangered species act by changing the well-defined standard used to determine when an action negatively effects an indengered species and has an untested, undefined standard. as evidenced by this piece of legislation republicans' solution to the drought crisis is to provide handouts to big agricultural interests at the expense of the environment and everyone else. . i want to make it very clear. i represent agricultural interests as do my colleagues that are republicans, we represent all of the specialty crops and sugar gain grown and we understand these dynamics very well. not only will this bill scale back desperately needed environmental protections, it will affect thousands of fishing jobs in california and oregon that local residents depend on. given the changing standard of the endangered species act this bill will dramatically weaken protections for salmon and other fish and wildlife in california's bay delta estuary. this bill claims to help california, but even california doesn't want it. california's own secretary of natural resources has said that this bill, let me quote him, will reignite wars move water policy back into the courts and try to pit one part of the state against another. this bill will alleviate, elevate the water rights for certain agricultural contractors over the existing water rights that benefit refuges and wildlife areas. in short, this bill circumvents california's groundbreaking equitable water conservation programs and puts the desires of big agriculture over everyone else. this rule also provides this combined rule for consideration of h.r. 3038, termed the highway and transportation funding act of 2015 part 2. because it is yet another short-term temporary pact to ensure that the highway trust fund does not become solvent. the ninth time we are patching. if you had a tire and you are riding down a highway and every time you look up you have to have another patch, pretty soon you recognize that you need new tires. and what we need in this country is a six-year highway bill. back in may when congress passed and the president signed a bill, we can now appropriately call the highway and transportation funding act of 2015 part 1 at that time we were assured by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that a multiyear bill that would provide the long-term funding certainty and stability needed to keep transportation and construction projects operating was on the horizon. that was in may. we were promised mr. speaker, that if we voted to provide funding through july 31 the comprehensive multiyear highway bill america so desperately needs would become a reality in time to avoid any insolvency. unfortunately, today we find ourselves in the same situation as we did in may and i just heard my good friend from washington make the argument that in the next six months we'll be able to work together to do the things necessary for a six-year highway bill, and i'm paraphrasing what he said. as we did in may, the rapidly approaching or self-imposed deadline and frantically seeking an interim fix like its predecessor, this highway bill does nothing to address the long-term solvency of the highway trust fund. one thing i have learned here about kicking the can down the road, if kicking the can down the road was an olympic sport, what we would win here in the united states congress, we would win gold, we would win bronze, we would win silver, and we would win aluminum for kicking the can down the road. instead, we are again being asked to vote for legislation that would keep the highway trust fund solvent through december 18, and note that date. december 18. just before christmas so we can play the game if you don't vote for this next patch, if we don't do six years, then we'll keep you here till christmas. without the necessary assurances that a long-term bill will become a reality. this is no way to govern. our insistence on kicking the can down the road does nothing to protect american jobs or invest in critical infrastructure that every man and woman in this house of representatives recognizes is desperately needed in this nation of falling bridges and pox marked roads. finally investing in our nation's infrastructure and indeed in our nation's future will require us to make tough choices. instead of considering raising the federal gas tax, i said the ugly word, federal gas tax, the primary source of funding for the highway trust fund, which has not been increased since 1993 people, this bill seeks to cut taxes on liquefies natural gas and liquefies petroleum gas at a cost of $90 million over the next decade. any comprehensive highway bill must consider in part addressing the federal gas tax. why don't we just face up to that. go to our constituents, explain it to them so they will understand that this is a desperate need for this entire nation. our failure to come together to pass a multiyear transportation bill year after year has resulted in 65% of our nation's roads being rated deficient. all you have to do is drive around washington to recognize that. 25% of our nation's bridges in disrepair and left 45% of americans without access to transit. this failure has far-reaching p -- bipartisan legislation that will provide the certainty and consistency required to fuel jobs and keep the highways and other transportation infrastructure safe. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman virginia tech. a mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i share the gentleman from florida's enthusiasm for the important work that -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. newhouse: thank you mr. speaker. i share the gentleman from florida's enthusiasm for the important work that is before us. i am excited as a freshman congressman to be able to be part of this institution, certainly, but to be able to do this hard work that we have in front of us. we have a lot to do and doing it in this way allows us to get to these important things quickly. this time i would like to yield four minutes to a young man from california who shares a very interesting perspective because he's living the drought conditions that we just read about in the state of california. the author of this important bill we have before us, a resident of hanford california mr. david valadao. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. valadao: thank you the gentleman from washington for his help with this important legislation. a little bit on the history of the valley and area i represent. that area's an area filled with immigrants. when you look at my district and look at the people i represent, 80% are minority. one of the reasons i feel that i have the opportunity to be elected and honor being able to represent that district is because of my own background. my dad came to this country in 1969 as a new immigrant, didn't speak english as well as he should and still o to -- to this day speaks with a strong accent. but my dad started working in plants and trying to save money so he could start his own farm someday and give us the opportunity to have the american dream. he learned to speak spanish working alongside a lot of hispanic folks and working really hard and saving his money. he had the opportunity to save enough money to actually buy some cattle and work his way up to the point where he actually owned land. when we look at an opportunity for the american dream and listen to the people talk about the opportunity to be successful and protect the small business guy, i am that guy. i'm the guy that had that opportunity because of my parents, because of their hard work i have been in that struggle, i don't just represent them in congress, i am that face. i am that person, had that opportunity because of that hard work. and when we see the struggle and someone claims to tell me or tell us on our side what those struggles are really like and how this piece of legislation has an impact only for the largest and large, when you raise the cost of water because you restrict the amount of water we have delivered to the valley, it hurts the smallest guy the most. those people that i represent that 80% minority district those folks seeing unemployment numbers as high as 50% because those farmers are not getting that water those food lines that are starting to grill that i stood in helped serve food, food grown in other countries because we couldn't grow it in the valley is all people that my friends are trying to represent but they don't because they don't have that background. they didn't have that opportunity to be there to work with them and grow number that light where they had the work before and after school like i did, drive a tractor, do that stuff because that's what the american dream is all about. working saving your money, and having that opportunity. but also having government at their back. right now government is making it more and more difficult for that little guy because water has gotten so expensive because you have the large cities coming in spending a bunch of money, water is going right through the valley to the southern portion. all we are asking for in this piece of legislation is for common sense. common sense that says let's look at what science we are using. if we are going to protect a species, show me the evidence that means and actually delivers protection of species. we have lived through two decades of this and now we are seeing that the endangered species they claim to want to protect is on the virge of annihilation, almost extinct almost delivering no water. when we have gotten allocation the past two queers -- years of zero%. we are not asking to teach us how to conserve water woofment done that. we are at zero. we have zero water and we have high unemployment numbers. we have people standing in lines asking for food and begging for help when all they want to do is work and provide an honest living for their families and for their neighbors. we have seen too much suffering. it's getting old. we need to pass legislation. we need people who are sincere in this conversation to show up, show some courage a. vote for this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much. mr. speaker. when the gentleman speaks growing up in that area, my father grew up in griffin, georgia, on a farm. my first job was on a farm. i picked beans. i stripped celery. i cut chickry. i don't need lectures about not understanding farming. i picked beans in florida that i'm proud to represent now as their congressperson. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman, my good friend from vermont, mr. welsh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for three minutes. mr. welsh: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, america needs a long-term sustainably funded surface transportation bill. you know it. i know it. the governors in all of our states know it. we need it to re-- repair our roads and bridges and fix our crumbling infrastructure. every single one of the 435 members in this body has needs in our district. speaker boehner has a 135 deficient bridges in his district. leader pelosi, 29. in my state of vermont, we have 252 structurally deficient bridges, a photo of one of them is right here. it's disgraceful and unnecessary. yet instead of facing up to this problem that we all share in doing something that a proud and confident country would do invest in its future, instead with reckless irresponsibility we are acting once again to dodge our duty with yet another short-term extension of our highway bill. this time the plan is a bold extension for five months through december 18. can our transportation agencies really plan a bridge replacement for major repair in the next five months? by the way, how is it paid for? not by asking users to pay, which has been traditionally the way we funded our roads and bridges. but by, in this case, among other dubious devices where we are asking airline passengers 10 years from now to pay a few billion dollars to fix our highways tomorrow. think about it. airline passengers in 10 years, 2025 will pay for road repairs we make tomorrow. by the way, this resort to gimmicks, it's not new. it's become a habit. this is the 35th short-term extension in the past six years. the last one in july of 2014. that one was paid for by the gimmick of all gimmicks. pension smoothing. we created a pothole in somebody's pension in the future to fix a pothole in their highway today. mr. speaker we need a long-term plan. we need it first to restore some semblance of duty and responsibility to this house of representatives that has failed to do its job. we need it to have those 600,000 good paying jobs start digging dirt and fixing those roads and bridges and we need it to make america more competitive. mr. speaker, enough is enough. i urge you to join me in voting no to this joke of a short-term plan. no more band-aid, no more patches, no more smoke and mirrors, no more gimmicks. american contractors and workers are ready to do their job it's time for congress to do its job and pass a long-term highway transportation bill. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> i was just handed a statement from the office of the president, a statement of his spoil position on h.r. 3038 it says the administration supports passage of h.r. 3038 to give the house and senate time to work on a long-term bill this year that increases investment to meet the needs of the nation's infrastructure. mr. newhouse: at this time i'm please today yield two minutes to a fellow freshman gentleman from the great state of nevada, the scenic virgin valley of nevada, mr. crescent hardy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hardy: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding me time to speak on this important rule on h.r. 330 -- 3038, the act. at no time in recent memory has the significance and proactivity of managing our water resources across the west been more important. i can sympathize with my colleagues from across the neighboring state of california who are also facing for the fourth consecutive year of dwroifplgt obviously cannot afford to keep this status quo. as the only member of nevada's house delegation on the natural resources committee, i take a great deal of pride in speaking up for my constituents and the people of my state on important issues facing our communities. and those communities are affected by the droughts currently affecting california's central valley, the source of so much of our nation's food. for those in my district and around the country who are still battling to get this economic recovery they can ill afford to pay for for their hard-earned income at the supermarket to feed their families. as a son of farmers and ranchers from southeastern nevada, i feel for the hardworking farmers whose suffering is being made worse by burdensome environmental laws and the failure of our elected leaders to provide adequate water infra-- infrastructure to meet the ever-growing demands of the 21st century. though long overdue we have a real opportunity to provide some commonsense solution to very dire situation. again, i would like to thank the gentleman from washington for yielding me some time and i strongly urge a yes vote on the rule and a yes on the underlying bill. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: would you be kind enough to advise how much time remains on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 13 minutes. the gentleman from florida has 15 minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased that the time to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend from california, ms. hahn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. for two minutes. ms. hahn: thank you. i i thank my colleague from florida for allowing me these few minutes. i rise today to explain why i'm voting against this rule today. as has been said, california is now in the fourth year of a record drought. in response, our state and local governments have implemented mandatory conservation measures. but we also need to think about how we will increase our water supply. the bill that the house will consider today does not do that. it just moves watter from one -- water from one place to another. that's why i attempted to offer an amendment to address current water needs. however my amendment was not made in order by the rule committees. my father, who was los angeles county supervisor kenny hahn had an idea in the 1970's to build a water pipeline from alaska to california. the idea was never completely investigated but continues to have merit. therefore, i believe that the department of interior should study the feasibility of a water pipeline network linking our nation's federal reservoirs to transport water from wet regions to the dry regions in this country. and that's what i thought my amendment would accomplish. my proposal, i thought, was a first step in building pipelines from regions that have more than enough water to regions that do not. if we can transport oil by pipeline, we should be able to do the same thing with water. i'm disappointed that the rules committee did not find this amendment in order. it was a study to determine if this idea is feasible. i believe a water pipeline and other creative ideas to increase our water supply should be studied. i think my fellow californian would support an idea like this we could consider. to ensure that california and other states have enough water for our residents and other needs, even during periods of drought, now and in the future. i think congress should encourage and support efforts leading to these kinds of creative solutions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: adding to the california voice, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the junge man from the san joaquin valley, mr. nunes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: i thank the gentleman from the rules committee and chairman sessions for again bringing a water bill to the floor of the house. five years ago, we passed a water bill very similar to this. it was in a year where we had abundant rainfall. unfortunately, that rain was not captured. the water flows right -- flowed right out to the ocean and was wasted. we continue to dump water out to the ocean over the last four years, even today, we're continuing to dump water out to the ocean. so when i hear my colleagues talk about drought yes, we're in the third year of a drought. a very bad drought. but in fact the founding fathers of our state built the water systems to withstand five years of drought. back from 1987 to 1992, a drought that i still remember, many of my constituents remember we really didn't have harsh problems until that fifth year of the drought. since that time, places down in los angeles have built big water storage projects. in our area, no nut water storage projects, only taking water away. you go to 1992 they pass the central valerie project improvement act that took a million acre-feet away and dumped it out to the ocean. in 2009, the san joaquin river act took another 250,000 acre-feet and wasted it. in addition to that, you've had lawsuits brought forth by the endangered species act by radical environmental groups that have taken the rest of the water away. the reason we don't have any water is not because of drought. it's because we didn't hold the watt enwe we had a chance to hold the water and keep the water and use it and spread it throughout the state of california. in fact, it's unfortunately to -- unfortunate to say, because i don't wish ill on the people in san francisco or the valley, but they get their water from our area that they pipe over instead of contributing to the environment. i don't have the -- i don't want the people of san francisco to lose their water but at the same time the people of san francisco shouldn't be willing to forfeit and give up our water that we rightfully own while they're taking some of ours and not contributing to the fish populations that no matter how much water we put down the river and out to the ocean, the fish continue to die. so at some point, you would think that people would step back and say, well rks if flushing water out to the ocean doesn't work and hasn't helped the fish populations, then we should stop doing it. with that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you mr. speaker. to add further perfect frive california i yield three minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. matsui: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2898. california is the fourth year of a devastating drought and what is on the hougs floor today does nothing to -- on the house floor today does nothing to akess the crisis but rather sets california back by fanning the flames of centuries old water wars. the story of california and the west drought is known across the country because it is unprecedented. not only has our annual rainfall plummeted but for the first time in our history, california has no snow pack. none. the snow in the in the sierras wasn't sustained us through the dry summers and replenished our streams with cold water, but not this year. folsom reservoir, just upstream from the city of sacramento is expected to be at the lowest it's been by the end of september, less than 15% of capacity. this is not due to government mismanagement. or environmental restrictions. it is due to the lack of rain. we need real solutions to this crisis. short and long-term solutions. there are no silver bullet solutions. it is an all of the above approach and it should certainly not lead to fear mongering legislation like h.r. 289 . for the short term, our state has used the flexibility it already has to move the water and make timely deliries to make the best of this very -- deliveries, to make the best of this very, very bad situation. we also need to continue our conservation efforts and fix our infrastructure where there are leaks and waste. in the long-term we need to be investing in wastewater recycling above and below ground water storage, and new technologies to help us monitor our water use on demand. i've introduced a sensible bill that will allow wastewater recycling projects to move forward much more quickly with federal support. we should be debating solutions like that, and not wasting time yet again on a bill that does not solve the real problems. as a daughter of a central valley farmer and granddaughter of another, i grew up on the farm. and i deeply understand the value of and the controversy over water. in northern california, we have done our best to balance our watershed, provide water for our farms, our cities, and the environment. to say that this bill will help the drought is grossly misleading and frankly irresponsible. mr. speaker, even if we pump as much water south as possible, it still wouldn't be enough. the problem is a lack of rain. there is simp will -- simply no more water to pump from the delta. this bill only further divides our state. my district the city of sacramento, the sacramento region, and northern california as a whole strongly opposes this bill. some of the concerns that have been raised include the laws of state -- the loss of the state's right to manage its own water, the loss of environmental protection for she san joaquin delta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. matsui: i yield back, please vote against this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a fellow member of the rules committee, the gentleman from lawrenceville georgia, mr. bad awl. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- mr. woodall:. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- from georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: you serve on the transportation committee as i do. you know how important it is we get to these infrastructure questions. i see colleague after colleague after colleague saying we need long-term solutions to infrastructure. but i don't see any colleague saying those long-term solutions are available to us as we stand here today. i don't have to get everything i want in this institution but i do have to move the ball forward. three yards and a cloud of dust is what i tell constituents back home is the way we're going to get what we all want for this country. and if the answer is, sit on your hands and do nothing for this thing that has been so vexing so this institution, we're looking at 34 35 extensions. we have an opportunity to put a stop to it. the senate in its wildest imagination says maybe we can get a four-year deal. most likely it will be an 18-month deal, but when i turn to the chairman of the ways and means committee here in the house, when i turn to the chame of the transportation committee here in the house they say, colleagues, give me five months and we can do it right. colleagues, give me five months and we will do what no other congress has been able to do for nearly a decade. give us five months. and we will deliver on not just is the promises but the expectations that every single american has. my colleagues, we have gotten in the business of telling the american people that they can have their roads for free and that's not true. if you want better roads to drive on you've got to provide the money to make that happen. for years our solution has been to transfer general fund revenues into the user fee funded transportation accounts. user fees means that people who benefit from it, pay for it. i've never bumped into an american who didn't believe they ought to pay for what they use. i've never bumped into an american who didn't believe that paying their fair share was at the fabric of who we are as a nation. this rule gives us the best chance we have and the best chance we've had in a decade to make transportation certainty a reality for this country. it means better roads it means more savings of taxpayer dollars, it means better efficiency, it means more accountability and i'm grateful to my friend on the rule committees for bringing this rule forward, giving me an opportunity to cast my yes vote on this rule and a yes vote on the underlying bill, five months to a better solution for america. mr. speaker, i yield back. . mr. hastings: i'll keep my good friend from georgia's statement for him, december 18, and remind him what he said. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i listen to my friend from georgia talking about five months and we'll be able to finally fix this. i actually have in my hand my speech from one year ago today. it speaking on the rule where we dodged the bullet again. i said at that time, you know, i could pull out some of my other speeches because all this does is let people off the hook. i'm going to enter my speech in the record because i could have given it verbatim. why didn't we fix it last fall? or this spring? my good friend from washington used to serve in the state legislature. his state legislature just passed a 15 cent gas tax increase. joining a list of six states all republican states that have raised the gas tax this year. my friend from georgia says he's never met anybody that doesn't really want to pay for their infrastructure. well he ought to take a hard look at his leadership. they have denied an opportunity to move forward with something championed by ronald reagan in 1982 when the gas tax at his direction under his leadership was raised 125%. there's no excuse to keep torturing people at the state and local government level, to stop enabling people to avoid their responsibility here. my good friend, mr. defazio, is on the floor, he and bill shuster, the chair of the transportation infrastructure committee in two months could give us a six-year bill, but congress has to give them a number. does anybody in their right mind think that we are going to go into 2016 with half the people in the other body running for president holidays treaties think again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: it is a fool's errand. we ought to step up. follow ronald reagan's lead. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i reserve my time. inquire how much time we have left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has eight minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you speaker gingrich. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 3064, a comprehensive six-year surface transportation bill that is partially paid for by restricting u.s. companies from using so-called inversion to shirk their tax obligations. to discuss our proposal i will now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, my good friend, the ranking member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon investigate for three -- is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as we have heard a year ago today the house passed a temporary extension, one year. chairman ryan, ways and means, who is supposed to figure out how to pay for this said we will use this year to put the transportation highway trust fund on a sustainable path so we can avoid stopgap legislation in the future. well, it didn't happen. but they were occupied with much more important things. for instance, they said that a state's estate's worth more than $10 million shouldn't pay a penny taxes. none. that cost $289 billion. if we dedicated that to surface transportation, we could have basically doubled spending over 10 years. so today the democrats are here to offer a real six-year long-term increase in investment in america's failing infrastructure. 140,000 bridges need repair or replacement on the national highway system. 40% of the pavement is at the point where you have to dig up the underlimit, rebuild the whole road. we have an $84 billion backlog just bringing our existing transit systems up to a state of repair. it's so bad that people are dying on metro here in washington, d.c., because of the decrepe pit condition of thecies tefment -- decrepit condition of the system. under our funding proposal and our bill, we would create an additional 300,000 jobs a year. and we need those jobs here in america. and they are good-paying jobs. they are not just construction jobs. they are engineering, they are technical, they are small business, they are minority business enterprises. they are a whole host of things that would lift the whole economy make us more energy efficient, make us americans save money getting out of congestion not driving their cars through giant potholes and incuring costs. the republicans can't figure out how to get there. well, we are offering an alternative. a good solid six-year bill and, yeah, we haven't figured out the six-year funding yet because you guys are totally opposed to uter fees despite ronald reagan, dwight eisenhower, and history of the republican party on user fees and former chairman of the committee bud shuster who joined the democrats in 1993 the last time we raised the gas tax. we would fund two years of this bill by prohibiting corporate inversions, i.e. benedict armed corporations that continue to have all of their operations in america but go overseas and buy some minor entity and claim that's their international headquarters. like a corner drugstore in london somewhere for a pharmaceutical company. an outrageous practice while they enjoy all the benefits of america, all the protections of our law and military and all those costs, they don't want to pay. they don't want to pay for transportation either. so we are offering an alternative today if we defeat the previous question. we would go into an open rule something that never happens much around here where both sides of the aisle any member of congress could offer an amendment to increase spending, decrease spending, target one or another part of the infrastructure that they feel need more investment. i urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, move to an open rule, something we were promised when republicans took over. fund the six-year bill. we'll give you two years of funding and we can figure out -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time of the the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i'm pleased at this time to yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, my good friend mr. van hollen, who is the ranking member of the committee on the budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank my friend from florida mr. hastings and congratulate mr. defazio and mr. blumenauer on all their work on trying to modernize our national infrastructure. they know what every american out there knows which is that we have an embarrassing state of affairs when it comes to our roads, our bridges, and our transit ways. it's not just them. we also know from the american society of civil engineers who are the nonpartisan pros that they have concluded we have failing infrastructure. they gave our infrastructure system a grade of d plus. a grade we should all be embarrassed by. but what's even worse is this congress should get a grade of f for its refusal to actually do something about it. so we are about to see an expiration of the authorization in a few weeks. funding will dry out in a few weeks. and so what is the proposal from our republican colleagues? let's do five more months through december at a level they know is inadequate. to help modernize our infrastructure. that's their proposal. as my colleagues have said, we have been here before. and we are tired of band-aid. who can plan to modernize their infrastructure with just a five-month time period? these are major investments or states are making. major investments we are making on behalf of our country. and to not have any kind of certainty that the funds are going to be there after the end of december? is something that is embarrassing for a country like the united states of america. so we are proposing today to do the six-year plan. mr. defazio has put that forward. the president has put forward the six-year plan, the grow america plan. the modernize our infrastructure and grow more jobs in the process. and we fund the first two-year installment. how do we fund it? we fund it through a mechanism that i will bet you virtually every american will support. which was to close these pernicious tax loopholes that are allowing american companies simply to move their mailing address overseas in order to dodge their obligations to the american people. these companies are not moving their employees, they are not moving their management, they are not moving their factories or anything else. they are just changing their mailing address by acquiring a small overseas company called inversions. and by doing that they are escaping their responsibilities to their own country. that's why my colleague called them the benedict arnold corporation. they are still benefiting from everything this country has to offer. educating their employees, the infrastructure that we do have. all the other support structures they get. but they don't want to pay for t and when they don't pay for -- pay for it. and when they don't pay for it guess who pays for it? the american people. their taxes go up or we have to borrow more on our credit card to pay for it. what we are saying is, let's stop these inversions let's use that $41 billion $41 billion to fund the first two-year installment of a robust infrastructure plan. and we can do it now. we have introduced the bill h.r. 3064, introduced by mr. defazio and myself and mr. israel, mr. levin, miss holmes norton. the next vote we have, the next vote we cast will allow this body to take up that legislation. so we don't have to kick the can down the road for just five months with all that uncertainty. we can vote to do a robust six-year plan at a modernized infrastructure and pay for it by shutting down these loopholes that corporations are abusing. so let's take that money that's right now going to the pockets of people who are dodging our tax laws, let's invest in infrastructure. let's get the job done today not five months from now or a year from now. let's get it done today. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. defeat the previous question so we can take it up. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has eight minutes remaining. the gentleman from florida has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the good gentleman from california, mr. denham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. denham: thank you. it is an important and critical time for the state of california. we are facing an unprecedented drought that is affecting farms families communities that are just being completely shut off from water. communities that are not only being rationing but now having to have water trucked in. now, this has been an ongoing battle. this battle has been going on for years, some would say this is all due to climate change. but shouldn't we as a country, shouldn't we as a state be focused on infrastructure that will actually capture water so we can save the water for years like this rather than seeing huge unemployment levels, rather than seeing people waiting in line to receive free food because they can't get a job shouldn't we be making the simple fixes to actually store and company -- capture our water. the amendments talk about desalinization. sure, i'm fine with that. i think we ought to use every opportunity we have. but rather than putting all of our clean water pushing it out to the ocean, only to desalinate the saltwater bring it back into clean water, shouldn't we first start by saving the precious resources that we have? sure, desalinization is a good idea but taught autoto be mixed in with everything else we do. we ought to be actually protecting the fish that we talk about protecting. let's actually address the predator fish that eat 95% to 98% of the fish that we are trying to save and spending millions of dollars not only trying to save them but pushing out thousands of acre-feet of water fresh water, that would go to our communities, that would create thousands of jobs rather than seeing this huge population that begins to see unemployment levels at record levels. we ought to do the restoration to the environment. we have a number of different tributaries that we entered into an agreement on, bipartisan agreements to actually address the restoration of that area, but rather than actually restore the river beds -- will the gentleman yield one more minute. . but rather than restore the river beds, we truck the fish around the river. it doesn't help the environment, couldn't help the fish and certainly does not help the communities of the california. what the rest of the country needs to worry about is the shortage of food, the scarcity of food we'll see across the country not only from california but the high prices that go with it. you're affecting the american family, you're affecting the jobs in california, and it is time to fix this water situation on the west coast of the united states and in california and to do it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: would the speaker be kind enough to advise my colleague that i have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve the balance of his time? mr. hastings: yes. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: i have one more good gentleman from california i'd like to hear from i yield two minutes to the young man from richmond, california, mr. lamalfa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamalfa: this bill, 2898 is a product of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and will protect water rights, store more water in winner storm, address invasive fish that are decimating endangered species and advance new water structure and prepare for droughts. one project alone would reduce the state's need for rationing by 60% with that project. my northern california district is a source of a vast amount of the state's usable water supply its large reservoirs. yet even my constituents are facing water rationing. fields across my district are fallow because federal agencies haven't adapted to drought conditions. while some would prefer to hand out boar road money, doing so only ensure this is crisis will be repeated again and again. our can bes in our lakes are already desperate. folsom lake will soon be a dead pool and that's an important water source for sacramento, due to the atempts to try to keep water under salmon down there. this bill increases access to water with all californians without benefiting one reat the expense of another. california and the nation can't wait any longer. we need h.r. 2898 to move forward in the way we have before. this is action to move on california's drought and add to california's water supply. i urge support for h.r. 28898. let's get california back moving again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material along with the -- immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: there's too little time left on the legislative calendar for us to be considering partisan legislation that we've been assured will not become law. furthermore, the future our nation's highways and transportation systems are far too important to continue to fund using short-term band-aid patches. our constituents, this great country, deserves better. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, in closing, the issues we consider here today are critical to the stability of our transportation infrastructure and the health of our rural western communities wells the economic well being of our country this rule provides for consideration of h.r. 3038, the highway and transportation funding act, as well as h.r. 2898, the western water and american food act. a comprehensive and bipartisan bill that aims at alleviating drought impacts in the short and long term. water is not just a resource in the west tavepls life -- it's the life blood of farming and ranching across the region. we must act swiftly and decisively to mitigate the impacts of the crisis. california and many areas in the west are facing devastating drought conditions this bill fixing the bureaucratic and regulatory mess that has prevented people from getting water they so desperately need. failing to pass this bill would deal a devastating wrowblow to farm families and the american economy. many families, businesses, and ag producers are dealing with some of the most dire drought conditions they've seen in decade. a growing number of communities have been impacted by water shortages and rationing. however, most of the damaging effects of the drought are preventable. and this bill comes to the aid of the west by fixing the broken regulatory system and updating our water infrastructure for this coming century. while the root cause of this crisis is the drought, complex and inconsistent laws, misguided court decisions and burdensome regulations have exacerbated an already devastating situation. mr. speaker, this bill addresses these policy failures and seeks to alleviate the drought's short and long-term impacts. it will give immediate relief to millions of americans who are facing mandatory water rationing and will invest in new water storage facilities to prepare for future droughts. while the obama administration has issued a veto threat for this bill, people suffering in the west have little time for political theater which is why i'm urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this critical legislation. this rule also provides for consideration of h.r. 3038, the highway and transportation funding act. a bill that will extend the federal surface transportation programs. this extension will provide the house and senate with time to work autoa long-term surface transportation re-authorization in a bicameral, bipartisan manner. this bill will also allow us to work toward a resolution of the highway trust fund, which is currently facing a $90 billion shortfall, as we've heard. if we fail to address the trust fund its insolvency would have disastrous impacts on states across our country. many projects would grind to a halt, workers would be furloughed, and existing infrastructure investments would be lost. while another short-term extension is not what any of us wanted, our states need certainty and that certainty can only come from a long-term re-authorization of these transportation programs as well as a lasting solution for the trust fund. mr. speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for consideration of two important pieces of legislation that will help protect our rural western communities while providing much relief from devastating water shortages and drought conditions. it will also ensure that many important transportation programs do not lapse and will extend the highway trust fund expenditure authority so that this vital fund remains sol gent and available for projects across the country. while we work toward a lasting solution, i appreciate the discussion we've had over the last hour, it's been great. very enlightening. although we may have some differences of opinion. i believe this rule and underlying bills are strong measures that are important to our country's future. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 362 and the underlying bills. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded volt. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for a yeas and nays? the yeas and nays are requested. those in support of the request for the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 245, the nays are 182. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida requests a recorded vote. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245. the nays are 183. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3038. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution rule 362, i call up the bill h.r. 3038, to provide an extension of federal aid highway highway safety, motor carrier safety transit and for other purposes funded in the highway trust fund and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 338, a bill to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 362, the bill is considered as read. the bill will be debatable for one hour controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. shuster, the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 15 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3038 the highway and transportation funding act of 2015, part 2. this bill extends the federal surface transportation programs through december 18 of 2015. h.r. 3038 is a clean extension and funds the programs that authorizes levels for fiscal year 2014. the bill also ensures the solvency of the highway trust fund. we have an immediate critical need to address the solvency of the trust fund and extend the current surface transportation law. if congress fails to act, the states will not be able to be reimbursed for past expenses, projects and jobs across the country will be at risk, over 4,000 u.s. department of transportation employees will be furloughed. i appreciate chairman ryan's attention to this pressing issue as well as his commitment to addressing the solvency of the trust fund. a long-term surface transportation re-authorization bill remains a top priority for this committee and it should be for this congress. i am committed to continuing to work with chairman ryan, ranking member defazio and others on achieving a long-term re-authorization bill. i believe this extension gives us our best shot, so i strongly urge all members to support 3038, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i ronically it was exactly one year ago today -- ironically it was exactly one year ago today that the chairman of the ways and means committee said they needed time to come together for funding a six-year surface transportation bill investing in our transportation system. one year ago today. there was an extension till may. there was the extension until the end of the year. there was an extension to may. i think 34 temporary extensions we've seen now. and now we're talking about another temporary extension with the hope that maybe they can find some money under the couch cushions or pass tax reform and cut taxes on rich people and use dynamic scoring and put it in the trust fund. i don't know what their solution is. we've had a user-fee funded transportation system in this country since dwight david eisenhower was president. followed by ronald reagan who doubled the tax and ronald reagan also put transit into the highway trust fund, saying we should not ignore our population centers and are actually centers of economic growth. and then in 1993, granted it, democratic president, democratic congress, but we didn't quite have the votes to increase the gas tax and bud shuster, our republican chair of the transportation committee back then, actual relation to the current chairman, he brought us quite a number of republicans to vote with the democrats to go with 18.3 cents a gallon and there it stood since 1993. we're hearing now you can't increase the gas tax, so i've offered alternatives. let's eliminate the gas tax and put a tax on a barrel of oil a fraction that goes into taxable transportation uses, which economists say wall street might eat part of that because they're speculating so much. exxonmobil might eat part of that. opec, hey, we might get saudi arabia to pay for a little bit of our infrastructure. i'm told, no, they can't do that. proposed just indexing the existing gas tax and bonding. pay it back over time with that increment. now, if we double index the gas tax it might go up 1.7 cents next year, and there's apparently a fear in this place that if gas went up 1.7 cents a gallon unlike exxonmobil jacking it up 20 cents in may because memorial day is coming, but filling the potholes fixing the bridges, raising 1.7 cents, oh, my god, people will lose their elections. we've seen six republican states raise their gas tax and those same states said to us in testimony, it's not enough we're raising the gas tax. we need more federal investment. the system's falling apart. 140,000 bridges, 140,000 need replacement. 70% of the national highway system needs to be dug up and rebuilt. and our transit systems, $84 billion backlog to bring them up to a state of good repair. it's so bad in washington d.c., they're killing people. they're killing people on the transit system because it is so outmoded. now if we made those investments and we made them in a more robust level than we're doing now, we could put hundreds of thousands of americans to work not just construction workers, you're talking manufacturing, you're talking small business, you're talking minority business enterprises, you're talking engineering, you're talking technical. the buy america requirements are the strongest in the whole government. it would have an incredible stimulus effect on the economy in addition of putting people back to work and we could climb back toward we were. dwight david eisenhower gave us a system that was the envy of the world. we were number one in infrastructure. we're now 16th. we're dropping like a rock. pretty soon we'll be down there with, you know, third-world countries in terms of state of our infrastructure in this country. it's embarrassing. it's pathetic. it's not necessary, and today we should be considering a long-term bill. we've introduced a viable long-term bill. we proposed a way to pay for the first two years saying benedict arnold can't buy a pharmacy overseas but we're enjoying all the protections of our citizens, military but we don't want to pay for it and our infrastructure. but there are ways forward. there seems to be an incredible reluctance on our side saying, here we are again saying let's do a patch until december 18. meanwhile, the senate over there is spinning in who knows what kind of circles. they're proposing to get most of the money by reducing retirement for federal employees. now, that is a tremendous relationship to infrastructure and user fees. let's not get too far away from the idea of user pays. with that i retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. graves: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to make note that the highway program funding mechanism expires at the end of this month. it expires. it means it runs out of funding. voting against this bill causes the program to shut down, causes a decline, a dropoff in investment in our nation's infrastructure. right now we're seeing growth, we're seeing increasing demand. as the gentleman from oregon just noted we're seeing underinvestment in our infrastructure system. we've got to increase the investment. we've got to work hard to address the outdated funding mechanism that funds our current highway system. as was noted, we have lost value in the current funding mechanism. having a user fee is absolutely critical, but a user fee that ensures the level of investment that we truly need. this extension gives us time to re-create that. we have been using the same user fee for decades. a user fee with static figures since 1993 as was just mentioned, and a user fee that has conflicting federal policies that reduces the value of the income of this trust fund as a result of the corporate average fuel economy, cafe standards, that require greater fuel standards out of vehicles. so we've got to take a fresh look at this. we've got to take this time and use it wisely to ensure that we can ensure the level of funding that we need to invest in our nation's infrastructure. we need a fundamentally different approach and we need to do it without raising taxes. mr. speaker, back in our home state of louisiana we have some of the worst traffic in the nation for a reason of its size. we have an area that the interstate system, the only place in the nation where it literally drops down to one lane. the interstate. an incredible bottle neck in the same area where we're having a manufacturing renaissance, where we're seeing tens of billions of dollars in new economic development opportunities. yet, the infrastructure is struggling. the infrastructure is strangling that growth and strangling that investment. i urge all members to support this. i urge all members to work together to ensure we develop a new funding stream that meets the demand of our crumbling infrastructure in this nation. i want to thank chairman shuster. i want to thank chairman ryan and ranking member defazio to ensure that this legislation moves forward. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, the ranking member of the surface transportation subcommittee -- the gentlewoman from washington, ranking member of the surface transportation subcommittee, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the majority has turned virtually its only congressional policy, tax savings on its head with useless short-term transportation bills and extensions. their short-term policy on the nation's highways, bridges and transit has simply transferred the transportation tax burden to the state taxes of their constituents. 21 states and the district of columbia have raised their gas user fees six cents july 1. iowa new hampshire, pennsylvania rhode island, virginia, vermont, the district of columbia, south dakota, idaho, georgia, nebraska vermont. states going in that direction, michigan, north carolina, utah and washington state. states also considering user fee increases are kentucky missouri new jersey, south carolina. that makes almost half the states that congress has driven to state taxpayers alone. states that have nothing in common except the desire to keep their transportation infrastructure, the key to a growing economy from completely disintegrating. meanwhile, their representatives in washington have continually failed to pay their part. on the average about 50% of the cost of state infrastructure with federal dollars. yet, the federal dollars are only a path through that goes right back to the states. for 22 years, we have allowed the federal user fee to remain fixed at 1993 levels, all though fuel efficiency long ago made that obsolete. . although american taxpayers have stepped up, they can't do their projects without a federal long-term bill. in the nation's capital, for example the iconic memorial bridge, gateway to arlington cemetery and the south and on the north, the national mall, is partially closed, leaving thousands of workers unable to take metro bustos get to work. even brings like the h street bridge here which needs only repair is standing in the way of billions of dollars of nontransportation development here and nationwide system of whatever the congress does in the next authorization bill, two things must be done. we must put in pilots that instruct us, guide us, for new ways to fund transportation infrastructure in light of fuel efficiencies such as cars like my hybrid ford c-max. and most of all to be useful at all, we must have a six-year transportation bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. >> i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. here we are, last minute to avoid an infrastructure disaster across the country. how did we get here? well when we knew that we needed a substantial amount of money, the other side of the aisle found out that there was a little bit of money left and we had asked the -- asked several months ago to consider going to the end of the year, when we're doing tax reform, and we could find sufficient money to fund a four to six-year bill. they said no. they had to spend the last dime in the cookie jar, take it out of the cookie jar and that's what put us in this situation. what that has done is, at least seven states have almost closed down their infrastructure projects. states that -- my state isn't affected by some of the northern states are affected because they have a very short work period. they're missing that work period. and states don't operate like the federal government. they have to pay their bills. they can't be spending and producing and printing paper money without backing. so we've let them down. so here we are asking to go where we wanted to go before to december. so i urge my -- the members to go and pass this legislation. and it's kind of interesting sometimes i think that there's a lot of amnesia around here. maybe we -- mr. speaker, i don't know if we can go down to the health clinic and get a supply of gingko, but it would be good to give the members on the other side of the aisle gingko to help their memory. three years ago, they controlled the house, the senate and the white house. they could have passed this legislation. we would have a bill in place now. the president came in, i was there, ray lahood came out, cut the knees out of mr. oberstar when he was chairman and said, they weren't going to move forward take weren't going to raise taxes. now they call for raising taxes. 21 states have raised it. they've done the responsible thing. they have to do it. it's better for home to do it because the overhead and carrying charge is so great in washington. so they have to do it. going to the well instead of raising gas taxes? didn't we recommend that to the other side and they ignored it? i think we need a double dose of gingko. i think now we step up to the plate, we help mr. shuster and mr. ryan, they'll get us to december. the leadership of the house is committed to a long-term bill and we'll get that done. everybody working together and maybe a few people having another little dose of gingko might help around here. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i must say, it's one of the most bizarre and fanciful things i've ever heard. there was never a viable plan to go to year end. the republicans never proposed revenue they just recently found revenues under couch cushions to get us through december 18. and they have not meaningfully addressed long-term funding for despite having control for 4 1/2 years and they blame us. the chairman started a meet sayinging, no user fees. you have now ruled out the traditional way of paying for infrastructure so they have to come up with something else but that was totally bizarre. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the ranking member. for months, mr. speaker, republicans have actually squandered an opportunity to develop and pass a long-term authorization for highway spending. and it's pretty regrettable. since may 19, republicans simply brought up and passed another two month extension. we've already heard, sometimes we lose count, is it 33 or 34 extensions? unfortunately, here we are two months later and we're careening gentleman again to another crisis, another republican-made crisis more gridlock for the highway trust fund right in the middle of the critical construction season. hundreds of thousands of jobs, as has been said and vie sal construction projects across the country are hanging in the balance. here we just have a few days left. what do we know? we know the republicans done have a plan and they don't have any ideas. we have some ideas. and those ideas are contained in the grow america act. i'm one of the original co-sponsors. it's a six-year $478 billion bill that would be a framework for our discussions. we could put that on the floor here today vote on it, and make sure that we get under way. but oh no, we're stuck yet again with another extension and frankly i'm not really sure whether, when we get to december that we won't be stuck with yet another extension. this goes on and on and on. the american people have had enough. we know that if we invest in our infrastructure, we create jobs and we know that our infrastructure is falling apart. this seems like a no brainer to most americans and to working people and i don't understand what the complication here is, mr. speaker. but enough is enough. it's time for republicans to be the adults at the table, to bring up a plan and a program to the floor for long-term authorization and put america back to work, not six months at a time, not two months at a time but for a long time. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i would like to remind my colleagues, the house -- mr. shuster: i would like to remind my colleagues, the house was controlled by their party, the senate was controlled by their party until january, and the white house is controlled by their party. they were going to squander $800 billion. if they'd listened to the ranking member at the time they'd have put a lot more money into the investment of infrastructure instead of that $800 billion bill about $68 billion went to transportation system of everybody can point fingers at everybody but the reality is, here we are. we need to extend this to give the ways and means committee and the finance committee in the senate to figure out the dollars in a responsible way, not to continue to raise the debt and the deficit but find a responsible funding level to get us to a six-year bill, which i'm committed to. i know chairman ryan has said many, many times he's committed to. our leadership in the house is committed to a long-term bill. so again, instead of pointing fingers at each other, let's figure out a way to move forward together and i believe we will. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield -- are you ready? i yield to the gentleman from minnesota one minute. could i inquire as to the time left? before we proceed. the speaker pro tempore: you have four minutes. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, members of the house, the simple truth is, as has been articulated so well here today by my colleagues, that this nation desperately needs a long-term transportation funding bill to repair our nation's crumbling infrastructure, not another kick the can down the road short-term, temporary, convoluted fix. last week, congress appropriately honored the late chairman of the transportation committee jim oberstar, with the naming of his hometown post office in chisholm, minnesota. mr. nolan: what a wonderful tribute it was to chairman oberstar. but here we are once again, kicking the can down the road on the issue that jim oberstar cared most about. as chairman, jim worked hard to ensure the committee drafted good strong, bipartisan legislation. that's what we need here today. the transportation committee -- if the transportation committee were allowed to do that, i have every confidence that we would indeed write a long-term transportation funding bill. mr. speaker, the fact is, the trains are running off the tracks, the bridges are falling down, the wastewater treatment facilities are overflowing, so let's do right by our good friend, the former congressman, jim oberstar. let's create a long-term fix to our national transportation and infrastructure. mr. speaker, i would also like to ask unanimous consent to insert an article recently into the record at this point. thank you mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: may i inquire how much time each side has? the speaker pro tempore: seven minutes. mr. shuster: theavend other side? the speaker pro tempore: 3 1/2 minutes. mr. shuster: i recognize the gentleman, mr. graves. three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. graves: thank you,, mr. -- thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate that very much. i want to associate myself with the words of my colleagues who just spoke on the need to do this and the need far long-term transportation bill. i remember chairman oberstar working diligently to try to do that and the six or seven extensions we had but never did come up with a transportation bill. that's why we're working so hard to make sure we have a good, bipartisan bill. i do rise in support of h.r. 3038. it's going to extend the current transportation law until december 18, until we can get that long-term bill in place. as chairman of the committee on highways and transit, i believe it's critical for -- critical for congress to come together on this bipartisan long-term, sur vas -- surface re-authorization. in my home state of missouri we have 10,000 bridges begging for our attention. last month i held a hearing on the transportation needs of rural america. our roads an bridges demonstrate why we need a strong federal program. it's critical to moving people and goods and to the overall health of this economy. i'm committed to working with chairman shuster and chairman ryan and others to get a re-authorization bill done. federal surface transportation programs are set to expire at the end of the month. chong has to act to ensure the programs continue the sol generalcy and the highway trust fund is addressed. state and local governments need to plan for projects with confidence. they need certainty, not just for the next five or six months but for the next five or six years this bill enables us to continue our bipartisan efforts on a re-authorization bill which we hope to accomplish by the end of the year. we have a tremendous opportunity to secure that bill that's going to improve rebuild modernize our nation's transportation system. it's time we come together to do that. i want to thank both the chairmen on their work on h.r. 3038. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and could not agree with the chairman more. i personally think it's time to stop pointing fingers, there's enough bipartisan blame to go around. we didn't quite do the job when the economy was in free fall. i know a number of us would have written the recovery act differently. but the point is, we are here now with the challenge to fund it. and six republican states have increased the gas tax already this year. i've got a proposal that's ready to go, that could be passed in two weeks and the committee could have the resources to actually fund the bill. but it could be other options. i know the ranking member has a barrel tax, a proposal to index the gas tax and bond against it. i don't care what it is that we do i do care that we don't continue to stall. it was exactly a year ago today we were standing here on this moment saying, don't wait until the end of the year, we have to get on with it because we'll be right back here a year from now and we are. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: it's time to act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: does the gentleman have additional speakers or -- no, ok. i'd yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boyle: thank you and i want to thank my colleague. this is just embarrassing. it is embarrassing that we're here talking about the umpeenth patch for the umpteenth time. other countries are wondering if we're still interested in leading. let's forget the short-term patches, let's finally deal with the problem. the previous speaker, mr. blumenauer, is exactly right. before coming here as a state legislator in pennsylvania, we, democrats and republicans, banned together and cast a very politically tough vote. it was the right thing to do, both democrats and republicans did it, and now we're finally building bridges and repairing roads that we neglected for 20 years in our state. it's time for the u.s. federal government to do exactly the same right thing. bite the bullet and let's show that an america -- that in america we can solve big problems and we can lead again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i believe i have 30 seconds left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. defazio: i would yield myself the balance of the time. you know, investing in infrastructure in america has always been extraordinarily bipartisan. over the entire time i've been here. recently we've kind of gone off the tracks. but it means we both have to cooperate on policy and on funding. and for the life of me, why the republican party has drawn a line in the sand in saying, we cannot have user fee-based investment in transportation, which benefits people who drive cars, pickup trucks, buses, everybody who moves goods in america, we can't do that anymore, we've got to come up with some fanciful tax reform which may or may not happen, it's very sad. i proposed doing away with the retail gas tax, imposing a barrel tax. where some of the costs would be paid by exxonmobil, wall street speculators, opec, saudi arabia, and yeah, they'd probably pass a lot of it through at the pump, but that would be a fair way to move forward to make the massive investment we need to put hundreds of thousands of people back to work and get america moving again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you mr. speaker. my colleague from oregon makes a good point. we are not spending the kind of dollars, at least we're not spending wisely the kind of dollars i would say, also add to that to fix our infrastructure problem. but we do face more difficult times today than we did when we set up the fund in the 1950's or even in the 1980's, as the economy grew, and then in the 1990's the economy grew. today we have an $18 trillion debt. republicans want to make sure this is fiscally responsible. we want to make sure we're just not layering something else on top of the american people. but more importantly, i hope my colleagues join with me to continue to reduce the regulatory burden that we put out there to people that build the roads, who operate on the roads, the states that have to come up with the plan to building them, so again, there's a lot of work to be done. i feel confident that chairman ryan and his committee will be able to come up with the funding level, so that we can continue to work to get a six-year bill which i think is essential, to this nation, to give the certainty we need to help boost the economy but a vote against this bill is a vote in favor of shutting down these vital programs, putting transportation projects and jobs across the country at risk. and furloughing federal employees. mr. speaker, i urge all members to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. at this time ways and means will debate 30 minutes. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin will each control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i rise to speak in favor of this. here's basically what we're trying to do. we want to get to a long-term highway solution. we believe that for the sake of jobs, the economy, certainty planning big projects in our states, we want to do a multiyear highway bill. typically a multiyear highway bill means a six-year bill and that's our aspiration and our goal. we know we're not going to write that bill in the next two weeks. we know we need at least two or three months to write that bill. unfortunately the highway trust fund has a fiscal shortfall in two weeks. so we're here to extend the highway trust fund through december 18, to give us the time we need to put together a multiyear solution. that costs $8 billion just to do that. what we use are revenue-clines measures, to make it easier for -- revenue-compliance measures, to make it easier for people to file their taxes more easily. not a single fee increase, not a single tax increase is in this bill to finance the extension of the highway trust fund solvency to december 18. for example, tas fees, tas fees -- t.s.a. fees, t.s.a. fees are not being increased. they're staying exactly the same as they are, so nobody getting on an airplane will see anything different. the difference is, we keep those fees going to mandatory spending. we keep those fees going to where they are, instead of going into discretionary spending where they can be spent in addition to other spending, to buy -- walling off that money so congress can't go spend it somewhere else, we save money by doing that. things like this are what we do, savings for the taxpayer, tax compliance, easier to comply with your taxes making sure that fees don't get spent in other areas, are some important fiscal savings that we have to make sure that we can extend the solvency of the highway trust fund. now, the other point i would simply make is, we believe that we have a chance of writing a big multiyear bill. that's why we're seeking this extension. if we didn't think that we had the chance and the opportunity on a bicameral, bipartisan basis, to do a six-year highway funding bill, then we would just two -- do a two-year bill like the other body is attempting to do. we think we can do a multi-year bill -- multiyear bill. we think there are ways of doing it, things that are important for the economy things that are important for our businesses we think that's an opportunity and that's something that we're exploring on a bipartisan basis. so for that reason and many others i urge adoption of this. i think it makes sense. the last thing we want to do, and where i come from in wisconsin, the way we say it is we have two seasons. road construction season and winter. the last thing we want to do is see road construction stop at the beginning of august. we need to give our construction, our highways, our people who are filling these construction projects, a little certainty, at least getting to the winter, so they can finish the building season while we work out a long-term highway solution. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: well here we go again. a bill from the majority, they've been in power over four years, and the result is another patch. we need to do better. we know the state of highways and the infrastructure in this country our national infrastructure receives a d-plus grade, getting worse every day. so it's said we need multiyear and that's so true. it is also being said that there needs to be a bipartisan bicameral bill. and i want to just talk to the chairman to talk to this entire house, to talk to the congress, having also met with the administration. there is no way to have a multiyear bill, five, six years, unless it is truly bipartisan involving democrats and republicans. democrats as well as republicans in both houses. we've come up with some ideas, we're suggesting today, for example, passage of the stop corporate inversion act, that many others and i introduced some time ago. so, we need to consider everything. and i want to close this way. we will not have a multiyear bill if lines are drawn not in sand but in concrete. if the majority takes the position that some ideas cannot be considered it's likely to lead infrastructure to another dead end. we need to do much better, multiyear, bipartisan both houses with the administration. if we don't do that, the rest is talk. this delay has caused millions of jobs. everybody, including the majority, now talks about middle income stagnation. part of it is because we've been stagnant in terms of an infrastructure bill on a long-term basis. that has to stop. we need to put a big red sign that says, stop in front of the majority of this house and the entire house in the congress and get busy on a bipartisan basis on a highway long-term bill. all infrastructure. i now reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i think the gentleman from michigan has more speakers than we do. so if it's all right by him, why don't a few of the speakers on your side of the aisle go. mr. levin: we'll be glad to do that. we're so full of vigor on this, we have lots of speakers. the next speaker i yield a minute and a half to, mr. becerra, a member of our committee, who is also chair of our caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, in the greatest, most capacitated nation on earth, there is no excuse for so many crumbling roads and bridges, and for the ever-growing traffic gridlock and congestion that we see every day that we try to get to work. there's no reason why hundreds of thousands of men and women in the construction industry today should remain unemployed because this congress won't do its job of replenishing the highway trust fund. it's crazy. we know that when we repair a road or a bridge we put an american to work and we make it easier for all of us to get to work so we can be more efficient. here we are for the 34th time doing a patch to the highway trust fund. which doesn't help any city or county in america, because you don't build a road or build a bridge or retrofit a bridge with two months of funding or five months of funding. you need six years to know how much money you can rely on. because that contractor doesn't buy cement or lumber for two months or six months. they buy for four or five years . because for them time is money. my god. we are costing the american tax -- people a ton of money by doing these -- people a ton of money by doing these constant patches. instead of just spectate, we should be coming up with the funds to have ose roa built and repaired, those bridges built and repairedto replace those aging buses a trains that stop us from being efficnt. mr. speaker, it's time tdo it the right way the long way, a long-term fix, not this short-term fix. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield to the chairman of the select revenue committee, mr. reichert, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. reichert: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of today's legislation that will ensure that our country's infrastructure needs are met. look, the bottom line is, we're all here we have agreement on a lot of the discussion that we' having today. we all want a multiyear highway bill. we all recognize that that's what our communities need. but that's why exactly why we need to pass this bill today. so that we can have that opportunity to discuss these issues over the next few months, to come u with a multiyear bill. . it continues funding for projects through the end of the year while giving us time to come up with solutions that fund a multiyear transportation bill. this is not just about the economy. it is about the economy, but not jus about the economy. it is about jobs and jobs connected with construction and jobs connected with moving our good across the country and in our communities. t it's also about the quality of life that our constituents are asking to deal with back home, stuck in traffic for an hour or two hours trying to get home, not having time with their families. thers a lot involved here with r discussion today and the benefits of a multiyear plan. of course when i go back home just like any other member, e drive on the highways. so we see the need, we experience the congestion, i want to go back and tell my constituents that we have listened to them. that we realize and recogze that there is a proble but most of all, i want to go back and say we have a plan. and as democrats and repubcans that we're going to work together on a plan, on a multiyear plan that we can agree on to move this country forward. a plan thatncludes a multiyear highway bill that offers communities greater certainty, plans for the future and improves our roads and bridges, reduces congestion and eases the movement of goods. to get there, we must find a way, of course this is where the rub comes in, must find a way to pay for it. by the end of the year, i want to be able to say to my constituents that we've met this challenge, that we have found a solution and we can start by evaluating whether we can accomplish our goals through a solution that mornedizes our international tax system, supporting the competitiveness of our american companies and secures funding for a multiyear transportation bill and finally, finally, finding a permanent solution a permanent funding solution for our infrastructure needs. mr. speaker i want to -- this last sentence, i want to ask pardon for a pun i'm about to use, the bill today can help drive us there and give us time to have these discussions. so today, let's pass this bill. send it to the senate, and let's get to work together mr. speaker, people want us to work together on a multiyear solution to our transportation infrastructure needs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. >> i yield two -- mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: i note the irony of his advocacy on behalf of a plan. i guess after 35 short-term extensions we haven't been able to find the time to develop a plan. you need, years out, to develop a plan system of just weeks ago in this very chamber, our friends on the other side of the aisle made a full throttled argument about america remaining competitive in the world. that's why we needed the transpacific partnership. so let me think about this for a moment. we want america to be competitive in the world and we simultaneously allow america's infrastructure to crumble as we speak. you know what's going to get congress to move, sadly enough? that catastrophe that awaits us somewhere across this country. so european union has a highway system that in many instances is the enjoy of the world. the chinese are developing high speed rail that is the envy of the world. and we're doing the 35th short-term extension on a highway bill? so let me relate to our friends on the other side, as you travel across the federal highway system, there's this great sign, everywhere, and it says, the dwight d. eisenhower federal highway system. because a republican president had the foresight and vision in the aftermath of world war ii to develop a first class federal highway system. but you know what else he had? he had two great allies in the congress. lyndon johnson, the majority leader in the senate and sam rayburn, the speaker of this house, who helped sponsor legislation that gave us a system that was the envy of the world and 35 times, we are extending the highway bill because we don't have time to develop a plan. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to another valued member of our committee, mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. mr. speaker i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the presentations i made one year ago today on this floor, on this same subject. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: i can actually read those speeches again, because we're exactly at the same spot. america is still falling apart and falling behind. and we're looking now to slide again past the deadline toward the end of the year. the problem is, we're still pretending we can pay for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. and it isn't that hard. it doesn't take six months to come up with a funding scheme. i have legislation that is in the committee that can be acted on. we can follow the example of 20 states that have raised their user fee for transportation. we could get courage from the six republican states that have raised their gas tax already this year, just a few weeks ago few days ago, in the state of washington the republican-controlled state senate approved a 15 cent gas tax increase. we could follow the example of ronald reagan in 1982, when he urged this congress to bite the bullet raise the gas tax, he proposed and congress followed through on a 125% increase in the gas tax. somehow, my republican friends are afraid to use the mechanism that is fast that is accepted that the people in the states, republicans in the states, have the courage to undertake. why is it this year, it's going to be any different than last year? why will my speech be any different? is it going to get cheaper? is it going to become less complex? are we going to have a little more back bone? for us to step up. i would hope that our ways and means committee could take the next two weeks, follow regular order and provide funding so that we could give the transportation committee the two months they need to fund it and the job would be done. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to another valued member of our committee mr. pascrell of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, what are we writing here a new magna carta? they've had four years, for crying out loud and we still don't have legislation in front of us. it's been two months since we were last here, and a lot of talk two months ago about how bad extensions are for transportation planning and policy. how the last extension was going to be the last extension. nothing has changed. and you keep on talking about the anxiety over tax reform and tax change. what about the anxiety that the american people have and the contractors and workers have of getting our roads and highways and airports up to snuff? the bill before us today has the congress pay for our highways and transit systems with more gimmicks. tax compliance? these are the same provisions the house rejected last year. transportation security administrative fees? the airlines trade association rightfully criticized that this plan proposes the use -- to use tomorrow's dollars to pay for today's problems. the international tax can be part of a solution to bridge the gap but corporate america is turning on those revenues to lower their rates, not pay for highway spending. using an international tax scheme now will make it that much more difficult to get back to a user fee system. the people who use the system should pay for the system. that's what we should be agreeing on. the ways and means committee did hold two hearings on the trust fund and we come to this? so this is the new magna carta. i'm waiting to see the final results, six months from now. it's been two years -- it's been 10 years since this congress passed a transportation bill. neither party as the courage to deal with it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: regular order. i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from kansas, a member of the ways and means committee, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. i rise today in support of h.r. 3038 with the prospect of the highway trust fund dollars and authority expiring in just over two weeks this is a critical step to give our states the certainty they need to continue work on important infrastructure projects back home this bill gives the house and senate time to work together toward a long-term highway package by the end of the year. it's also important to note that this bill includes provisions i pushed for to help many small businesses by establishing a chronological set of due dates for them to pay their packses. the current law fails to do this which causes small business and their owners unnecessary grief, time and money. i worked during the past two congresses on legislation to fix this problem and i'm pleased that the house is acting today to take another burden off the shoulders of small business people. i urge support of h.r. 3038. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to another valued member of our committee, mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. davis: thank you mr. speaker. we all know that july 31 the highway trust fund will expire. but we didn't just learn this. not that we just found out last week. or last month. we've always known it. now we come where we're backed up against the wall. we know we need a long-term fix but i'm going to vote for a short-term fix. i'm going to vote for it because i want the contractors in my state to keep working. i want the construction workers to keep laying concrete. i want the bridge builders to keep repairing bridges. we can't afford to have a short season. in illinois if you don't do construction now, you may not get a chance to do much. on the basis of the logic of keeping the construction industry moving i vote yes for the highway bill that we're considering today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from craig. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: as a person who represents a state line who drives to o'hare and back and forth i want to add to my comment, they're in thed my of road construction right now on i-90. if we don't pass this bill, construction projects like that will stop. so we need, by the way, we need more construction in chicagoland area, just like we do around the rest of america that's why we have to pass this. let me yield myself another 30 seconds to say, i think the gentleman from illinois hit it right, which is yes we knew this was coming, but it takes a while to figure out how to do things like rewrite international tax laws, something we haven't done for decades. it takes a while to figure out how to come up with long-term financing something like a highway trust fund. and we know that we cannot come up with that answer within the next two weeks and we don't want to see these construction projects like the really important one on i-90 and i-94 going to o'hare and every else in america to stop in two weeks. that is why this is necessary. we don't like patches anymore than anybody else does but this patch is necessary to make sure those projects don't stop. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from georgia a truly valued member of our committee in this congress, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise to express my strong concern with yet another stopgap measure. nearly 60 years ago, a republican president, dwight eisenhower, led the charge to create the interstate highway system. he realized that good roads was not just about commerce and economic development, they are national security priority to keep america safe. . i've said it before and i'll remind you again, fleece such thing as a republican road -- there's no such thing as a republican road or a democratic bring. today american -- bridge. today american roads and bridges are crumbling. this is a national embarrassment. we have already rolled the ball down the road more than 30 times and here we are doing it again. the time for talk has passed. in the words of dr. king, we have been bogged down in the paralysis of analysis for too long. delay for another day is not an option. american jobs are on the line. in a few short weeks transportation projects across our country will grind to a stop. we must act and we must act now. thank you mr. speaker, 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 michigan reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: you know, as i think back, we've been doing this so often, and our chairman said it takes a while, it's been a decade. and i just want to emphasize, if we're no longer going to take a while to do it right, it's going to have to be done on a truly bipartisan basis. there's a tendency, i think, to go off on a wild goose chase and that won't build highways. and it won't build if one party doesn't work with another, if the senate doesn't work with the house, and now we have the senate seeming to go a different way on a short-term, thinking they can do a long-term. chaos doesn't build highways. so i really hope, however we vote on this bill, that there will be a new dedication to doing what is so long overdue. all the talk about middle class incomes essentially goes up in smoke when we fail to do what is so clearly in the interest of middle class jobs, and that is to build highways to repair bridges to take care of airports, to take care of our infrastructure. coming from michigan, i'm ashamed of the state of highways in michigan compared to when i was a kid and later on. disrepair has essentially been the hallmark of highway and infrastructure in this country, because there's been a failure to step up to the plate and i just want to finish by saying don't put anything aside don't say anything can't be considered because that's a ticket, really another bridge to nowhere. 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. mr. ryan: i will spare the cliches and just simply say, i think this is important that we get this done. both parties have patched this trust fund for, as the gentleman said, for 10 years. part of the problem we have right now mr. speaker, is the revenue source for highways is a revenue source that's no longer relevant, that doesn't work anymore. gas taxes don't work well. why? it's a good reason why. we get much better gas mileage. our engine technology is better. some cars don't even use gas, they're electric. and therefore as a result we don't pay as much for the highways we use. and that's the problem. so we're trying to figure out what is a way we can bridge finance the highway trust fund so we can come up with a new revenue source for the long-term. that means we have to have a medium term, a six-year highway bill, to make sure that the construction that we need to get done gets done and that's going to take us some time to figure out that's why we need to have this patch, to give us that time. if we fail to pass this extension right now i can sure tell you what will come over from the other body will be a medium, you know about an 18-month extension and that will come through here and we will not get the bridge we need, we will not get the ability to give multiyear projects the ability to plan and get off the ground, and we will not have done our jobs. and so in order to give us the chance to do our jobs to get the long-term solution in place, to work on these big issues we need to get ourselves a few more months time and that's why i think on a bipartisan basis members understand and appreciate this situation and therefore will help hopefully support this. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate having expired, pursuant to house res. -- resolution 362, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. van hollen: i am opposed, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. clip mr. van hollen of maryland moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 3038, to the committee on ways and means, with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. at the of the end bill, add the following, title 4 stop corporate ex patriation and invest in america's infrastructure act. section 4001, short title this title may be cited as the stop corporate expatriation and invest in america's infrastructure act of 2015. section 4002 modifications to rules relating to inverted corporations, a, in general, subsection b of section 7874 of the internal rev you -- revenue code of 1986 is amended to read as follows, b, inverted corporations treated as domestic corporations. 1, in general, notwithstanding section 7701-a-4 a foreign corporation shall be treated for purposes of this title as a domestic corporation if, a such corporation would be a surrogate for corporation if subsection asks a-2 were applied by subs site toing 80% or 60% or, b, such corporation is inverted domestic corporation. 2, inverted domestic corporation, for purposes of the subs.e.c. a foreign corporation shall be treated as an inverted domestic corporation -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman reserves a point of order. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we have a very sad state of affairs here. we know we have an urgent problem with respect to infrastructure around america. our roads, our bridges our transit ways are in disrepair, at a time when we should actually be investing more to modernize our american infrastructure so we can compete and put people back to work. and yet what do we have from our republican colleagues? more of the same. five more months of inadequate funding no certainty for people who need to plan for projects, people are going to face layoffs again mr. speaker. mr. speaker mr. speaker, i ask for some order, please. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman deserves to be recognized. the gentleman will resume. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. so we have an urgent problem and the response we get from our republican colleagues is five months of inadequate funding. we have put forward a six-year plan. the first two years fully funded, of a more robust plan. how do we fund it? we fund it by saying no more to the companies, the american companies, that are cheating the american taxpayers by inversions. what are they doing? they're simply changing their addresses to an overseas address so they don't have to pay any more into helping our infrastructure and helping our country. let me give you an example of what these companies are doing. they're not moving their employees, they're not moving their management, they're not moving their factories or anything else. they're just changing their mailing address by acquiring a small foreign company. and in doing so, saying, we're not going to pay any more of our taxes. so to the chairman of the ways and means committee, i think most americans would disagree with you, that we need more time. we don't need five more months to figure out that these corporations are cheating as taxpayers by using these special provisions. we can close this tax loophole right now. in fact, about 30 of these companies have inverted in the last five years. so we want to wait another five months and allow five, 10 more to use this tax device to escape their responsibilities to the american taxpayer? why should we do that? let's do the right thing and let's do it right now. we have that within our power that's what the legislation that we put forward is all about. let's invest in our national infrastructure and let's use it by getting the savings from these companies that are engaging in these inversion tax practices. i'm pleased to yield the remainder of the time to mr. israel of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. israel: i thank my colleague. mr. speaker, republicans and democrats until this congress, have always agreed that the way you build an economy is by building highways bridges tunnels, transit. with this congress, mr. speaker, under this republican congress, we're not building, we are patching. and as a result the american people are sitting in more traffic, longer rush hours, higher repair bills. this is a choice, mr. speaker. under the republican plan, we can kick the can down the crumbling highway, we can patch through december, telling construction workers we don't know if they're going to work after that, we can fund the status quo, or under this plan we can be big, bold and fair. we have six years of work, six-year extension of the highway trust fund $40 billion in jobs in construction, it is funded not by asking americans to dig deeper into their pockets or take something from their paychecks, it is funded by telling america's corporations they cannot establish an address for themselves in the caribbean in order to avoid paying their fair share of taxes right here at home. mr. speaker the american people they are fed up, they are sitting in traffic. they can feel their tires hitting the pot holes, they're told, we can't afford to fix those pot holes because we don't have the money. they sit in longer rush hour while meanwhile corporations rush to the caribbean to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to fix the pot hole. this is the choice. will we protect tax gimmicks for america's biggest corporations or will we protect the american taxpayer and america's workers? our proposal, mr. speaker, it grows jobs, creates sustainable growth in paychecks, it fixes pot holes, it fixes our holidays and transits, it gets americans to their jobs on time, it rebuilds our economy by rebuilding jobs and it is a choice we are making today. the choice is this, mr. speaker. will we protect tax gimmicks for tax dodgers or will we protect jobs for the american people? with that 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. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i withdraw the reservation on the point of order and i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: a few points. number one, i'm looking through the bill, the motion to recommit here, there's no six-year plan in here. there's no six-year highway project plan in here. they may have proposed one but it's not being offered here today. all this bill does is the stop corporation expatriation and invest in america's infrastructure but there's no invest in american infrastructure here. just the tax increase. let's speak to that. we've heard speaker after speaker after speaker here from the other side of the aisle say, you're getting away from gas taxes to fund highways, to fund infrastructure. what does this do? this isn't a gas tax increase. so you're moving away from the user fee principle yourself in your own rhetoric. let's speak to the substance of this particular proposal. this proposal will do a couple of things. number one, it will encourage foreign companies to buy u.s. companies. you might as well say this is the buy american company act of 2015. number two, it will encourage u.s. corporate headquarters to move overseas. don't take my word for it. that's the characterization of this bill by the senate democratic policy chair the senior senator from new york, who has said, this policy will encourage u.s. headquarters to be moved overseas. inversions are bad. we want to stop inversions. but to quote the treasury secretary of the other side's party, the way to stop inversions is tax reform. why are we here doing this patch? had? so that we can give ourselves the time to do tax reform, to do international tax reform, so that we can prevent inversions. that's the whole purpose of this episode that we're having here. so not only is this really bad policy, it doesn't work, it won't affect what they're trying to do. if you want to stop inversions, you've got to do tax reforms. adding more obstacles to u.s. companies doesn't stop u.s. companies from moving, it simply says that they're more ripe for takeovers from foreign companies. there's a very dangerous trend, mr. speaker, of foreign companies buying u.s. companies. it is happening at an alarming pace. if this were to pass, it would accelerate that pace and the way that this is written, it would say, if you had your headquarters in america as an american company, you better move them overseas. why would we want to do that? to do that. let's have american companies buy fortune companies instead of the o'way around. that's what we should be doing. let's just have some truth in advertising here this doesn't stop inversions. this accelerates american companies being bought by foreign companies. it accelerates american headquarters going overseas. and it doesn't fund anything for the next six years. with that and many other reasons, i urge a no vote on this motion to recommit and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection the priest question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. >> mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and -- clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage if ordered the motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 2722, and approval of the journal if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on tht vote, the yeas are 185, the nays are 244. the motion is not agreed to the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded will rise a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 314. the nays are -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 312. the nays are 119. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2722, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2722, a bill to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in recognition of the fight against breast cancer. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 420. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 421. the nays are none and one voting present. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative the rules are suspended the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i can ask unanimous consent that the house meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 0 the chair will postponefurther proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will take their conversations out of the house. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 896 the steve gleason act. the clerk: an act to amend title 1 of the social security act to provide beneficiary access to accessories for speech-generating devices and remove the rental cap under the medicare program with respect to speech generating devices. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. pursuant to the rule the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes jask wisconsin. mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent members to include extraneous material on s. 894 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . mr. ryan: i yield myself such time as i may consume and the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: please take your conversations off the floor. the house will come to order. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i rise to speak in favor of the steve gleason act. this is s.g.d.'s, otherwise known as speech generation devices. people with severe diseases like a.l.s. or parkinson's, they need these devices to communicate and add it as an accessory to their wheelchair. medicare has covered wheelchairs and these devices and people have been able to buy them so they can cost tomize their device. there is one device called an eye gaze and allows someone to use their eyes and navigate a computer and hit the mouse click to do things like turn on the tv go on the phone, speech communication. it's just incredible, but there is a problem. two years ago c.m.s. changed the policy. this is something that before you could buy this and add an upgrade to it. when c.m.s. changed the policy, seniors have to represent it 13 months before they can buy it. medicare will stop making these rental payments if a senior citizen makes an upgrade that are not directly related to speech. not just seniors go on medicare, people with certain disabilities are allowed to go on medicare. this affects people from all ages. this changes so sweeping that medicare is refusing to pay for things like an eye gaze, the very thing that patients need in order to use their s.g.d. this bill would remove the 13-month rental equipment that allows them to buy immediately and make sure medicare continues to cover s.g.d.'s if they are entering a nursing home. the people who need these are the most vulnerable among us. the whole point of medicare is to protect these very patients and give them the care they need. and this bill goes to the heart of medicare's mission and heart of fixing a flaw that i think everybody recognizes needs to be fixed. with that, i yield two minutes to our distinguished conference chair, the gentlelady from washington, ms. mcmorris rogers. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: last summer, more than 17 million people participated in the ice bucket challenge to raise awareness of the crippling disease a.l.s. and the toll it takes on millions of men and women and their families. around the same time, gail gleason who is the mother of former nfl star steve gleason, came to me with concerns about medicare denying access to cutting-edge speech-generated technology with patients living with diseases. gail and steve feared people would lose their ability to communicate to share their stories, order coffee, tell jokes, ask for help. say i love you. before i -- eye tracking technology became available, once they lost their ability to type, they could no longer communicate. all that has changed. today, patients can continue communicating by typing with their eyes. but top-down government knows best rules and regulations threaten to take it all away for those who need it most. i pledge to do everything within my power to fix this and i'm proud to have helped steer this bill through congress with the help of majority leader and whip , steve scalise, representative mccarthy, so many joined us in this effort. we had a letter with republicans and democrats to push c.m.s. to investigate this arbitrary decision and i'm proud to help to send the steve gleason act to the president's desk. mr. speaker life-changing innovation cannot help people when it's collecting dust on a desk or getting caught up in red tape. because of gail and steve gleason, thousands of americans living with degenerative diseases can have peace of mind today and their voices will continue to be heard and still be able to say i love you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i rise in support of this 984 steve gleason act. this legislation is named after steve demreeson a former professional football player for the new orleans saints and native of washington state. it will increase access to help patients living with neurological diseases. a.l.s. is known as lou engineer ig's disease. they are generated as capped rental items by medicare requiring beneficiaries to rent their devices for 13 months before they are able to own this. this cap has made it difficult for many. c.m.s. has begun providing payment for speech-generating devices. this is a good step but does not necessarily ensure continued payment for the devices if a beneficiary moves from a post acute facility such as a nursing home. this legislation makes ar simple fix that will eliminate the rental cap and clarify that beneficiaries may purchase speech-generating devices immediately and ensure payment for these devices even if a beneficiary is admitted into a facility where payment is bundled into a post-acute facility payment. it will improve the medicare program and make a meaningful difference in the lives of beneficiaries living with a.l.s. i'm pleased to see the chairman out here pushing this and i'm glad to join with him. i hope someday we can join with him while we provide hearing aides for senior citizens who are having trouble paying for them today. do you have any other speakers? mr. ryan: yes. mr. mcdermott: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to mr. statistic lease from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker and i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for bringing this steve gleason act to the floor. steve gleason is somebody who served as an inspiration for people in louisiana going back to the 2006 game when the superdome was reopened after hurricane katrina, that night was one of the galvanizing moments that helped bring the city of new orleans and inspire the people of new orleans to come back and he blocked the punt at the end of the game to win the game. i was in the dome that night and my wife and i were was euphoric as everybody in that building. the reason steve inspires people today is not because of what he did on the football field but because what he has done to serve as an inspiration for people with all disabilities since he was diagnosed with a.l.s. and mr. speaker what he's done is go out and show that he is able to exhibit his voice because of the speech generating device that he has. this isn't something he wants for himself but for all people who have something to say who have that same voice to inspire other people. and when c.m.s. made the change in policy that started to take away that voice, he spoke up as so many others did and said we need to reverse this. i commend senator vitter for bringing this legislation forward. but this is a bill that truly will give voice to thousands of people over 5,000 people every year are diagnosed with a.l.s. they all have something to say. they all have that voice and steve gleason act will give them that voice so they can go out and continue to achieve their life's potential. i urge passage of this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: you have one more speaker? would you like to go right now? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from louisiana, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: ask my colleagues to vote for the steve gleason act. and steve's name is on it. it's a lot bigger than steve and if you know him and what he stand for and this bill and this fight on behalf of him and his family the fight they fought, benefits thousands of people in our society. that's why i was happy to join last year in a letter with ms. mrs. mcmorris rodgers to c.m.s. asking them to change this policy. it's important to put patients first and fixing this extremely misguided and harmful medicare regulation that has had a devastating impact on the lives of a.l.s. patients and stroke victims and other folks experiencing significant paralysis, prohibits them from talking to and communicating with their family. i will say this and i think steve did a great job of expressing what steve means to new orleans. gleason's act on the football field and his actions since being diagnosed with a.l.s. exemplifies the resilience that the people of new orleans have had after being knocked down from hurricanes and other things. but as steve stood up and people stoot up, government has a responsibility to make the libes of people better and help them help themselves. and i will give you steve's words. he said if we have a purpose in life beyond being a cog in the human machine, mine is to help inspire people, and that's pretty cool. what i would like to say that steve inspired congress to help make the lives of thousands and thousands of people better and what steve was able to do was bring out the best of what's in this body and that is both sides working together to make sure we do tangible things to improve the lives of the people who we represent. and i'm proud to stand here with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and enjoy the benefit of their hard work and a team effort to do this. i would encourage my colleagues to vote for the steve gleason act, and with that, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. paulsen: as already mentioned, many participated in the ice bucket challenge, raising more than $100 million to combat a.l.s. or lou gehrig's disease. at the exact same time this movement was sweeping the nation the c.m.s. was implementing misguided policies to deny access to speech-generating devices for those patients with a.l.s. and other degenerative conditions. for many people who have a.l.s., speech-generating devices and the eye tracking devices are the only way to communicate with your loved ones, with family, with friends and others. in response to the agency's new policies representative cathy mcmorris rodgers and i led that bipartisan letter with more than 200 republicans and democrats asking for changes to the proposals. while the agency has taken some actions to roll back some of the rules, we got to guarantee that these patients will have access to speech-generating devices and that's why senator vitter representative mcmorris rorgers, majority whip scalise and i first introduced the steve gleason act. this gets its name from former new orleans saints steve gleason. he first blocked a punt for the new orleans saints in their dramatic return to the superdome after hurricane katrina. he battles a.l.s. this bill is for steve and for the millions of people who have a.l.s. the ice bucket challenge was a good start but there's more we can do to help people with that deadly disease. instead of limiting access to life-improving devices we should be embracing 21st century cures and technologies that empower millions of americans living with degenerative disabilities to have a better life and communicate with their family, friends, physicians and loved ones. i'm glad we could come together in a bipartisan matter to embrace innovation and help so many people mr. speaker. i encourage passage of this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, dr. boustany from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. boustany: the thousands of americans living with a.l.s. and end stage parkinson's disease, the steve gleason act means the difference between being able to speak and silence. silence. i have the great -- i had the great privilege two weeks ago to spend an hour with steve and his mother in new orleans just a couple weeks ago. steve, you heard about his exploits on the football field and how he inspired so many in that first return back to the superdome after katrina. but steve lost his ability to speak and is wheelchair bound due to a.l.s. this happened earlier this year. his 2011 diagnosis could have been a tragedy, but he turned it into something amazing and good. when i visited with steve, it was amazing to see the fire and the spirit in his eyes, because despite all that's happened to him, he's determined to help a lot of people and he was determined. he told me, i'm not going to give up until you guys pass this legislation so we can help so many others who don't have access to this technology that i've been blessed to have. so he -- steve started the team gleason, an advocacy organization, main priorities to raise awareness about a.l.s. and he's communicating using this amazing technology. but he knows not all individuals with a.l.s. or end stage parkinson's have the resources to afford these expensive devices. this bill is named for steve because of his tireless advocacy, and this final legislation will provide the resources to give voice to thousands of individuals living across this country with a.l.s., end stage parkinson's and other neurological types of disorders. i'm glad to play a little role on the ways and means committee with the chairman to help move this bill through. i think this is a very proud day for america. we're happy for steve and his advocacy and happy for so many individuals who are caught with this very difficult disease. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to another senior members of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from washington, mr. reichert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. reichert: i thank the chairman, again, for yielding to me today and thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to support the steve gleason act of 2015. i have never had the honor of meeting steve. however, he is a native washingtonian, but i have had the honor of knowing a good friend and partner who passed away from a.l.s. while i was with the sheriff's office back in washington state and king county in the city of seattle. his name was jim and i've heard people talk about steve and his inspiration and his fight and the fire in his eyes this afternoon, and jim had that same inspiration to those around him, that same fire in his eyes. he came to work every day, and people noticed there was something quite -- a little bit different. not quite right about jim, but jim just said, my leg, i had an operation on my knee and he limped into work and he committed himself to doing the job and getting it done. he was working on one of the biggest serial murder cases that this country has ever known, the green river case. he interviewed the person we finally arrested, which took us 19 years. he stayed alive long enough to interview -- i'm not even going to honor that person's name, mention it -- mix his name on the floor of the house, but jim was a good friend. and for -- for c.m.s. to make a ruling like this, to withhold commonsense medical devices for people who need it, to help americans across this country is almost unbelievable and illogical. c.m.s. has made other rules too to denying medical devices for people with limp deema for example. -- lymphodema for example. i am so pleased to be here today to help people with a.l.s. communicate. and like cathy mcmorris said -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. reichert: one last word. to be able to say i love you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, 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 is recognized. mr. ryan: has the gentleman yielded back his time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. ryan: i'll yield myself as i may consume for the purposes of closing, mr. speaker. as i saw steve scalise talk about that play, i'm a big nfl plan, big n.f.c. -- nfl fan, big n.f.c. fan. my friend, aaron stecker, who is from wisconsin, played on that team at that time and i just got to say mr. speaker. in america we have all of these heroes, and the best among us are the heroes that have been so high and have been brought so low but that have come back up and have shown a great example of courage to the rest of us. we're very pleased to be bringing this bill to the floor. i basically want to thank the members of the louisiana delegation for bringing this issue to our attention, for making us know about this, and this is one of those things where the bureaucracy just got it wrong. the bureaucracy basically i don't know why, but they came up with a rule that effectively denied these devices to people which means they can't live a full life. these s.g.d.'s are invaluable. they are absolutely essential for people suffering from a.l.s. to be able to communicate to be able to function. i had a constituent at a town hall meeting walk me through how his eye gaze technology worked as part of his s.g.d. and it's just truly remarkable. this is one of those issues that speaks to absolute common sense. the bureaucracy got it wrong and this is congress in action, our democracy in action. our constituents brought us an issue. we understood something needed to be resolved. here we are passing legislation fixing this problem so that we could make sure this program, medicare, fulfills its mission by making sure that it is there for the people who need it. that's democracy. i want to thank the people from louisiana for bringing this to our attention and i yield back the balance of my time and i urge passage of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 984. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 981 -- 971, the medicare independence at home medical practice demonstration improvement act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 971, an act to amend title 18 of the social security act to provide for an increase in the limit on the length of an agreement under the medicare independence at home medical practice demonstration program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s. 971, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: mr. speaker at this time i'd like to yield for whatever time he needs to consume the author of this bill a member of the ways and means committee, mr. roskam for purposes of describing this bill, i yield whatever time he may consume to mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: mr. roskam is recognized for whatever time he needs. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm glad we're taking up this two-year extension of the demonstration project which expired on may 1. i got interested in this because of a constituent, dr. thomas cornwell from wheaton illinois. he was a visionary. he was way ahead of his time on this effort to reach out to patients at home. he's the president of the american academy of home care physicians and chairman and chief medical officer of the home center care institute. and he's been really passionate about this idea of trying to reach people where they are. and since his founding of his home care practice in 1997 mr. speaker, he has personally, personally made over 30,000 house calls. so he knows intimately the difference that a home care option makes in the lives of individuals with multiple chronic conditions, and the savings that it can bring to the health care system to treat these people at home rather than at the hospital. so what he's been able to do is say look, this is better for the patient and it's better for the system, so let's pursue this and let's move it further along. and that's exactly what the independence at home demonstration brings to medicare. it focuses on reducing costs where the needs of the highest and improving care where the needs are the greatest. it provides home care base to medicare enrollees with two or more chronic conditions, 5% to 25% of beneficiaries that account for nearly 80% of all medicare spending. of the 34 medicare home demonstrations over the past 20 years, the i.a.h. has decidedly different, requiring that doctors meet fiscally -- here's what they get to do. they got to return a minimum savings of at least 5% to medicare. they got to produce good outcomes and they got to pass patient and caregiver satisfaction ratings. it even provides an additional incentive by allowing successful patients -- participants to generate savings above that 5% mark on an 80/20 basis. so think about that. everybody comes out ahead on this, and it's working. in june, c.m.s. reported that i.a.h. saved over $25 million in its first performance year. and that's an average of over $3,000 for each of the 8,400 beneficiaries that participated in the demonstration. in other words have you heard, have you talked about, have you contemplated anything that's like this? in other words, you've got happy patients happier patients and they're saving money at $3,000 a person. what's not to love about this? we have several lessons from this that have been artfully crafted into the demonstration. itself it requires participants to save taxpayer money by avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations, e.r. visits and nursing home admissions. it protects the viability of the medicare program. it provides quality health care for those most in need, and the benefits -- and it benefits providers by giving them the flexibility they need to care for their patients and share for the savings they produce. for those reasons i strongly support passage of this. i thank chairman ryan for his support, 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 gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of s. 971, the medicare independence at home extension medical practice demonstration, improvement act of 2015. this bill provides for a two-year extension of an interesting program intended to help beneficiaries living with multiple chronic diseases. the affordable care act, which has been reviled out here extensively, established this medical independence at home demonstration. the purpose of this project is to test the new service delivery and payment incentive mod that will utilizes primary care team -- model that utilizes primary care teams to provide care to patients in their home. practices that successfully reduce costs and meet quality measures will be rewarded with incentive payments. if this is successful this model would provide medicare beneficiaries with access to home-based primary care and avoid costly an conscious and unnecessary trips to the hospital. in 2012, 15 practices launched i.a.h. practices. but the authority to continue these practices will expire in 2015. s. 911 extends this authority by two years. this will provide c.m.s. with additional time to evaluate the results of the demonstration and determine whether this is a sustainable model to pursue moving forward. this will give policymakers the additional information we need to inform our decision making as we look for innovative ways to coordinate care and reduce costs in the health care system. it's noteworthy to note that this was instituted by the a.c.a.. there are good things in that bill and as we've tried again and again out here to repeal it we never thought about things like the independent health practices. i think that it's important for us as a congress to look individually at the programs before we make sweeping generalizations. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the author of this legislation, a member of the commerce committee, the gentleman from texas, a physician, dr. burgess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding and certainly thank him for having this bill on the floor this afternoon. i am pleased that the house is considering this bipartisan bicameral legislation, s. 971 identical to h.r. 2196, the medicare independence at home medical practice demonstration improvement act, which i introduced with mr. roskam of illinois, mr. thompson of california. the bill extends the medicare independence at home medical practice demonstration program for an additional two years. s. 971 passed the other chamber with unanimous consent in april . let me reiterate that this bill has cleared the senate and we have an opportunity to actually advance this bill today and have it become law shortly. now more than ever it is essential that we consider innovative ways to deliver care that is led by providers. individual rs aging into medicare at -- individuals are aging into medicare and most of the elderly being disabled or home-limited it. just so happens that one of the best ways to both lower costs, improve care is to return to the simple house call of the past. the independence at home program puts patients and their families first by allowing them to stay at home as long as is possible and incentivizing their providers to coordinate the care they provide to their patients. this program targets medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions who have the highest health care costs require more services from providers, and have a greater need for coordinated care. independence at home allows providers to take a more active role in patient care and is proving to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, unnecessary e.r. visits and unnecessary nursing home visits. independence at home offers incentives to doctors, specialists and nurse practitioners to better coordinate care for patients while also cutting costs. this is accomplished by requiring, requiring that these groups attain a savings of at least 5% of which each qualified patient would otherwise have cost the medicare system. let's say it again. the program has and must deliver savings by law. if these providers fail to achieve the mandatory 5% savings, they face removal from the program. however, if they are able to accomplish the 5% savings threshold, these groups may keep up to 80% of the savings. this program is proving to reduce costs and increase quality by reducing duplicative and unnecessary services, delaying or eliminating the need for nursing home placement and by having a coordinating team of providers. in addition to saving medicare money, the patient and their family are able to spend quality time at home instead of a doctor's office or the hospital. in fact, these programs must improve patient and care giver satisfaction for the program to continue. this demonstration program is generating substantial savings and positive outcomes. the congressional budget office estimated a zero score on june 12. a week later the center for medicare and medicaid services released prabblingities results from year one of the program showing a savings of $25 million the first performance year. since c.m.s. has been able to release the data, we are confident that if the congressional budget office were to look at this bill again they would estimate savings for -- they would estimate savings for the program and we expect higher savings in coming years. without this extension there would be a disruption in care for medicare beneficiaries and loss save thags are being generated for the med -- savings that would be generated for the medicare program. a vote in favor of this is a vote in favor of ensuring improved care for beneficiaries and smarter spending in the medicare program. this bill has gone through regular order passed the ways and means committee. i would like to thank chairman ryan and ranking member levin for that. i would also like to thank ways and means committee staff on both sides of the dice, as well as the energy and commerce staff for advancing the bill. i want to thank representative roskam and thompson and their staffs. i certainly want to thank j.p. and lauren from my office who have worked to get this bill to the floor. mr. speaker the program has been a success. mr. speaker, the program has no cost. mr. speaker, the program is generating savings. if it does not generate savings in the future, it goes away. this program is generating higher satisfaction for medicare beneficiaries. if it does not generate beneficiary satisfaction in the future, it goes away. the senate has already passed this bill by unanimous consent. mr. speaker, there is no reason for us not to do so as well. i urge everyone to vote in the affirmative and yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of s. 971. the medicare independence at home extension medical practice demonstration improvement act. as was pointed out, the two-year extension to a very important and critical component of obamacare. and i thank mr. roskam from illinois and mr. burgess from tennessee, the two folks who co-authored the house bill with me. and i appreciate them and their staff and the great work that they did. according to the centers of medicare and medicaid, more than 2/3 of medicare beneficiaries suffer from multiple chronic conditions. the care and the treatment for which account for more than a majority of the medicare spending. these costs are expected to increase substantially with the growing population of seniors, particularly those living with multiple chronic conditions. consequently, there's a need for programs aimed at reducing unnecessary hospital admissions and e.r. visits. strengthening chronic care coordination for the sickest seniors and slowing the growth in medicare spending. this program, the independence at home demonstration program was created in obamacare to do just that. this program provides chronically ill medicare beneficiaries with primary care services in the comfort of their home. where they will be able to retain their independence, their dignity and their quality of life. it's essential. in essence it is doctors making house calls. a back to the future way of providing care. the demonstration is targeted, it's immediate, it's proven, it's fiscally responsible and it's in high demand by medicare beneficiaries and their family in my home state of california and every state in the nation. during the first year the demonstration saved over $25 million. an average of over $3,000 per benefactor. these are very real savings and there's more to come if we act today to extend this important and successful demonstration for two more years. without this extension, there would be a disruption in care for our more fragile seniors and lost savings for the medicare program. the independence at home demonstration enjoys strong bipartisan support in both the house and the senate. it passed the senate by unanimous consent and in the ways and means committee on a voice vote. i hope that we do the same here and i urge everyone to vote for this important piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: we have no more speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i have no more speakers and i urge people to vote for the bill. 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 is recognized. mr. ryan: i echo the sentiment of the gentleman from washington. i yield back the balance of my time and urge people to vote for the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 971. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request to address the house for one minute revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise to recognize the juvenile diabetes research foundation. the leading global organization funding type one diabetes research. this week the jdrf children's congress took place here in our nation's capitol. delegates from across the country visited my colleagues and i to help us understand what life is like with type one diabetes, what it's like and why research to fund life-changing therapies until a cure can be found is so critical. as part of this important event, i had the honor of meeting madison houston, an eighth grader in a middle school located in my district. madison was diagnosed with type one diabetes two years ago and has since become a tremendous advocate for jdrf. i admire her courageous spirit and her willingness to fight for a cure. i was encouraged by the recent passage of the 21st century cures act and look forward to working with my colleagues and advocates like madison to advance similar initiatives that will improve the lives and the health of americans. thank you, mr. speaker i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask permission and request to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from pennsylvania . >> thank you. mr. speaker, jonathan rosado was a model citizen who generously shared his strong character and kind spirit through the active teaching tennis -- act of teaching tennis to disadvantaged children. he fostered the legacy youth tennis program in the hunting park community. a groundbreaking addition to youth programming for this philadelphia neighborhood. jonathan's steadfast commitment to community service has served as a tremendous benefit to the many lives he touched. jonathan's sense of responsibility and dedication was instilled in him by his own childhood participation in the legacy youth tennis program and he chose to contribute those attributes right back into the program as he ascended into adulthood. jonathan was tragically murdered last year. although he's sorely missed by all, his bright spirit will continue to be felt in the huntington park neighborhood and in philadelphia long into the future. i recognize jonathan here on the floor of the house of representatives, the people's house, so that his shining example can be more widely witnessed across the nation. mr. boyle: and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the federal government is hording american land. the bureaucrats own about 640 million acres of it. that's 27% of america, larger than all of western europe. the government cannot afford this massive estate. notice this map. all the red areas what the federal government owns, over half the west is owned by the federal government. day by day, unused and unmaintained land sits idle. instead of uncle sam hording this land the government should consider selling the land to americans. to be clear, i'm not talking about selling off national parks monuments, forests or protected areas. just unused land and unmaintained land the government doesn't take care of. it could go to reducing the debt or improving transportation. plus, the sale of land could help state and local governments because they could be paying taxes on the land. time for the federal government to let americans own more of america. does uncle sam really need all of this land? and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? if not under the speaker essay nounsed policy of -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 5 2015, the gentlewoman from new jersey, ms. watson coleman, is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the minority leader. mrs. watson coleman: thank you mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. watson coleman: thank you mr. speaker. yesterday, the united states and our allies reached a landmark agreement with iran to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. to get to this point, mr. speaker, we used diplomacy to find the potential solution that seeks to stabilize the entire middle east region. diplomacy affords us a clearer picture of what the iranian government is doing and what they're capable of. we used peaceful means to promote peace in one of the most volatile regions in the world, and i am proud of the commitment of president obama this administration and our allies in keeping these negotiations alive. mr. speaker, i'm not saying that our job is done. congress must and should take a very close look at this agreement in its final form. in fact, i firmly believe that congress has a critical role to play in the next steps of this agreement. let's look at what this agreement does. within the text, iran affirms that it will not seek develop or acquire a nuclear weapon, but we must ensure that the language will fully deter them from going back on their word and punish them if they take that path. within the text of the agreement, we accept that the united states will lift the sanctions that we place ready on iran, but we must have mechanisms that will allow for oversight on the ground in iran that holds them accountable. this is a difficult and sensitive balance. but if this -- but if this agreement has managed to strike that balance, we would miss a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the middle east if we reject this deal. that's not something we can afford to dismiss. what this teaches us mr. speaker, is that aggression is not the only answer we have to handle difficult relations across the globe. in fact, aggression would not have brought us to this point. were without any loss of life to us or our allies, we have managed to find compromise. sanctions cannot and should not be the only way we bring nations to the table. they serve a critical purpose and certainly they helped in bringing us to this point, but they also come at a significant cost. rather than starving their government in the way we thought they would, they pushed the government to starve its people, resulting in vast unemployment and limited opportunity for a generation of iranians and probably fertile ground for the radicalization of individuals. they pushed iran to ally itself with international actors that further hampered our efforts to stabilize this region. they pushed iran towards total isolation, a situation in which we have no impact whatsoever. at some point, sanctions that have at points been effective became obsolete and counterproductive. i would not ask any of my colleagues to support a deal that does not achieve our chief purpose, preventing a nuclear armed iran with the ability to wreak havoc on the united states, our allies and the world. but i will also ask my colleagues to consider the alternative if we fail to ratify a deal that would meet these goals appropriately. pushing iran further into the shadows giving us no chance at monitoring how where and when iran is enriching uranium and sending iran further into the arms of bad actors or offering iran even greater motivation to undermine basic international law. i have one pretty solid idea of the outcome, a dangerous, complicated war that would drag what is likely the most volatile region into the -- in the world into complete chaos. this agreement may be the best chance to put iran at the table and keep them accountable. to engage the international community in monitoring their activities, to operate in the known and not the unknown of what they are capable of, and to give them a reason to seek the same kind of international peace that every country desperately relies upon. further regression, further sanctions, further isolation can no longer be our answer, especially when we've been given a real opportunity to open the door to peace. i urge my colleagues to give this agreement real consideration. i urge my colleagues to read this agreement. i urge my colleagues to approach this agreement without partisan or political bias. it is time to give peace a chance. with that mr. speaker i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california, representative desauliner. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. desauliner, is designated for the remainder of the hour. mr. desauliner: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desauliner: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today, along with my colleagues from the congressional black caucus, to talk today to the american people about the tragedy of port chicago, california and the injustice that marked the lives of 50 african-american sailors in 1944 and continues to mark every american today. on my right is overview of where the facility is. it is still an existing naval facility or department of defense facility, an important deep water port that allows for munitions to go to strategic assets in the pacific. this is the map of the bay area. you can see it's in the sacramento delta as the delta comes into the san francisco bay. the fofle is an aerial photograph -- the photograph is an aerial photograph of how the facility looked in 1944. you can see where the trains came in. put the box cars into sidings that had concrete on either side to protect people from explosions. then you can see where the ships were stocked. in this photograph there is one shipped docked on the night that we will talk about. there were two ships loaded and in continuously operated ships those ships were loaded, as witnessed would say, in a manner that sacrificed safety in order for expeed yens. the fateful moonless night on monday july 17 1944, was clear and cool, slight breeze was blowing from the southwest two cargo ships were tied up at the port chicago pier under flood lights. workers were working at full speed. shortly after 10:18 p.m. disaster struck. this is how the day of the explosion is described by dr. robert allen in his book titled "the port chicago mutiny." the deadliest home front disaster of world war ii occurred at port chicago naval magazine, a major ammunition facility in my district in northern california. the ship yard site was two miles from a little community of port chicago, population 1,500, and in those areas it was a population of wheat fields. currently it has a population of over 600,000. indicative of the discrimnear practices at the time, all of the inlisted -- enlisted men were african-american, whereas all of their officers were caucasians. the explosion killed or wounded 710 people, 435 of whom were african-american. they had no formal training in safe methods of ammunition or explosives handling given to any of the enlisted men. the navy failed to adequately provide these enlisted men with the tools necessary to be able to operate under safe working conditions, even after the tragedy struck. when the surviving 258 african-american sailors who understandably refused to return to work in these deplorable conditions following the explosion, 50 were charged with mutiny and convicted. during this time, we seek to bring attention to the systemic racial discrimination suffered by these sailors while on duty in order to bring perspective to the ongoing discrimination against people of color as we enter into the weekend, which will note the 71st anniversary of this tragedy. prior to the explosion, many officers at port chicago had no previous training either or experience in ship loading, handling ammunition or commanding enlisted men. many of them were reservists. they were called to active duty from civilian life and given little or no training. they had to, as they said, learned by doing. black enlisted men were also untrained while they were very aware of the inherent danger of their jobs. these african-american men hoped by discounting their risk and much by humor. weeks before the explosion, the longshoreman's union of san francisco warned the navy that there would be disaster at port chicago if the navy continued to use untrained seamen to load load it. they were doing similar work on other ports in the west coast and knew how to load these dangerous materials safely and did not sacrifice safety for speed. the union offered to send experienced longshoremen to train navy recruits in the safe handling of ammunition but this offered was ignored by the navy. as this existing policy required the coast guard to provide a detail to ensure that safe handling procedures were followed. navy commanders believed that this was an unnecessary -- that this was unnecessary and would create confusion and disrupt loading. when the coast guard tried to oversee operations, it rejected the navy's common practice, including the practice of moving bombs by rolling and dropping them into place in the ship's hold. alternative methods offered by the coast guard were considered, quote, ridiculous by the navy and ignored. in addition, sailors were encouraged to compete against each other, to load as much ammunition as possible into the ship and officers placed nightly bets among themselves as to which division would load more and then pursued their individual enlisted men to make sure that they would win bets as small as $5. during the environment of this whole period, eight-day work periods were what were allowed by the navy. you'd have six days to loading ammunition with a sleep break and with meals in short rest periods. after the sixth day you would have what was called a duty day, which you'd do duty around the facility and you had one day of liberty. this at that time was a very remote facility and was a long way from oakland the nearest major city but many of the enlisted men made that trip anyways and went back to work very exhausted. aside from the petty officers, all the officers at port chicago were white. commanding officers believed black enlisted men were a major problem rather than an asset. captain nelson ghost, the commanding officer of mir island said the black recruits, and i quote, arrived with a chip on their shoulder if not indeed one on each shoulder. in actuality, these recruits joined the military to defend their country and to fight, if necessary, and put themselves in harm's way overseas. . the captain complained they were in turn, black men resented, obviously, that only they were assigned to essential labor battalions charged with doing dangerous work. they were distressed that they could not receive the rating and promotions that they thought they deserved. for men working under these precarious conditions, the situation amounted to a new form of slavery. a worker describedport chicago, quote as a -- described port chicago, as a slave outfit, end quotes. we were considered a cheap labor force from the beginning, end quotes. they believed their life was worth less, they were treated as if their lives were worth less, just as their work and abilities were valued less. a group of men drafted a letter in 1943 setting their grievances and point out that the morale among the enlisted men had dropped to, and i quote again, an alarming depth. on the evening of the 17th, two ships, as i said, the e.a. brian and the quinnhole victory the quinnhole victory was a brand new ship were both in port being loaded. the e.a. brian was almost fully loaded as they entered into the grave yard shift. in the enlisted men's barracks a short distance away, it was quiet. many men were in their bunks when suddenly an unbelievable explosion occurred shortly after 10:18 p.m. survivors in oakland and san francisco still remember the explosion from 20 and 35 miles away. people in the nearby rural communities continued to remember this explosion the way survivors of the earthquake in san francisco did many years after. thest. a. brian was loaded that night with 4,600 tons of ammunition and high explosives. bombs weighing 650 pounds each with their activated mechanisms or fuses being full installed were being loaded one at a time. the dock and the ship had disappeared after the explosion. . a. brian was eviscerated. the very few pieces were found of this large shape -- ship. the quinn hull victory was -- queen hull victory was lifted out of the water, turned over and broke noon pieces with very little of it remaining. the 1,00-foot-long wooden pier simply disappeared. this is the day after the explosion and this is what was left of the pier. during the evening, the accounts talk about people in the barracks being completely in plaque because all the electricity went out. not knowing what had happened, not knowing what had happened to their colleagues down at the pier. many of them thought they were under attack by the japanese. i have one account from a guard on duty that night. quote, the barracks had a lot of windows, lower and upper deck. this is a distance away from this site. whole sides of windows, they were blown to pieces. some guys lost their sight others were badly cut. finally they got the emergency lights together, then some guys came by in a truck and we went down to the dock all on our own, but when we got there, we didn't see no dock, no ship, no nothing. just darkins. everyone on board the two ships and the fire barge were killed instantly 320 men, 202 whom were african-americans. another 390 military personnel and civilians were injured, including 233 black enlisted men. this single stunning disaster accounted for more than 15% of all the black naval casualties during world war ii. property damage, military and civilian, was estimated at that time at more than $12 million. again, mr. criten recounted, you could see a shoe with a foot in it and then would you remember how you joked often with your colleagues about who was going to be the first out of that hole if somethingent wrong. you'd see a head floating across the water just a head, or an arm, bodies. just awful. for fo port chicago seamen and one black enlisted man were awarded medals in fighting the ammunition box car fire and subsequent fires that broke out that evening ter the explosion. a proposal -- a proposal was presented to congress to grant families up $000 in compensation for the loss of their loved ones. however, when mississippi representative john rankin objected to the plan because mostf the beneficiaries were black, congress reduced the maximum allowable grant to $3,000. four days after the explosion. the naval court of inquiry convened on treasure island, or i should say or mayor island to inquire into the circumstances of the explosion. captain nelson ghost admitted that a port director had previously warned him again, quote, conditions are bad out there. you've got to do something about it. if you aren't careful, somethg's going to happen and you'll be held responsible. the judge advocate of the inquiry concluded by addressing the questio of the role of black enlisted personnel in his official inquiry. and i quote, the consensus of opinion of the witnesses and practically admitted by the interested parties is that the colored enlisted personnel are neither temper mentally or intellectually capable of handling high explosives. in short, they blamethe ctims because they were african-american. during the weeks after and the days after the men only obviously were in a state of shock, troubled by the memory of a horrible explosion in which so many of their friends had died and so many of them had believed would come to bear and then unfortunately saw the tragedy worse than they could imagine. everybody was scared, one survivor recalled. if someone dropped a box or slammed a door, people began jumping around like crazy. many of the black survivors expected to be granted survivor's leave as was custom the that -- athat time in the navy, to visit their families before bei reassigned to regular duty. they waited and waited to get these 30 days off. to go visit friends and to start to process what they had seen. before they would come back to regular duty, which they were happy to do. such leaves were not granted, even men who had been hospitalized were not granted leaves. all men were to be sent back to work loading ammunition under the same officers before. however, white officers were allowed to go home for 30-day leaves, all of of them. you can see why under these circumstances and given the tragedy many of the enlisted african-american survivors of port chicago were upset in the three weeks after the explosion. they continued to be treated as they were treated before the explosion, in spite of their warnings the warnings of the professionals of the union, and the united states coast guard. so some weeks later, the men were sent back to mayor island a short distance away from where port chicago is across the strait where munition ships were again being loaded for the war effort. an important job. as the men marched to go back to work three weeks after the incident, they still did not know where they were going as they marched. they did not know but they do know at a certain juncture in the road they could be ordered to turn right, which would take them to the parade ground or they could be ordered to turn left which would take them to the ferry that crossed the river to the ammunition loading dock where they would inevitably resume doing the same work they had done before. there was a young enlisted officer or man who had natural leadership qualities from new jersey, who you'll hear about shortly. enlistedman small. he directed the cadence as they walked back. he describe what had happened next as he delivered the cadence and he marched his division back to the pier. i was marching on left-hand side of the ranks when the lieutenant gave the command to column left. everybody stopped dead, boom, just like that. he said, the captain said, forward march, column left. nobody moved. an officer asked small, small, are you going to go back to work? he answered, no, sir. the officer asked why and he said, i'm afraid. seen as a leader among the men, others refused to work when he refused to go back. someone over in the ranks said, if small don't go, we're not going either. 328 followed -- or enlisted member small and refused to return to work at that movement 258 were imprisoned as a result and shortly thereafter 50 were charged with conspiring to make mutiny. the trial commenced on treasure island shortly thereafter. if these 50 were convicted of the charge, the men faced prison terms of 15 years or death. mutiny was defined by the defense as an unlawful opposition or resistance to or defines of superior military authority with a deliberate purpose to usurp subvert or override the same. mutiny was defined by the prosecution as collective insbord nation. collective disobedience of lawful orders of a superior a conspiracy to disobey lawful orders of a superior is mutiny. as opposed to what we described. one sailor stated that we didn't know you could define disobeying orders as being a mutiny, we thought mutiny could only happen on a ship. a refusal to work is a passive act of resistance. without intent to seize power. a mutiny is an active revolt with intent of taking charge. at this point i would like to recognize a colleague from the black caucus for what time he needs to express himself. >> thank you. may i inquire from the chair how much time we have remaining . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 35 minutes remaining. >> thank you. first, i'd like to thank congressman for bringing this important issue up and highlighting, one, the contribution made by the sailors, two, the challenges they faced during this ordeal, and three the remarkable sense of patriotism that each one of them exhibited and their desire to serve our country. and not often do we bring up things that happen 71 years ago, especially things that have not gained a lot of media attention. ms. richardson: by but the sacrifice -- mr. richmond: but the sacrifice of every man and woman in this country deserves recognition. i am honored to be a part of this hour tonight and i feel really privileged that i get a chance to talk about a few of my constituents' families that really exesmified what's best in america and what's best about the american people. so the first sailor i will start with is ernest joseph gains. he was a native of new orleans. he enlisted in the navy in 1942 when he was only 20 years old. before enlisting, he worked as a helper with the sheet metal -- doing sheet metal work in a machine shop. at port chicago, he was a wench operator and worked loading the e.a. brian, one of the ships that was destroyed in the explosion at the base. at the mutiny trial, gaines testified that he had a lot of trouble controlling the wench he was operating. after the explosion, he said he became afraid of loading ammunition because he knew he could not control the wench. and just as a side note here there was a report of trouble with the brake on the number one wench on the e.a. brian before the explosion, but whether it was fixed is not known to us. the next person i'd like to talk about is martin from new orleans. and just think about his eagerness to be and show his patriotism. he initially volunteered for the navy in 1942 when he was 16 years old. he wanted to follow in the footsteps of his four older brothers, all of whom had enlisted in the navy. when they discovered he was underage they immediately discharged him. but he immediately re-enlisted in 1944 when he was of proper age. in the meantime, he workeded a a painter helping his father who had a job painting houses. the ultimate thing with him although his patriotism is remarkable, he was one of the african-american soldiers that was injured in the explosion and hospitalized. the last two, one of which is miller matthews, he was born and raised in new orleans had five years of elementary education before becoming a shoe shine boy, then a bus boy, and then a delivery boy before finally becoming a longshoreman and unloading and loading mississippi river boats for six years. he enlisted in the navy in 1943 at the age of 27. and then we have lloyd mckinney who was born and raised in donaldsonville, louisiana, which is another part of my district, where he completed one year of high school and then went on to work as a porter in a hotel and later as a helper and an -- in an auto repair shop. he enlisted at the age of 18 in 1942. mckinney in the explosion suffered lass rations from flying glass and explosion but imagine this, he declined to be taken to the hospital because he did not want to take up space that other officers would need because there were more seriously injured. so again i would like to so again, i want to thank my colleague for bringing up this story which i am not ashamed to say is a story that was new to me and i think every day we learn and more -- learn more and more about this country and talking about past instances of discrimination and unfair treatment that african-americans went through, especially while serving their country, only makes this country better. it helps us share perspective and gives us the real-life experiences what others went through which makes this country stronger, which makes this country better and it breeds understanding and the love that makes us exceptional. and with that mr. chairman, i would yield back to my colleague and thank him again, for letting me participate in this special order. mr. desauliner: thank you, mr. richmond. i'd like to yield mr. speaker, if it's appropriate at this time to my friend from new jersey, representative coleman. mrs. watson coleman: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. and i rise today to join his call for justice for the sailors and families who suffered in the discriminatory and calous response to port chicago naval magazine's tragedy. this is of particular importance to me because i had the honor of representing the district that the alleged leader of that protest joseph randolph small, had called home. but it's also important because of where we are in the arc of history. the events of the past several months have forced our nation to do quite a bit of soul searching on the topic of race and the enduring injustices felt by men and women of color. from the seemingly inexplicable use against people of color, to the disturbing hate crime committed at emmanuelle, we know the discrimination that occurred at port chicago is not isolated to the past. but if there is any positive outcome to these tragedies, it is in the opportunity to heal long buried but never bannedaged wounds. recognizing one such wound, south carolina recently voted to remove the confederate battleground from the grounds of its state house. exonerating the sailors who were punished simply seeking for safer working conditions would heal yet another. as my colleague already described, in 1944, a segregated u.s. navy used black enlisted men with no training to do the heavy dangerous work of loading ammunition onto vessels that would transport them. that lack of training and neglect for the safety of those sailors led to the greatest home front disaster of world war ii and claimed several hundred lives, most of them black. small, who hailed from the beautiful somerset, new jersey, led the protest because the survivors understood that to return to the same routine would mean risking another explosion. that simple protest for basic rights and consideration led to convictions of mutiny, prison sentences and dishonorably discharges for the sailors who stood with small. before the explosion, small had complained to the new commander that he was promoting inherently dangerous behavior by rewarding the sailors who could load the most ammunition in the shortest period of time. small was ignored and after joining his peers in protest, he was kept in solitary confinement during his trial and sentenced to 15 years simply for seeking justice. exonerating these men would make right a long-standing injustice and i'm proud to stand with my colleague in this call for action. i thank the gentleman for his work and i yield back. mr. desauliner: i thank the gentlelady. and i'd like to yield to the representative from ohio. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker. i want to thank congressman desauliner and congresswoman lee for their leadership and drawing attention to this issue and for helping to bring attention to this really a story of injustice. mr. chabot: the story of the port chicago 50 isn't in most textbooks or histories of world war ii, but perhaps it should be. while it may not be this nation's proudest moment, it is a part of our history, and it's a tragic event which we can learn and we can actually grow, i think, as a nation. the enlisted men stationed at the port chicago naval magazine, including the port chicago 50, served our nation proudly and they served her honorably. for that they deserve our gratitude. for those unfamiliar with the story, and i know it's already been talked about, but i'd like to talk about it very briefly again, following a catastrophic cargo vessel explosion on july 17 1944, which killed or wounded 710 people several enlisted men voiced concerns about continuing to handle munitions at the port. among those voicing concerns were two gentlemen from cincinnati, ohio from the area i am proud to serve. mentor byrnes and edward lee longmire. both men enlisted in 1943. they were not life-long soldiers with extensive training. they were ordinary, patriotic americans doing their part to help in the war effort. mr. byrnes was a wood turner in a furniture factory before enlisting. mr. longmire worked as a salesclerk selling poultry. nothing in their background prepared them for handling munitions and unfortunately the navy at that time did not provide adequate training for the men serving at port chicago. so it's understandable that the men who survived the explosion were reluctant to continue loading munitions without efforts to make the process safer. for that they were charged with mutiny. reluctance and even refusal to return to unsafe conditions and procedures is not mutiny. it's common sense. mr. speaker, america is the greatest country on the face of the globe, but that doesn't mean we don't at times make mistakes and that's what happened here. injustices like the mutiny convictions for the port chicago 50, they certainly fall within that category. however, one of the things that makes america great is the freedom of the american people and the people's elected representatives to speak out against injustices correct past wrongs and strive for a better future for all of us. we can't go back in time and prevent the convictions of the port chicago 50, but we can correct the record and we can exonerate those wrongfully convicted and give their families and their loved ones the peace of knowing that they served our nation honorably and faithfully, that they did nothing wrong. mr. speaker, it's far past time that the port chicago 50 receive justice. we owe it to mr. byrnes, mr. longmire and the rest of those wrongfully convicted and discharged, we need to set the record straight and i want to thank my colleagues for making it possible for us this evening to participate in this effort. i yield back. mr. desauliner: i want to thank the gentleman for his eloquence and to the point of what we asked for today and with that i'd like to yield to my neighbor and my colleague and my partner in this effort, ms. lee. ms. lee: thank you very much for yielding. first, let me just start by thanking my colleague and my neighbor in the east bay, congressman desaulnier, for organizing this very important and long overdue special order. since being elected to the house congressman desauliner, you have been doing a denominal job working on behalf of your constituents working on the government oversight and reform committee. i know your constituents are thanking you but i want to thank you for coming and hitting the ground running on so many issues, including our efforts to eliminate poverty. also tonight, it's so important this special honor calling for the exoneration of these brave and courageous men. this is an issue, i must say, that i have worked on for many, many years. first as a staffer to my mentor and predecessor, and then alongside your predecessor, congressman george miller, who was a true leader on so many issues. some, and you may have mentioned this earlier, may know in 1999 we pulled together a national petition and persuaded president clinton to pardon one of the few surviving convicted sailors affected by this tragedy. we also worked tirelessly to preserve the port chicago national memorial through legislation, the port chicago naval magazine memorial enhancement act which president obama signed into law in 2009. so i'm very pleased to see that we're here tonight once again calling for justice for the african-american sailors at port chicago. this story needs to be told over and over and over again as we are doing tonight and once again thank you for taking the fight for injustice, mr. desauliner. as we stand before the 71st anniversary of a national tragedy that is far too often forgotten, we remember the 320 american soldiers, african-american soldiers were, i think 200 of the 320 who lost their lives in the deadliest home front disaster of world war ii. but we also remember how deeply this tragedy was marked by, yes, institutional racism and the sole emduty we have to undo the legacy of that racism today which congresswoman bonnie watson coleman talked about very eloquently. the port chicago naval magazine, as some may know, is located near concord, california next to my congressional district. on the evening of july 17 hrks 1944, a -- july 17, 1944, an explosion blew out windows as far away as san francisco. as said earlier, all in all 320 sailors lost their lives. 200 of them were african-americans. because of this tragedy was inadequate training and insufficient safety precautions around handling active munitions, all of the enlisted men who were unloading the active munitions onto a cargo vessel at the time of the explosion were african-american. our nation's then segregated military barred african-american enlisted servicemen from active naval duty and therefore from receiving the proper training to handle artillery. nevertheless, white officers at port chicago ordered african-american sailors to improperly load active munitions into ships resulting in the tragic explosion. these men died serving their country on the home front, and died because their lives and personal safety were not valid by their commanding officers. the story does not end there. three weeks after the tragedy, the more than 300 african-american sailors who survived the tragedy were once again ordered to continue loading ships in the same perilous fashion. nearly all of them stood their ground and refused to return to work without proper safety conditions in ammunition training in place. all of those who refused to go back to work in unsafe conditions were arrested. 208 of them were sentenced to bad conduct discharges and forfeiture of three months' pay for disobeying orders. this is mind-boggling as i recount the history of this tonight. in is so sad. 50 of those men who stood up for their rights and spoke truth to power about the value of their lives were charged with mutiny. mutiny, mind you. convicted and sentenced to hard labor and dishonorably discharged from the navy. they are now known as the port chicago 50. so we're here tonight demanding justice for their courage and recognition for their service. instead of being cited for mutiny and dishonor, these men should be recognized for standing up to the specter of discrimination and -- spector of discrimination in the armed forces. as a daughter as a retired lieutenant colonel in the army, i remember these days very, very vividly as a child. these naval sailors, these men showed that their courageous act of defiance really is part of the long history of people of color demanding just basic respect for their rights and that their lives, which continues to this day. that's why it's so important for us to stand here tonight and remember their brave actions and how they push towards progress in our nation and the armed forces. but to date only one of the port chicago 50 has been pardoned. only one. for the remaining 49 their families have been patiently waiting for their names to be cleared of this unjust conviction. so i urge my colleagues to join us in calling for the exoneration of these 49 sailors. these brave sailors should be remembered for their courage. they were heroes. they are heroes. they stood up in the face of discrimination and the devaling of black lives. so we -- devaluing of black lives. so we need to tell this story which is left out on our civil rights, military history and, yes, california history and the history of our nation. as dr. king said and congressman desauliner, i'm reminded of this tonight because you are certainly showing us that dr. king -- quote, the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice. this is one night that you're helping to bend that arc towards justice, and so thank you, again, congressman desauliner for your leadership and ensuring that not only we remember those who were lost in this tragedy but that we move forward and exonerate each and every one of them. thank you, again. . mr. desaulnier: thank you for your support and i thank and recognize my predecessor congressman miller and his chief of staff who put so much effort into this and still has been helpful. i want to conclude, mr. speaker with a few brief comments and quote from thurgood marshall and brief quote from mr. small. justice marshall came west to observe the case. he declared that this is not an individual case. this is not 50 men on trial for mutiny. this is not the -- this is the navy on trial for its whole vicious policy towards blacks. black americans are not afraid of anything any more than anyone else is. blacks in the navy don't mind loading ammunition. they just want to know why they are the only ones doing the loading. they wanted to know why they are segregated and why they don't get promoted. the future justice of the u.s. supreme court continued, he said, i want to know why the navy disregarded official warnings by the san francisco waterfront unions before the port chicago disaster that an explosion was inevitable. i want to know, why the navy disregarded an offer by the same unions to send experienced men to train navy personnel in the safe handling of explosives. i want to know said mr. marshall why commissioned officers at port chicago were allowed to race their mens and bets arranging from $5 up were made between division officers as to whose crew would load more ammunition. still, these men were convicted whereupon mr. marshall responded after the trial by saying, these men were tried and convicted of mutiny, solely because of their race and color. he continued, the accused were made scape goats in a situation brought about by a combination of circumstances. he concluded by saying justice can only be done in this case by a complete reversal of the finding. and that is why we are here today. bl speaker, the events at port chicago in the aftermath played the role of the desegregation of the armed forces in 1948. that was a good thing. the rebelion by the port chicago 50 like the civil rights movement of the 1960's and ongoing conversation today against people of color are a continued struggle against social gin injustice, mr. small said, my only way of changing what was an impossible situation was not to work. it wasn't a planned thing. it was brought on by circumstances. it was on by working conditions. it was inevitable. just the same way the explosion was inevitable. something would have happened to set off that explosion because of the way they were handling the ammunition. it had to happen. what else can i say. it's been more than 40 years ago, he said, but it is more vivid in my memory today than the day it happened or the actual court martial. conditions under which we were working because they were so appalling. many instances that we see today in our society. mr. speaker, as our nation speaks to heal the deep racial wound to permeate violent acts of our citizens of color, we must rectify injustices in order to forge a better future. injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. america would do well to remember port chicago. indeed america must remember port chicago. for marshal'sl' words are more poignant when he said during the trial, what's at stake is more than the rights of my clients. it's the moral commitment stated in our nation's creed. with that, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015 the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse is recognized. mr. newhouse: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. newhouse: i rise today with friends and colleagues from every corner of our great country to support an american institution that in its 81 years has created countless jobs here at home and support of export goods. the export import bank while first created under president roosevelt in response to the great depression is an institution that has supported american manufacturers and producers through both good times and bad. it has experienced strong support over the years from both republicans and democrats. president reagan praising the export import bank declared exports create and sustain jobs for millions of american workers and contribute to the growth and strength of the united states economy. the export import bank contributes in a significant way to our nation's export sales. mr. speaker, the charter for the export-import bank expired on june 30, of this year, did he priving our nation of a financial tool of growing our economy in an age where we must stay as competitive as possible in the global economy. today, my colleagues and i will explain the role of the bank, clear up any misconceptions surrounding it and explain like while any institution, it should be reformed to make it leaner and make it competitive. this is a worth while institution that we should support and re-authorize as soon as possible. i urge house leadership to allow a vote to re-authorize the export-import bank and weigh the merits of the bank for themselves. i would like to extend a special thanks to my colleagues, congressman collins from new york who helped organize today's special order. with that i would like to yield to mr. fincher. mr. fincher: thank the gentleman from washington for yielding on this important subject and the rest of my colleagues for coming tonight to shed light on why the export-import bank is so important. i have a few stats i want to read and my comments will be brief. the bank supports 200,000 jobs each year at no cost to the u.s. taxpayer including 8,315 jobs in my home state of tennessee. that's around 1.4 million american jobs in the past five years. in fiscal year 2014, exim bank supported $21.5 billion in exports and 164,000 u.s. jobs. the bank returned $675 million to the u.s. treasury in fiscal year 2014, reducing the deficit in fiscal year 2013, the bank sent back more than $1 billion. small businesses accounted for nearly 90% of the bank's transactions in 2014. last year, the bank had historically low active default rate of less than one quarter of 1%. its default rate was 1.67%. we have a very, very serious obligation to our constituents that we represent back in our districts. i serve the 8th congressional district of tennessee, a wonderful state and a wonderful district. and my constituents send me to washington to make the government more accountable, to make it better, to make it smaller, to make it more transparent and to make it work for them back in their districts. they don't send me to washington -- i don't go home every week to my district and my constituents and say stephen, we wish you would shut down the government. we wish you would end the only good government programs that work. we want you to abolish them. they send us things to make these things work. the exim bank is in serious reforms and we started working on a reform package. our bill to re-authorize with 31 reforms to fix the bank and make it more transparent and more accountable. some of my colleagues in the house have taken a different approach and taken a political approach that this is going to be the heel that they are going to die on and the facts don't matter, all that matters are the political outside groups calling for whatever is in their best interests, not the best interests of our districts and constituents back at home. think about this. we go home, i go home to my district and my constituents come up to me and say congressman, have you been able to get rid of freddie mmac and fannie mae. i said we are working on it. have you been able to reform medicare and social security and make sure taste solvent. i say we are working on it. congressman, have you been able to do tax reform? i say, well we are getting there. they say congressman let me make sure i understand that the only thing that congress did do was get rid of the only thing that worked that helped create my job and now i'm on the unemployment line because i don't have a job. surely, surely we're better than this and that we can work for our constituents all over this great country. you know i look back at history and i looked back a few years ago, in 2006, this was voice voted and my chairman, who is on opposite sides with me on this issue was here in 2006. now if this was such a big deal, why in 2006 was this issue not raised? we're doing more in the way of reforms than probably ronald reagan did many, many years ago. plain and simple. this is about jobs. this is about making sure that we're working for our districts. this is a serious reform bill that moves this export-import bank in the right direction by making it work. i urge my colleagues to hopefully we get a chance to vote on this in the next week to 10 days, but that we pass this, we do what's right for our constituents and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. fincher and thank you for bringing forward the legislation to re-authorize the bank and for your compelling arguments. those are great strong statistics on the benefits that exim has given our country. the manufacturers and employees all over the united states. next i'd like to yield some time to the good representative from the state of new york, mr. collins. mr. collins: i want to thank my friend from washington for his work organizing this special order and certainly thank the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, for his steadfast work to ensure the re-authorization of the export-import bank and his speech sums it up. i rise today in support of the export-import bank which supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and returns a profit to the u.s. treasury and ensures that u.s. exporters can compete on a level playing field in the global market. my chart here says it all. the ex-im bank equals jobs. not too long i was befuddled why the majority of my conference aimed focus on ending the charter and i have to give them the credit, they did that. but we're here to say and re-authorize this bank and get back to supporting small business and growing jobs, because that's what this is all about. the misinformation, and i would call it the misguided outside influences that have come to play that mr. fincher pointed out, this has always been voice voted and all of a sudden this became the cause someone wanted to die on the hill for but why do we want to kill jobs in the united states jobs that contribute to a surplus of exports? we have a trade imbalance. these jobs are creating exports overseas to reduce that trade imbalance. in my district, the bank supports over 700 jobs and $100 million in exports. by authorizing the bank is vital to manufacturers to grow and prosper in a competitive world economy. u.s. exporters look to the export bank when they face direct competition from foreign agencies when regulatory constraints limit commercial lending, when they are selling into markets with political risk, or when a foreign customer requires official export credit as part of the bidding process. unlike most, i know from experience, before coming to congress, i started and ran a number of small businesses. one of those small businesses that i founded in 2004 is audubon machinery corporation, located in new york. today it's a diversified manufacturing company that amongst other things exports oxygen generating systems around the world. these are medical grade oxygen systems used in hospitals, in nigeria, vietnam mainland china places where the hospitals don't have the liquid oxygen tanks outside like they do in the u.s. and europe. so we simply take the nitrogen out of the air we breathe, the air we breathe is 22% oxygen 78% nitrogen. we take that nitrogen out of the air, producing 93% medical grade oxygen used in these hospitals throughout the developing countries in africa, south america, asia and like i said, major exports into mainland china. the export-import bank plays a critical role in what we do. we pay a fee, we pay a fee to the export-import bank to provide a guarantee to our commercial bank that guarantees a portion of the line of credit we use to buy the inventory we need to make the product. i'll say again new york a small business cash is king. we have to buy materials we have to pay our vendors, but we probably are not going to ship that product for five or six months, so there's a gap there. we collect our money after we ship but we have four or five months where we've had to borrow money to buy the inventory to make the product. that's how business works. commercial banks in the united states are more than willing to loan that money for business done in the united states, perhaps in europe, but in the rest of the world africa asia, much of south america, the banks will not take that risk. so the export-import bank, we pay a fee they loan us the money, that is a surplus for the export bank because we are ultimately certainly never going to default on that loan. that's how those jobs are created. without the export-import bank, commercial banks are saying i'm not going to lend you for the inventory you need to ship hospital systems to mainland china. >> let me give you an example, a gentleman came in and talked to me, he manufactures trackors he said he was shipping his tractor to france. the local bank said there's no way in the world they would accept the collateral. it's a specific example. i assume that's exactly the type of thing we're seing in small businesses across the country. mr. collins: it just comes down to the banks today are very risk averse. i know what they're thinking, and here's their thought. we've taken an order from vietnam to produce a hospital system that costs a quarter million dollars. we have to buy the inventory. we get the inventory and i think what the bank is worried about is somehow that order is canceled and when that order is canceled, their fear would be, we aren't going to have any recourse to collect cancellation charges and we'll have this useless inventory in our factory. first of all, in our case, that's not true. we send the same systems around the world. in our case, we'd be able to use that inventory on a future order. but you can see where thebacks would have a credit policy, we're not going to lend for foreign inventories without some kind of backup. now the backup is the export-import bank at about an 80% guarantee and i have said to my fellow colleagues, when i said i'm somewhat befuddled by what we're doing here, i've asked them directly do, they support the small business administration, the s.b.a. which makes the very same loan guarantees to the very same banks? and the small businesses pay a fee for those small business administration loan guarantees for startup companies. how can you support the s.b.a. on the one hand helping small business and not support the ex-im bank on the other hand which is supporting small businesses. i'll make another point. the default rate on many loans is double that of the ex-im loans. why? startup companies fail at a pretty fast pace. that's why the s.b.a. makeance 0% guarantee for those loans so the bank will lepped the money. their risk is very small. but you have a lot of failures. companies that -- companies that are export, producing products and exporting around the world have been in business five or 10 years. you don't open your doors and immediately start making products and shipping them into main london china, vietnam and indonesia. no you're going to wait until you're mature enough. so these businesses have been around five or 10 years. so they need the credit to support the inventory for the four or five months are in production. that's why the default rate is slow. -- so low. when i ask members, how do you support the s.b.a. and not the ex-im bank. typically they'll call it the bank of boeing. the bank of general electric. because in competing against airbus which has access to european credits, i said, sure, that's another piece of it besides small business but g.e. and boeing buy from a lot of small businesses as well. but you're absolutely inconsistent to say you support the s.b.a. but can't support the ex-im bank. i know that the money's paid mitigating circumstance companies have paid for this insurance, you will has created that surplus that the ex-im bank returns year in and year out. so i'll yield back. i'd like to stay around to continue the discussion but i think it comes back to ex-im equals jobs. ex-im is creating jobs that manufacture and ship products overseas, redeucing our trade deficit and creating a surplus for the u.s. treasury to reduce our financial deficit. this should be voice voted like it has forever. it hasn't been. so now we've got to lead this charge and that's what we're doing here. thank you very much and i yield back. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. collins. your stories of small business miss your state and your district i think can be told in virtually every district in the country. very powerful stories. at this time mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to mr. dold of illinois, a great member of our caucus technically a member of our freshman team. very happy to have him here this evening. thank you, mr. dold. mr. dold: i thank my good friend from washington for organizing this special order. i want to thank my good friend, mr. fincher, for his work on the legislation. for those talking about trying to create jobs, and what we're talking about here in terms of the ex-im bank, the export-import bank is a bipartisan piece of legislation that we're looking to re-authorize. we're looking to make sure that again, we're creating jobs. the authorization of the bank for those who might have forgotten and those who may be tuned in mr. speaker in 2012, the re-authorization passed on a suspension vote of 330-93. it passed the senate 77 -- 78-20. this wasn't three decades ago. this was three years ago. so the reason to support re-authorization of the ex-im bank, and i appreciate my good friend mr. collins talking about ex-im equals jobs, i do believe that's the case. you've all heard the statistics. 3% of the loans nationwide from the ex-im bank are going to small businesses. small businesses create 2/3 of the net new jobs in our nation. and i have to tell you new york talking to my colleagues around this very body, the number one very we encounter is the fact that it's jobs and the economy. we want to create and make sure there's a robust amount of good, high-paying careers. ex-im bank ebb ables small businesses to keep their doors open, to ship to 96% of the world's consumers which happens to be outside of the united states. it's interesting to me, and when we talk about this there's a lot of businesses able to put a plaint in malaysia or germany or other places. it's the small businesses that oftentimes don't have that ability. you heard me having a conversation with mr. collins earlier about someone that came into my office talking about the fact that they manufacture tractors. tractors aren't big tractor, they're fairly small but they cost about $1 million apiece. if they aren't able to manufacture those tractors here in the united states, getting that export-import bank financing they'll go somewhere else. they have a facility in frns they'll be able to use. those are jobs that are going to leave the united states. so i do believe when we talk about the economic growth and manufacturing, my district and i know many of the other districts of my colleagues here are heavy in manufacturing. we're the fourth largest manufacturing district and the -- in the 10th district of illinois. we have literally hundreds 54,000 jobs in the district rely upon exports. boeing which i recognize that there's a lot of people that want to talk about boeing, boeing actually has three dozen suppliers in the 10th district of illinois. these are three dozen businesses and hundreds of employees that support making things that go into a boeing plane. you've heard the adage when a boeing plane lands, 21,000 small businesses land with it. this is important. this is talking about good, high-paying jobs, things the export-import bank absolutely helped support. the thing that's interesting to me is if we choose to not re-authorize the export-import bank, who loses? our competitors overseas have export financing. our small businesses will be the ones that lose. we're going to in essence tie one hand behind our back and make us less competitive. i can't think of a crazier thing, to make us less competitive. we want to be more competitive. we want to give our small businesses every advantage possible to be able to go out and compete and win. this is what we have an only fwation to do. this is what we have an opportunity to do. so i am delighted to be able to stand up here with my friends, to talk about in a bipartisan way, actually, why it is important that we re-authorize the export-import bank. because there are jobs, there are businesses, in wheel lincoln shir, north brook glen view, elmhurst, mount prospect, these are all towns in the 10th district that have companies that utilize the export-import bank. this is not some random deal. this is something that small businesses utilize in order to make sure that they can sell their goods to places all over the globe. places you know france, germany, india china, it's super important that we give them the opportunity to not only make it here in america but be able to send it all over the globe. mr. speaker, if we're looking for an opportunity to end a government program, listen, i'm all for government accountability. trying to make sure the government is smaller and more responsive. let's not focus on a government program that brings in billions of dollars into the federal treasury and creates jobs. we've leader about trowny capitalism and we need to be focusing on how do we help small businesses. again if we shut down the export-import bank who loses? our small businesses. not the small businesses that they compete against maybe overseas, because they have an export arm. as my friend was talking about if the private sector and private sector banks would do it i would understand. but there's a lot of private sector banks when they see the collateral go overseas, they can't touch, can't get back, their answer when they walk in for a million dollars of financing to send that tractor overseas the answer is no. guess what? they can't hire that next individual to create and make that tractor. we need export financing. we need to make sure the export-import bank has some restructuring. this bill does that, to try to have some changes in the export-import bank to make sure we're having that appropriate oversight, to make sure we're holding them accountable. but it is absolutely vital, mr. speaker, for good high-paying careers that the export-import bank is re-authorized and re-authorized with an overwhelming support. if it comes to the floor mr. speaker, i'm confident that this passes. so i want to thank my good friend from washington for bringing this up. i want to thank my colleagues for standing up and supporting what we all know is going to be absolutely good for small business, and with that, i yield back to my good friend from washington. . mr. newhouse: coming from a state of washington 40% of the jobs in my state are related to exports so we understand the importance of having the tools at our disposal to make these small businesses successful. i would like to turn to the young man of ohio, mr. steve stivers for his comments. mr. stivers: thanks for doing this special order. this message needs to get out. i thank the gentleman from tennessee mr. fincher for sponsoring the reform bill. i think it's important to note we need to re-authorize and reform the ex-im bank. obviously, the ex-im bank is about jobs. you heard that message all evening. the charter did expire on june 30 and today, the export-import can service existing loans but can't make new loan guarantees so we need to re-authorize the ex-im bank. we are facing competition against 59 countries that have similar export credit finance agencies and it's important we re-authorize our ex-im bank. the worst thing to do is unilaterally disarm in a trade war against these 57 other countries and put our small businesses and job creators and exporters at a competitive disadvantage. one of the companies in my district called davenport aviation. it's a small exporter that sends air parts to subsaharan africa. davenport aviation needs it because in places like angola there's a political risk, there's a credit risk and only the export-import bank can come in and take that risk and make that happen because as the gentleman from new york said earlier, it's probably pretty hard to get a bank loan to sell spare parts into angola and other places in subsaharan africa. but davenport aviation has thrived because the ex-im bank is there. there are 12 jobs in davenport aviation. it started with one person three years ago. and there are companies like that all throughout my district. j.d. equipment exports a lot of things by using the export-import bank. this bill that mr. fincher has created will make sure those job creators can continue to make and create products that they export to other countries and create american jobs in the process. as you heard, the fincher bill has 1 reforms that are meaningful. i'm working on four amendments. one would be a re-insurance pilot that would determine the private sector price of this credit insurance so we can have that conversation. the second is restructuring of the appointment process to make sure that minority and majority views are heard on the board of the ex-im bank. the third would be a report on any adverse impacts going on to american companies by loans that the export-import bank guarantees. and timely, i have an amendment that would end the discrimination of coal and make sure we can fund an all of the above energy policy through our exports because export markets are an important place for energy and american-made energy and we need to make sure we create jobs to export the energy where possible. as you have heard, this debate is about jobs. the export-import bank is about jobs. in fact, if we do nothing, america will lose 164,000 jobs. in ohio, we will lose 15,000 300 jobs and in my district we will lose almost 1,00 jobs. we have got to act. and need to act and re-authorize the ex-im bank. i'm working hard to make sure we do that. i appreciate the gentleman from washington and the gentleman from tennessee and everybody participating tonight. it's important to remember this debate is about jobs and the ex-im bank guaranteed $2.4 billion worth of exports in ohio since 2007 and made sure that 15,300 citizens of ohio have jobs. thanks for this special order and i urge my colleagues to support reforming and re-authorizing the export-import bank. i yield back. mr. newhouse: powerful, powerful arguments. i appreciate your contribution here this evening. next i would like to turn to one of the stars of our freshman class, a colleague of mine from new york. ms stefanik: first, i want to take a moment to thank congressman newhouse and congressman collins for spearheading and organizing this special order and thanks to congressman fincher for his work and leadership. mr. speaker, i stand today to express my support for the re-authorization of the export-import bank and h.r. 597 of which i'm a proud original co-sponsor. it would reform and re-authorizize this critical institution. the ex-im bank has facilitate exports on behalf of thousands of businesses and created jobs in all 50 states. failing to re-authorize the ex-im bank would create a stark disadvantage for our country's businesses and cause significant job loss. in fact, over 40 other nations have an export credit agency. and if america's is not re-authorized, our nation would be the only country in the top 20 economies in terms of g.d.p., not to have one. as i travel throughout my district, i hear from manufacturers who are directly impacted by the ex-im bank. for example the platco corporation has been in separation since 1897 and specializes in valve engineering for a wide variety of industrial applications. through innovation and expertise this industry has been the industry standard and their products are sold in 50 countries around the world. and over half of these are financed. in addition to financing the overseas' sales, it provides due diligence by determining which customers are credit worthy enough to receive a loan. the employees do not have the infrastructure or resources to do this on their own. another example is new york air brake which has been serving the rail industry since 1890. new york air brake develops train brakes and controls which are among the most reliable in the world today. new york air brake's largest customers utilize ex-im bank. these customers use it to finance their rail car sales and other manufactured products around the world. and failing to re-authorize ex-im bank would lead to purchases from overseas instead of u.s. manufacturers here. and if this were to occur, the loss isn't just felt by the company making the sale, but also felt by new york air brake and their 575 employees who supply rail car assem blers with exceptional products. new york air brake is vital to our economy and as leaders in congress we must continue to support these type of companies that provide high-paying manufacturing jobs. on behalf of platco corporation, new york air brake and thousands of other small businesses that create jobs in new york's north country and across the u.s. join me in supporting the re-authorization of the export-import bank. mr. newhouse: thank you. small businesses employ a huge number of people around this country. that's very important to point out. next, i would like to turn to another freshman colleague of mine good gentleman from the state of georgia, mr. carter. mr. carter: thank you. mr. speaker the greatest threat to our national security is our national debt. it's the number one issue facing our country right now and one of the primary reasons i sought to serve in this body. i have often said that the only way that we are only going to balance our budget and only way we are going to retire our national debt is by three things. first of all, we have got to cut spending. secondly, we have to have entitlement reform. and thirdly and perhaps most importantly we've got to grow our way out of this. the ex-im bank helps us to do that. you know, as a small businessman having owned three independent retail pharmacies, i understand the value in business of cutting costs and increasing receive news. it's important. you have to either cut costs -- you have to do, you have to cut costs and increase receive news and you have to grow your business. the ex-im bank helps us to increase receive news. it helps us to retire our national debt. first of all, the ex-im bank has returned money to the treasury in the form of receive news it generates from loan interests and fees. last year alone the bank generated a surplus of $675 million. secondly, and most importantly, the ex-im bank encourages economic growth by supporting the purchase of american-made goods around the world. these purchases sustain thousands of american companies who rely on exports and put food on the table of hardworking men and women employed by them. in my district alone, there are 19 companies that in recent years have utilized the ex-im bank to export goods overseas. these companies range from gulfstream, a leading manufacturer of aircraft to strength in nature and started a company that now exports many of their goods to the caribbean and to africa. the ex-im bank helps businesses big and small across america to compete with the competitors abroad by leveling the playing field. with over 60 different credit agencies operating around the world including every modern industrialized economy, this is tantamount in dismantling ourselves for big contracts around the globe. if the company can buy a gulf stream, they'll go to canada which promotes bombadier or brazil. if they can't get a catter pillar ex castor, they will go to japan and can't get access to a tractor head quartered in duluth, georgia, they will go to india. mr. speaker, as a small business owner myself, i know that american companies can compete when the playing field is level. in a perfect world, we wouldn't need an ex-im bank but we don't live in a perfect world. those who would shudder the bank are stacking the deck against them. mr. speaker, unilaterally closing the bank would expose our economy to a devastating blow and further erode our global competitiveness and america's influence around the globe. while we stand debating the future of the ex-im bank our competitors are increasing their market shares abroad. every minute we waste, foreign countries and companies are expanding. if we don't feel the -- fill the market need, countries will the influence of their regimes is on the rise. they relish in every day that we wait. like any federal agency the ex-im bank can and should be reformed to make it more accountable, more efficient, more transparent. i support reforms that would bring interest rates more in line with those that are found in an open, private market. i support reforms to ensure the bank is a true lender of last resort for all companies by implementing measures to ensure the banks' customers improve all their options before seeking assistance. one way would be to require three letters as part of the application. the bank should produce a report explaining why certain businesses receive assistance by the bank in order to provide taxpayers with more information on exactly what the bank is doing and why. full transparency of the bank's actions is the only way to hold it accountable while demonstrating the valuable role while maintaining our competitiveness in global markets. i stand ready to work with my colleagues to implement these and necessary reforms to the ex-im bank, but allowing it to expire is a disservice to the constituents that we serve. the ex-im bank not only supports america's manufacturers and the working american families they employ, it helps to promote america's national interests abroad. and more importantly and most importantly, it helps address our national debt, both through economic expansion and by returning its surplus to the treasury each year. . i want to thank my colleagues for helping to host this forum and all those working with us to restore the ex-im bank to its important function. mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. newhouse: buddy, i appreciate your powerful words on the importance of the ex-im bank to your district, your state and our country. thank you for sharing tha with us. next i'd like to allow some time to the gentleman from illinois another member of the agriculture committee on which i serve and i appreciate mr. rodney davis' coming here to help usake the points on this authorization. mr. davis. mr. davis: thank you for leading this special order. thank you to allf those who are interested in what i think is doing the right thing - re-authorizing and reforming the ex-im bank. i rise today in support of small businesses, mr. speaker. american manufacturing and good jobs right here at home. the simpl reality is that more than 95% othe globe's consumers live outside of our borders. therefore our ability to export american products around the world has a direct iact on many small medium, and large companies and their ability to create and sustain jobs. unfortunately many potential global customers are not able to secure the necessary financing to complete a purchase from an american company because of the instability of their region or another circumstance. in order to connect these american exporters with their buyers around the globe, the ex-im bank can provide vital loans to complete transactions with american companies that otherwise may not have occurred. the economic impacts here at home are significant. last year, the ex-im bank provided financing for $27.5 billion in u.s. exports. that supports more than 160,000 american jobs and importantly, most importantly, 90% of all of th public-private partnership's transactions were with america's small businesses. some have called for ending the ex-im bank on th grounds that it competes with the private market. that's simply not the case. while we do need to reform this agency we still need to make surethat the ex-im is allowed to level the playing field and fill the gaps that exist in the private credit market. additionally, the ex-im bank brings in a surplus of dollars to the u.s. treasury. last year alone, it was upbards of -- upwards of $700 million. d over the past two decades, the sur plass has been $7 billion. so i ask many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, what are we going to do to fill that hole? ex-im supports good-paying jobs in illinois not only at great companies like caterpillar and john deere, but also at small and immediate wrum-sized businesses such as the g.s.i. group in assumption illinois. my home county's largest employer. and also the sports group in champaign. congress has already let the ex-im bank expire but we cannot afford to put more jobs at risk. we must reform and re-authorize the ex-im bank now and i urge a speedy process to do so and thank my colleague once again for his time, his energy, and his focus on this important issue. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. newhouse: mr. davis i'm very grateful for you sharing with us today. mr. tom cole from the state of oklahoma is here with us, i'd like to yield a few moments to him. mr. cole: thank you very much. i want to begin by thanking my friend from washington and my friend from tennessee for organizing this exceptionally porn discussion tonight. i think the case from a national standpoint in terms of maintaining the ex-im or the export-import bank is really almost uncontestable. not a new institution, it's been around well over 80 years. it's not a unique -- unique institution. as has been mentioned here on the floor several time, literally dozens of other countries have a similar tool in their toolbox to facilitate exports. it does not cost the american taxpayer a dime in the course of its existence. it's actually made billions of dollars back. indeed, since 2007, $2.8 billion last year alone. what it has done is create thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs for our fellow americans competing in the international marketplace. i can talk about some big companies that have a presence in my state that have been enor -- enormously well served by the ex-im bank. we have almost 3,000 boeing jobs in oklahoma, that's important to us and we're proud of them. halliburton, historic lib founded in oklahoma, headquartered now in texas, but their largest ma heenry production facility is in my district in oklahoma. what impresses me most is the opportunities with the export-import bank created for small companies to get into the international marketplace. the export-import bank in oklahoma in recent years has helped 129 exporting firms. 8 of those, over 2/3, are small businesses. and that's made a different in small communities. small business is the bedrock of the american economy and ex-im helps them open markets that they would never have had an opportunity to participate in absent that particular mechanism. don't take my word for it. here's a story from a third generation oklahoma company about how the export-import bank has been able to help them. the mills machine company, operating in shawnee, oklahoma, just outside my district, has been in business since 1908. over 100 years. it makes drill bit augurs and other tools for water construction and geothermal -- water, construction and geothermal industries. according to the company president, who is the third generation of the family to run the company. his grandfather started it his father maintained it. he's knot now maintaining it. he was the first to think about operating overseas. how does a small company in the middle of oklahoma identify and finance overseas sales? he figured out the export-import bank would be the way to ope the door for him to create jobs for his employees in shawnee, oklahoma. today the export-import bank provides insurance when his company is selling his products abroad which is often necessary because some of those individual items cost up to $30,000 apiece. that's a lot of risk for a small company. access for -- to the ex-im bank allowed the company to increase exports by 20%. when you're a company of 20 or 30 employee, 20% is five or six jobs that literally would not have been there absent the services of this bank. the export-import bank actually allows our companies to compete in the global marketplace where countries often directly subsidize or own the means of production. we don't have a free market today in every way. our competitors have this tool, they use this tool aggressively, and we need to have the ability to counterthem when necessary with the export-import bank. i want to encourage my colleagues to support this bill. i understand how eensrble it is to some, not just the biggest but some of the smallest exporters in the american economy and how many thousands of jobs it creates. remember, it's never -- it never costs the taxpayers of the united states of america a single dime. it's always put billions of dollars over time into our treasury. but most importantly there are thousands of americans working today thanks to what the export-import bank has done. to facilitate the export of american products into the international marketplace. so with that, i want to urge my colleagues to support the re-authorization of this important institution and i yield back the balance of my time to my good friend from washington. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. cole. thank you very much for participating tonight and pointing out the importance of the bank to your state and your district. i'd like to turn now to a gentleman from the state of florida. john mica is with us. i yield to him the time he needs to give his thoughts on the export-import bank. mr. mica: thank you so much. i appreciate the gentleman from washington organizing this special order. i tell you, one of the worst mistakes congress could make is not acting to re-authorize ex-im. unfortunately, few people in congress have been involved in international trade and for some seven queers i was very active in international trade got into it by accident in other businesses but i led delegations and represented corporations, some very big corporations, some of the biggest in florida and the united states and some of the smallest companies trying to compete. i've been in every country in south america except the guianas. i've been throughout the caribbean trying to sell u.s. products. i was in egypt, the middle east i took the first trade delegations into the eastern bloc country, lithuania, went into poland, slovakia. i've seen international trade up close. i'm telling you, folks it is not a level playing field. it is very rough in the global market. some of our competitors, the chinese, the europeans, were doing trade across borders when people around the united states -- when the united states, the americas, were still in loin cloths. these are experienced people. they'd throw their morge in to close the deal. it's a very tough market out there. to cut the legs out from our folks has consequences when it comes to financing. in business and international trade if you can finance the deal, you can do the deal. why would we do this? you just heard the other gentleman say, this is one of the least risk of guaranteeing or providing a loan. less than 1%. banks are 10 times that. there's no cost to the taxpayer. we actually make money from this. but what we have out there is competition that's unfair unlevel. it is possible that we can make some reforms. in fact we should make reforms to get us into some areas where we don't have export-import. as the only member of the house at least from the t&i committee that go to the biggest show, i haven't been for about 12 years in europe, recently, and they were applauding our -- our competitors are applauding that america was going to let ex-im go down the tubes because they, again, are experts at being able to finance things. in aviation, aviation is one of our biggest areas of export. huge opportunities and these people are now being asked to fight and struggle. we should be ex-parting, for example, i heard from some of our military folks that the -- at the show that other countries have ex-im for military foreign sales and that we're losing part of that market while others are getting into it. so if you want to send jobs overseas, if you want to kill american manufacturing, if you want to tie the hands of american companies overseas, if you want to close down some jobs in my district and i have a large power generation headquarters which also manufactures in north carolina, here's a statement from their company. they'll lose a $300 million contract loss of jobs, in my district and new york -- and north carolina to japanese competitors. here's caterpillar not in my district, they'll lose a $650 million opportunity. how many jobs would that be in illinois? not my district but in competition to an asian competitor for a project in australia. we're not financing foreign operations, we're financing american products and supporting american jobs. we must, absolutely must re-authorize this important program. i yield back. mr. newhouse: one of the great things about this body is having so many people with different experiences. mr. mica, you know because of your experience being in other country, selling american products abroad how important this tool is mr. mica: thank you. that's where the markets are, that's a small area we should be supporting. we're minor players right now, we should be ding more. thank you for bringing this to the attention of congress and the american people. you'll hear about agriculture and opportunities for jobs and everything for americans. i yield back. mr. newhouse: thank you a great segue to the next person i'd like to share some time with, the chairman of the house agriculture committee, mr. frank lucas. i yield. mr. lucas: i'm appreciative to you for organizing this special order to discuss an issue that perhaps not many of our neighbors back home have had time to focus on and to have speakers from a variety of perspectives discuss what it really means in job creeeags, economic growth opportunities in their home districts and communities. the export-import bank. i would be remiss if i didn't note you and i are both farmers. one of the common threads in agriculture throughout this great country is, since colonial times, we have always produced more than we could consume in this country. we've always had to sell our surplus into the world market. that's only way to maintain a healthy production of agriculture, to have reasonable job opportunities, reasonable standard of living in our agricultural communities. . export-import touches on many of those issues. created in the 1930's as a tool to help all parts of the american economy have the credit and the ability to sell into world markets. as a matter of fact, the concept is so practical, it's been so well defined, as you and i both know 50-plus other countries have the same type of a system to help their manufacturers their producers, their economic interests do business into the outside world. now, that said, we've been engaged for some time on the financial services committee and in this body in a very, at times heated debate about whether not just should export-import bank be reformed to make it more efficient, more accountable, more responsible to the taxpayers but whether it should even exist at all. now, some of our colleagues believe that with the lack of action, the official expiration of the authorization, that it's gone. we've heard our friend says here today that until all of the loans that are outstanding, all of the guarantees, all of the obligations that have been committed to are completed, the institutional -- institution will continue to exist it. can't provide new economic -- exist. it can't provide new economic opportunities. that brings us to this point. i think it's the point that i want to stress. can export-import bank in its present form be reformed? can it be made better? can it be made more accountable? of course. there's not an institution in government anywhere that can't be made better. more efficient, more effective, more accountable to the taxpayers. but the real tragedy of what's going on here is we've been presented, many of us, with the stark debate of end it all or through circumstances beyond our control have it re-authorized most likely in its present form. without any of those reforms. that's why many of us are on the fincher bill. because we believe export-import serves a purpose in helping create better jobs, more economic opportunities for many of our citizens, but that it needs to be done in a more responsible, accountable fashion. i have been highly disappointed that we've not had a debate a markup in committee on this very issue. that would have ultimately led, i believe, to a debate and consideration on the floor of this united states house. so that we could potentially have sent a better product than we have now to the other body. we've not been allowed to do that. so now we're faced with the stark contrast. how do we continue this very effective effort at moving our products into the world markets, creating those jobs here at home for our fellow citizens? either we have to wait for a bill to come from the other body most likely not containing the level of reforms that we would have placed in such a re-authorization bill in the house, or at some point we'll have a markup either in committee or on the floor of another piece of legislation where there will be an effort to attach it. that kind of an effort probably won't contain the level of fincher reforms that we all want. that's the tragedy congressman. we're going to re-authorize export-import. it's just in what form will it be re-authorized? we cannot allow 50-plus of our competitors around the world to have a tool, a resource, an ability for their businesses to push their products into the american economy that we don't match. punch for punch economically. we cannot allow that to happen. i hope we're going to work on behalf of our fellow workers, our fellow citizens, our fellow business people in this country. but it's a tragedy congressman, that we're not going to have the kind of discussion the debate where we can create a dramatically improved, refined, more reformed export-import bank. but, we each represent our constituents. i care about mine just as you care about every one of yours. making sure that we have the ability, the ability for all those citizens to have good jobs good paying jobs, good new economic opportunities it's just too important for us to back away. too important for us to back away. if we don't get the reforms that our fellow citizens deserve, it won't be because you and i didn't try. we've tried for months. it will be because the choices thrust upon us by others are either all or nothing at all. present or nothing. i want to keep selling those products that our hardworking fellow citizens make into the world market. i want to keep competing economically, blow for blow, with the rest of the world. some have said, let's just do away with export-import, we'll establish the principle and the rest of the world will follow us -- principal and the rest of the world will follow us. does anybody really believe that? that when we give up our ability to sell our products into other markets they'll suddenly say, oh, oh, what a great principle, we'll stop selling into your markets. not the way it works. not the way it works. i appreciate the gentleman's time, his effort on this critically important issue. it will happen, it's just how soon and in what form. with that i yield back the balance of my to imto the gentleman from washington state, my fellow farmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington's time has expired. mr. newhouse: thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you mr. speaker. a great deal of tragedy going on in the world. i know that at times there are people around this congress that have felt very much alone. i know there have been times when presidents have felt very much alone. like abraham lincoln a year or so after his son had died, his wife was fussing at him, he was going to commemorate a battlefield. there have been people who have been very alone in this town. but, mr. speaker, i would suggest that no one in the world feels more betrayed and dejected than the leader of our former friend israel. now, israel is still the friend of many of ours. we still hold it in the highest regard because of its similarity in beliefs in human rights that we have here. even there in the midst of the middle east. the president's announced that he's going to the united nations to get their approval before he would even ask for a vote in congress. that struck a chord, that rang a bell. march of 2011 letter from the white house in which the president advises that, he says, at my direction u.s. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the united nations security council and undertaken with support of european allies and arab partners. to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in libya. the trouble is, mr. speaker, that our president created the catastrophe created the crisis, the real crisis in libya as it exists today, far worse than anything that anybody conceived would or could exist in 2011 before the president went to the u.n. to seek authority instead of coming to congress. since 2003, gaddafi had given up all efforts at supporting terrorism. he'd given up efforts, all efforts, at pursuing weapons that the united states did not give him authority to keep. as some of our muslim arab leaders in the middle east have told some of us privately, since 2003 gaddafi was doing more to help you tamp out terrorism than -- stamp out terrorism than most anybody in the world. and yet this president decided that a small problem in libya was enough to justify him taking out gaddafi, oh i know we were going to create a no-fly zone, but let's be serious. the president's bombing runs that he authorized ended up, even in the face of gaddafi asking to be allowed to just leave and leave the country peaceably, he asked for a response within three days and this president authorized bombing apparently as an answer. so make no mistake, the incredibly bad judgment in this white house created a debacle in northern africa that has spilled into other nations around little bit, that has created all kinds of human atrocities, that has created a massive movement of people heading for boats from libya, heading north to anywhere they can go. this president did that without authorization of congress caused that without authorization of congress. but he did have the consent of the united nations. as he now says he's going to seek before he gets approval for his iranian deal in congress. march 21 of 2011 an article by charlie savage in "the new york times" points out that some democratic lawmakers including representatives jerrold nadler of new york barbara lee of california, michael capuano of massachusetts, complained in the house democratic caw caucus conference call as the bombing began that mr. obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without congressional permission. i'd have to say that my friend, mr. nadler, ms. lee mr. capuano of massachusetts they were right. i haven't said that a whole lot about my friend, mr. nadler, but he was right. the article goes on to -- goes on, on monday president obama sent congress a two-page letter saying that as commander in chief he had constitutional authority to authorize the strikes which were undertaken with french british and other allies. the article points out that as a presidential candidate who promoted his background as an instructor of constitutional law, mr. obama appeared to adopt a more limited view of executive power when he answered a question about whether a president could order the bombing of iranian nuclear sites without a use of force authorization from congress. in quotes -- then it quotes mr. obama it. says, the president does not -- obama. it says, the president does not have authority under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. mr. obama told "the boston globe" in december, 2007. it mentions further down that in "the globe" survey, vice president biden, then a senator, argued that a president would have no authority under the constitution to bomb iranian nuclear sites without congressional authorization because even limited strikes can unintentionally prompt all-out war. . well, they well they violated what mr. obama and mr. biden said before they were in the white house, and the vice president's supporters, they created a disaster in northern africa because they believed that their opinion was adequate and that the massive number of countries in the united nations that hate israel was better con fi cant -- confidants than congress. regardless of whether that's true or not, it's not constitutional. in 2011, march there was a national review article by bill burke that points out president obama's war in libya is unconstitutional without congressional authorization. that is so only because the president has not yet given a reason to fight that is constitutionally sound. he goes on. so the president helped create this mass i disaster in northern africa that has human tragedy occurring day after day people fleeing in boats some dying trying to get away from the libya he created. because he decided it was time for gaddafi to go. some of our muslim leader friends inorth africa and the northeast continue to ask, does your president not understand that he keeps helping the people that are at war with the united states? does your president not understand that he is harming the people that are helping stop terrorism in the world? this deal that has now been cut with iran the largest supporter of terrorism in the world, is going to do for the middle east and the world what president obama's bombing did for libya. it has to be stopped. this deal has to be stopped. it does not meet any of the requirements that the president and all his minions said was going to come out of a deal with iran. and oh, yes, there were celebrations here in washington because they were able to convince iran into taking back over $100 billion and also we were able to convince them to allow us to take them off the arms embargo so they cod go aheaand start buying weapons from russia fm china, wherever they wish, let's help the russian economy let's help the chinese economy let's give hundreds of billions of dollars to the largest supporter of terrorism in the world and allow them to pursue arms with that money. isn't there enough terrorism in the world today without this administration being acmplices to death and destruction the world over through the assistance, through this so-called deal it has cut with iran? article from certainly not a great press friend of t united states, but a.f.p., the agency france press has an article from tehran tt says hardlirs in tehran brought up on chance of -- ochants of death to america have pe repeatedly voiced opposition to the request for a deal with the great satan ever since t islamic revolution of 1979. e article goes on further, it says rather than representing submission to the west, the agreement is likely to consolidate khomeini rule according to a veteran political analyst as tehran university. make no mistake, this is tehran that's in iran. from a veteran political analyst that serves at the pleasure, or keeps his life at the pleasure of khoini. article says, and whatever the evident contradictions of a pact with the great satan, the core of iran's nuclear program has been preserved, thank you president brauk hussein obama. -- president barack hussein obama. yes, i know there were people celebrating in washington, yeah, we got a great deal. we got them to take $100 billion off our hands, we got them to ree to start being able, for them they themselves to buy arms. we've got them off the terrorist watch list so they can move more freely as they want to create terrorism. it's a great day. oht's time tcelebrate. this article, in what may be one of the most understated mmts about the deal says, quote, it prably amounts to a marginal win over israel, saudi arabia anven turkey. as for mr. bavand descbing the nuclear deal as a step forward for the war-racked middle east. article from max boot commentary magazine -- commentarymagazine.com. points out for a more succinct account go for the statement issued by tehran's official islamic news agenc this comes from that. world powers have recognized iran's peaceful nuclear program and are to respect the nuclear ights of iranian nation witn international conventions. second, says this. this isrom iran. the isamic pluck o iran is to be recognized as a nuclr technology power authized to have peaceful nuclear programs such as complete nuclear fue cycle and enrichment to be identified by the united nations. all fair sanctions imposed by the u.n. security council including economicnd financial sanctions on iran, are tbe lifted as perhe agreement and through the issuance of a new resolution by the united nations security council. most all of which hate israel all nuclear installations and sites are to continue tir work contray to the early demands of the other party, that woulbe the united states, none of them will be dismantled. that is iran's interpretation of the deal being celebrated down the street here, down pennsylvania avenue. they're celebrating because they say none of their nuclear facilities have to be dismantled. goes on, the policy of preventing enrichment of uranium is nowailed and iran will go ahead with its enrichment program. further from iran, they declare that irans nuclear infrastcture will remain intact. no centrifuges wilbe dismantled. and search and development on key and advanced centrifuges will continue and that's rather amazing, now we heard the presidnt say that they were going to ave to dismantle like 2/3 of their centruges, but it appears from what we can find out about the deal so far, that actually, they may dismantle some of the centrifuges, but only because we are going to help them install and work with theost advanced centrifuges in the world. moredvanced than athingran wohave now. so far as we know this is a huge boon to their nuclear efforts. this article says, e agreement specifies that it would take no fewerhan 24 days tcompel an inspecon. talking aut the ses, nuclear sites. that'slenty of time for the iranns to sanitize any suspect sites so as to removany evidence of nuclear activity and is far removed from the kind of 24-7 access that president obama said jst today that inspectors would have. the iranians insisted that the agreent stick only to the nucle issue, that's why for example, the iranians did not agree as part othis deal to relee the american hostages. that they are holding. or to end their suport fo terrorism or their commitment o israel's destruction. but it turns out the agreement isn't just limited nuclear es. it includes aommitment to lift the conventional arms embargon irann no me than fiveears and the embargo on missile sales to iran in no more than ght ars anprobably sooner. iran is said be i compliance with the nuclear court. d gee won't that be interesting? they may be able to have people that hte israel give them the go-ahead much earlier than eight years this article points out, what this means is that iran will on have mo than $100 billion extra to spend not only on exporting the iranian revolution d dominatin nighboring states, but thatitll also before long be free to purchase as many weapons, even ballistic missiles, it likes on the world mket. no wonder vladimir putin appears to be happy. thi dl is likely to become a windfall for the russian arms makers although you can be sure that iran will also spread its largess to manufacturers in france, and if possibl the u.k. so as to give those countries an extra stake in not reimposing sanctions. and that's good newsfor ukraine good news for georgia, because thi means that thi deal, if itoes throuh, and the president ialready ying we're going to lift these sanctions, we're go to get them the $100 billion plus, some y it's going to be $150 billion. can you iginehat russia c do witmoney that iran pays it? they cod prably te over all the ewe - all of ukraine with that kind of money. and then the russianas they ta over more and more of ukraine, they can be putting big posters on their tanks saying, thk youresident obama. withou your al wit iran, we uld never have had the money to take over ukraine. and whatbout egypt? this is devastating news that this deal is ming to fruion fo egypt. wh over 30 million egyptians come to t street, it would be liotr 100 million americans go io the street, and demanding the ouster of the muslim btherhood predent that was seizingllower and demaing he be gotten rid of theilry dids the people of egypt ordered. what an incredible, peaceful uprising. that impeachment as peaceably as it could be done since the americanamerican assisting egypt did not even help them put in an impeachment provision in their constitution itad news obviously f saudi aabia. it's bad news for jord. is bad news for all countries in the middle east. it's bad news for syria it's bad news for tury. oh, there will be sme in turkey, some in syria, that will be shoutin with joy, particularly president a he may need to send president oma a thank you note r the ney thatomes flowing in to help himn syria, perps. there's going tomoney spreaall around to weapons makers to people who peddle war and destructn becausof what this president has done and agreed to without any promise, not en a promise of givi up terrorism. no even a promise, not evea verbalrose, f heaven's sake that iran will notry to destroy isel. we had this article fro a.f.p. also back, rch 2 of 201 this year, the artile says, quot, obama tolds that i quoteif ira willing togree to double-git yes of keeping theirrogram where its, you know unquote, the wod be a deal. netian hue said deal with iran wld qten, threaten the survival of israel unote. obama said that sentiment is wrongaded. noting netanyahu's previous opposition to an interim iran deal as evidce israelhould ba the talks. quote, netian hue made all sortof claims. this was going to be a terrible deal. this was going to result i an getting $ billion worth of relief. iran would not abide by the agreement. none of that has come true. well, it turns out the president was the one who was wrong and prime minister netanyahu is the one that it was -- was exactly right, it was a bad deal, that this was a terrible deal. he was right. now, i have to admit mr. speaker, that prime minister netanyahu was extremely wrong about one aspect of the iranian deal between it and president obama. i have to admit i think the world of president netanyahu. he's a great man, has the potential to be one of israel's truly great leaders. but he was wrong when he said that this deal was going to result in iran getting $50 billion worth of relief. he was way wrong because they're going to get maybe $150 billion of relief. but certainly over $100 billion of relief. so we have to chalk this -- chalk it up, that was the one area where president obama was right about netanyahu being wrong. he understood -- netanyahu understated the amount of cash this administration was willing to fork over to the terrorist state of iran. it wasn't $50 billion. it was over $100 billion, possibly $150 billion. so there it is on the record. netanyahu was wrong. he said $50 billion. s what iran would get. and it was over -- billion is what iran would get and it was over $100 billion. so let's look at this deal. and what was said in the past about it. undersecretary of state wendy sherman, you'll remember that she was one of those who was key in the negotiations with north korea, where we gave them nuclear power plans and material and all we got in return was a promise that if we just gave them everything they needed, all the technology to make nuclear bombs, they'd use it for nuclear power plant and of course we know they broke their word. when you're dealing with a scorpion and it stings you, you shouldn't ask later why did you do that, you know why. the answer, the old fable, is because i'm a scorpion it's what i do. that's what the leader of north korea is and it's what he did. and if you look at the leaders of iran, similar fable about the snake. warms the snake up and it ends up biting him. why did you do that? because i'm a snake. so perhaps in the near future president obama, secretary kerry will be heard to ask, why did you break all these terms? because we're snakes. that's what we do. should be the answer. but wendy sherman said, in, let's see, february 4 of 2014, nearly a year and a half ago, she said about the iranian deal we raised possible military dimensions and in fact in the joint plan of action we have required that iran come clean on its past actions as part of any exrehebsive agreement -- comprehensive agreement. well, that didn't happen. wendy sherman was as wrong about that as she was about north korea not using the nuclear capacity we gave them to make nuclear weapons. of course december 7 2013, president obama himself said, it's my strong belief that we can envision an end state that gives us an assurance that even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it's so constrained and the inspections so intrusive that they as a practical matter do not have breakout capacity. now, that's a great statement there because he's not saying that we'll get iran to that point. if you look carefully. he says that we'll have an end state that gives us an assurance. well, iran is willing to give us assurance. but they're not even willing to give us an assurance of what president obama hoped for for goodness sake. secretary kerry said, november 24 2013, quote there is no right to enrich, we do not recognize a right to enrich. it is clear in the n.p.t., in the nonproliferation treaty, it's verier, very clear there's no right to enrich. well now we know that secretary kerry was very, very wrong about it being very, very clear there was no right to enrich. not only is there a right to enrich, we're going to help iran enrich, thank you president obama. sanctions relief. here's a quote from john kerry from march 3. secretary of state kerry said, quote, iran is not open for business until iran is closed for nuclear bombs. well we know that's not going to be the case. they're open for business and they're still enriching. again, undersecretary of state wendy sherman said, quote, this includes a lot of dismantling of their infrastructure. well it turns out that's not the case either. undersecretary of state wendy sherman, february 4 of 2014, said, it's true that in the first six months we've not shut down all their production of any ballistic missile. well it turns out they're not going to at all. how about that? march 5 2015 secretary kerry quote, it will reduce the pressure for a regional nuclear race and it will increase the strength of the international nonproliferation regime. it will also vastly improve the prospects for peace, both here and elsewhere, secretary kerry was wrong, wrong, wrong. and now they want the u.n. to pass the deal. well gosh, i'm sure they'll get plenty of votes from people that want the money that the u.s. is going to make sure iran has to buy nuclear weapons. so -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gohmert: the iran deal is a grave mistake and he's as right now as he was before. this deal has to be stopped for the sake of man kind. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: at this time i move we do now hereby 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 adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. outfoxed voters forum to be the first for the g.o.p. joining us from man chester is the publisher of the new hampshire union leader, joe mcquaid. thank you very much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. thanks for c-span playing a part in this. host: we are pleased to be a partner. let's talk about this forum. how and why did it come about? guest: it came about because we were seven months or 6 1/2 months from the first voters getting a chance to win over the field. fox got the first official debate from the r.n.c. and fox announced that only 10 candidates based on a exillation of national polling done in august were going to determine the 10 seats for the debate. and as you know, there were a lot more credible serious candidates than that. and we thought it unfair that only 10 got to be on the fox stage. so we said, about a month ago, that we were going to do our own event. this was also prompted in part by a letter that more than 50 new hampshire republicans, including a couple of former governors, wrote to fox protesting this format. and asking that they instead break the top polling candidates into two groups and have two back-to-back debates. but fox didn't want to do that. host: your co-sponsors, including the post courier and the cree car rapids iowa ga set. what is the format and what's the objective? guest: a couple of things. i'm really tickled about those two numes. because we know them because we're all in a group called the independent newspaper group. which by its name is independently owned newspapers in the country. there aren't a lot of those anymore. it happens there's one in south carolina and one or two in iowa. the format is pretty simple and straightforward. all the candidates will be introduced in short bio lines read by an announcer, one at a time the candidates will be calmed up on stage to sit with -- called up on stage to sit with the moderator, who is a man who runs a radio show in new hampshire and is quite well respected among candidates. he doesn't ask gotcha questions. he asks tough questions. the questions are going to come in part from a survey we're going to put on unionleader.com asking readers to pick five out of 25 or 26 topics that they would like to see discussed and he will be formulating the questions based on that and we'll put them -- will put them one at a time to the candidates. we haven't gotten as far as to mixing up how many questions there will be and who gets what question but i know that we're not going to announce the order of the candidates until that night because i don't want the first one skipping out after and the last one not coming in until it's his or her turn and we expect we're going to have upwards of 15 candidates, which would be great and which is what iowa and new hampshire and south carolina are all about. looking at all the candidates before making a decision. and looking -- comparing what they say at the same time in the same place. which is what fox is apparently unable to accomplish. host: the forum will be leave here on c-span radio and c-span television on monday, august 3, beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern time. you have already been in touch with a number of the candidates and their campaign staffs. what are they telling you about this approach, that you and others are putting forward? guest: they like it. especially the ones who are not the best known candidates. donald trump isn't going to have any trouble getting on the fox stage based on his polling numbers. but a lot of the other candidates have trouble with the fact that donald trump gets on and they may not. as senator lindsey graham has said in the past couple of weeks, brad pitt could get on that stage based on national polling and candidates like graham, like governor john kasich, who is not officially in the race, but is going to be in the race, are outside looking in. and that troubles them. senator graham is actually having a press conference in new hampshire later today to continue to protest the way this is going down with fox. but we've now had eight candidates accept our invitation without reservation. they really haven't asked. we sent them an invite that outlines the format and they're happy to do it. i think, especially because they appreciate the early primary and caucus states. host: finally, as the publisher of the union leader in new hampshire, you've seen a lot of campaigns and kate dates. 15 -- candidates. 15 official republicans in this rarkse soon to be 17. have you ever seen such a crowded field? guest: no. there have been a lot of names on our ballot because it used to not cost much to get on. but credible candidates i think the democrats at eight once there was a woman and seven guys and i think we called them snow white and the seven dwarfs and republicans back in 1980 with ronald reagan had quite a few, but not this number. host: full details available online at unionleader.com. joe mcquaid, who is the publisher of "the new hampshire union leader" joining from us new hampshire. thank you very much. we look forward to covering the forum on august 3. guest: you're welcome. thank you to c-span once again. [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] >> in his final question time session before the summer recess, british prime minister david cameron answered questions about the budget, economic expansion and the greek debt crisis. it's 35 minutes. will invite others to discuss the bill further. >> question to the prime minister. >> question number one mr. speaker. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> the plan was published this week shows prospects for young people have deteriorated since the conservatives came into conflict. in the prime minister explain why the reducing opportunity young people further by removing -- thereby reducing the opportunities? >> first of all where increasing opportunities for young people by making sure all young people have a job and get a candidate we see another decrease in youth unemployment down 13000 on the quarter, and 92000 on the year. in terms of students we've now got record numbers of young people going to university and because of the action we're taking we're able to take the cap off the university numbers and see increase in many more people going. in terms of replacing loans and grants with a low scum this is the right approach. interestingly, interestingly there was a the approach taken in 1997 when the right honorable lady sat in the cabinet. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's bad enough of the latest figures i have got 363 murders 106 murders in open presence in the last 10 years. these figures are shown for 179 offenders and open presence who were obscure from an open president will prime minister give a commitment to ensure nobody was ever absconded from an open prison is ever allowed back into an open presence? >> i state will examine his proposal. i can tell him we have already overhauled the process for allowing prisoners out of temporary license athletes with 39% drop in the number of those who breached their license conditions. we've also seen the rate for prisoners who escaped from prison have reached a record low. as i understand it prisoners with a history of escape or absconded are prevented from transfer to open conditions other than in the most exceptional cases. what i will do is look at these exceptional cases and see whether there is a surrogate for the blanket ban patty talked about our right to him over the summer. >> harriet harman. [shouting] >> cannot ask the prime minister a question about greece? it's important that a deal on greece -- mr. speaker it's important for the deal on greece has now been reached. the economic format is unprecedented in europe, this since the end of the federal corporate the agreement should implement in a way that is fair to the people of greece as will be acceptable to the creditors get it seems report this morning that the imf are concerned about whether the deal for greece is, in fact, sustainable. can the prime minister tell us whether the chancellor had discussions with christine lagarde about how these concerns can be addressed? >> i think the right honorable lady is right to raise this entity we all feel for the greek people who have had a very difficult time and with no early signs of relief on the way. talk to the imf on a very regular basis. the point they are making that there needs to be debt relief for greece might -- that's the right. the heart of the eurozone is an argument about whether this is a single currency where you have to look after each other said that and you have a physical union and the banking union antisocial union. that's one view or whether you have to do the single currency as strict rules and can't deal with these things. in our interest for the eurozone to resolve these issues we are not involved in the debate directly because we are not in the euro but we do need them and were not going to join the euro. but they need to resolve these issues and the need to resolve them quite fast. >> it's important that deal is sustainable. it's interesting to the prime minister is the about a measure of debt relief has been necessary. does he agree to with president putin waiting in the wings this is about more than just economics. it's got wider geopolitical significance. what is his view about that? >> i think the right honorable lady is right. greece is a member of the european union as well as a member of the euro. it is a friend and ally of britain, nato member, trading partners. it is not for britain to bailout eurozone countries and we wouldn't do that but as a member of the european union if greece were to leave the euro and wanted humanitarian assistance i'm sure that this house and the british public would take a more generous of you. sorting out the problems of the eurozone which we've always warned about the dangers of the eurozone is a matter for eurozone countries, but she's right about the dangers of russian involvement. >> what happens in the eurozone aspect of this country and therefore, it's important that we are fully engaged. turning to the budget, we are all concerned to see today's rise in overall unemployment. but for those in work the chancellor said that he is a changes on pay and tax credit will make working families better off, but they won't. the institute for fiscal studies have now made it absolutely clear that the idea that a higher minimum wage will compensate for the loss of tax credit is a rhythmic adequate impossible. will they now admit that as a direct result of his county tax credits, millions of working families are low income will be worse off? >> first albany comment on the unemployment figures. she's right there's mixed messages. it's disappointing that the claimant count has gone up having fallen for so many months in a row. is told at the lowest level since 1975 a long-term unemployment is down, youth unemployment is down. the rate of employment for women is set a new record high, and interestingly when you look across the last year you can actually see all of the rise in implement in the last year has been people working full-time. interestingly in light of the debates we had in the last parliament, wages are up by 3.2% in these figures compared with the inflation figures yesterday that 40. in terms of the budget i remember her ask me from the dispatch box making the point that reform and welfare would not work unless the increased minimum wages by a quarter. i can tell if we are not going to. we are increasing them by a third for the national living wage. [shouting] >> he is refusing to accept the fact which is being clearly established by the institute for fiscal studies that the minimum wage increase will not compensate for his cut in tax credits and that takes me to another claim the prime minister made about the budget. he said that he would protect the most vulnerable. well, you are obviously vulnerable to get the conditions like parkinson's or you're being treated for cancer. but changes in the budget mean that the support people like that will get will be cut from 100 pounds, the 70 pounds. we agree that the deficit needs to come down. what kind of government is it that thinks the way to do that is to get people who through no fault of their own are suffering from life the debilitating illnesses. that's what is budget is doing. >> let me give her that they could get a family with two children where both parents work full time on the minimum wage, they will be better off by 2020 by a full 5500 pounds. i don't think the party opposite has fully grasped the importance of this nation living wage. they bought an election on a path by the next election but it's going to be over nine pounds by the next election because of the action of this government. she wants to ask questions about welfare, and i welcome what she said. she said this week we won't oppose the welfare bill we won't oppose the housing benefit cap. she said we won't oppose restricted benefits and tax credits for people with three or more children. i welcome that. what a pity the rest of her party doesn't agree with there. she asked specifically about employment and support allowance and i think this is important we get this right to the are two groups unemployment and support allowed, the support group will continue to get extra money, more than on jobseeker's allowance and will continue to get that for as long as they need. in terms of future claimants into work related activity group, existing claimants keep exact existing amount of money but for new payments i think it's right they should get the same amount as job seekers out loud and then get all the help that we do the job seekers to help them into work. people asked why. i will tell you. we want to get people into work. we want to give people a chance. we want to give people a life. that's what this budget was all about. [shouting] >> he talks about new claimants but it don't think he understands the reality of the situation because a lot of these people, a lot of these people are in and out of work because they want to work but they can only work intermittently. every time to go back into work when they come out of work they will be treated as a new claim it. quite frankly mr. speaker, i don't need to be -- sorry mr. speaker, quite frankly i don't need to be -- about not understanding the minimum wage. we introduced it. and the fact of the matter -- [shouting] and the fact of the matter is 3 million families will be at least 1000 pounds a week worse off. a year, a year. the minister was on the radio this morning talking about -- [shouting] -- the minister was on the radio talking about party funding sing government curb on trade unions donations were not an attack on working people and the labour party. but it doesn't look that way. there's an issue about the money and politics but it's got to be done fairly. so will the prime minister commit that he will not go ahead with these changes unless it's on a cross party basis? will he include the issue of individual donation cap? it's not acceptable for him to be curbing funds to hard-working people to the labour party while turning a blind eye to donations from hedge funds to the tories. >> finally mr. speaker, we see were all these questions were going. the labour party can go round and round and round but it always comes back to the trade unions. [shouting] let me answer all the questions that she asked. first of all on the national living wage if the labour party is so keen on a why did he vote against it in the budget last night? second of all, on employment and support allowance the number of people coming off a jobseeker's allowance is more than seven times the number of people have come up in capacity since 20. we want help to get these people back to work. she asked about the issue of trade union funding for the labour party. i think that's a very simple principle. if you want to give money to a party, should be an act of free will. not something that is taken out of your pay packet without you being told about it properly. if this wasn't happening in the trade unions the labour party would be saying this was appalling ms. seliger to do is time for consumer protection. what is there such a blind spot even with the honorable lady when it comes to the trade union paymasters? >> there is no simple principle. there is a simple principle which is it must be fair. what he's doing is it's one rule for the labour party for something completely different for the tories. to be democratic about this the prime minister must not just acting interest of the tory party. instead of helping working -- he spent his time breaking the rules of the game. now he wants to go even further attack the rights of working people to have a say about fair pay and conditions. that's on top of already having changed the rule to gag charities and trade unions from speaking out. the prime minister says he wants to govern for one nation but instead he is just governing in the interest of the tory party. >> the law for company donation was changed years ago. trait genes have been left untouched but the principle should be the same. whoever you're giving money to it should be an act of free will. it should be a decision that you have to take. that money shouldn't be sequestered away from you without being asked. mr. speaker today we've seen it all. i thought she was the modern one and the leadership contenders are the ones who were heading off to the left. what we heard from them, because everything went of our anti-strike laws, oppose everything went over welfare changes, some of them described terrorist groups like hamas as their friends. mr. speaker, in a week when we're finding out >> the atlantic council looks at how the international community will enforce the restrictions on iran's nuclear program. on our facebook page, we have been asking about the iran nuclear agreement and what your message to congress would be on the deal. one commentor writing why were the four american hostages not even mentioned in this epic deal? another post support. we have a coalition on our side. those who oppose this have no plan. an article in the wall street journal looks at the financial aspects of the agreement. iran is getting 100 billion dollars in assets frozen under international sanctions. the article quotes security analyst who believe that this could have positive implications for the fight against terrorism. the iranian government has provided support to groups fighting against isis. the article quotes iran's foreign minister as saying i hope my counterparts will also turn their focus and devote their resources to this existential battle. the details about an agreement with iran over its nuclear agreement -- program have been released. president obama talked about a deal and a press conference today, arguing that it makes the world safer by preventing iran from developing nuclear weapons. from the white house east room earlier today, this is just over one hour. >> please have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. yesterday was a historic day. the deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon represents a powerful display of american leadership and diplomacy. it shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength, opposition of principle. when we unite the international community around a shared vision and result to solve problems peacefully. i have reached out to leaders on both sides of the aisle. i expect the debate to be robust, and that is how it should be. this is an important issue. our national security policies are stronger and more effective when their subject to scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands. the details of this deal matter very much. that's why our team worked so hard for so long to get the details right. at the same time, as this debate unfolds, i hope we don't lose sight of the larger picture. the opportunity that this agreement represents. as we go forward, it's important for everybody to remember the alternative, the fundamental choice that this moment represents. with this deal, we cut off every single one of iran's pathways to any cure program. a nuclear weapons program. iran's nuclear weapons program will be under severe limits for many years. without a deal, those pathways remain open. there would be no limits to iran's future program and iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb. with this deal, we gain unprecedented around the clock monitoring of key nuclear facilities and the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated. without a deal, those inspections go away. we lose the ability to closely monitor iran's program and detect covert nuclear weapons program. with this deal, if iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences. nuclear related sanctions have helped to cripple the iranian economy will snap back into place. without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel. with no ability to reimpose them. with this deal, we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. without a deal, we risk even more war in the middle east, and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world. as i said yesterday, even with this deal, we will continue to have profound differences with iran. it support of terrorism, use of proxies, attempts to destabilize the middle east. therefore the multilateral embargo will remain in place for an additional five years with restrictions on ballistic missile technology for eight years. in addition, the united states will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's support for terrorism -- ballistic missile program, and human rights violation, and will continue our unprecedented security cooperation with israel and deepen partnerships with gulf states. the bottom line is this, this nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the united states and our allies. it prevents the most serious and threat iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. it's why the alternative no limits on iran's nuclear program, no inspection, the risk of regional nuclear arms race, and the greater risk for -- all that would endanger our security. that is the choice we face. if we don't choose wisely future generations will judge us harshly. no one suggests that this deal resolves all threats that iran of to its neighbors in the world. or realizing the promise of this deal will require many years of implementation and hard work. it will require vigilance and execution. this deal is the best means of ensuring that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. that has been my number one priority, our number one priority. we have a historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world, an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes. as president and commander in chief, i and determined to seize that opportunity. with i would take questions. let me see who i am starting off with. >> what steps will you take to an able and more moderate iran. does this deal allowed you to more forcefully counter iran's destabilization in the region? >> if you don't mind there's going to be a common set of questions touched on. i will get to your question. i want to start off with stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here. i just want to reiterate it. i have already heard objections to the deal. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grave threat to the united states and allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon. everything that we have done has been designed to make sure that we address that number one priority. that is what the sanctions regime was about. that's how we were able to mobilize the international community, including folks we were not particular close to 20 bye-bye the sanctions that's how they came about we were able to gain local consistence that iran had a nuclear weapon and that would be a problem for everybody. that is the reason their accounts got frozen and they were not able to get money for oil sales. that's the reason they have problems operating with respect to international commerce we built that international consensus around this issue the possibility of iran getting a nuclear weapon. that was not simply my party. if you look back at all of the debates that have taken place this is been a democratic, republican, press and mr. net yahoo! -- prime minister netanyahu's priority. the deal we have negotiated achieves that goal. it make sure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon we have always recognized that even if iran does not get a nuclear weapon it still poses challenges to our interest and our values in the region and around the world. when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program. we will have brought the stockpile down to 98%. we will have reduce the number of centrifuges they operate. we will have installed an onion -- unprecedented inspections regime. that will remain in place not just for 10 years but for the stockpile 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon that will be subject to additional protocols. we will have disabled a facility like iraq the iraq facility from allowing iran to develop plutonium they could be used for a bomb. we will have greatly reduced the stockpile of uranium that is enriched, and we will have put into place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if uranium was diverted into a covert program, we would catch it. so i can say with confidence, but more important a nuclear experts can say with confidence, that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb we will have met our number one nuclear priority. we will still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. it's funding of proxies like hezbollah that threat israel and the region. my hope is that we can continue to have conversations with iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region. , to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative. to operate the way we expect nations to behave. we are not counting on it. this deal is not contingent on iran changing its behavior. it solves one problem, making sure they don't have a bomb. it will be a lot easier for us to check iran's nefarious activities, push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interest . will they change their behavior. will we seek to gain more environment -- involvement with them? we will continue to engage with them. we are not normalizing diplomatic relations here. the context will be limited we will work with israel to bring additional pressure on iran. the argument that i have been hearing before the deal was announced that because this deal does not solve all those other problems that is an argument for rejecting this deal. it makes no sense it loses sight of what was our original number one priority, which is making sure that they don't have a bomb . >> does it give pause to see this deal praised by the syrian dictator as a victory for iran or praised by those in toronto who shout death to america, and yet our closes ally in the middle east calls it a historic mistake. in washington, it seems a large majority will vote to reject the deal. you have any concerns about seeing the majority of the people's representatives in congress and this is a bad deal? if i can just ask you a quick question -- >> let me answer the question you ask. it does not give me pause that mr. assad or others in tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. that's what politicians do, and that's been the case throughout. i mean, you will recall that during the course of these negotiations over the last couple of months, every time the supreme leader or somebody tweeted something out, for some reason, we all bought into the notion, "well, the obama administration must be giving this or capitulating that." well, now we have a document. so so you can see what the deal is. we don't have to speculate. we we don't have to engage in spin. you can just read what it says and what is required. and nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement, iran has to drastically reduce its stockpiles of uranium, is cut off from plutonium, the fordow facility that is underground is converted, that we have an unprecedented inspections regime, that we have snap- back provisions if they cheat. you know, the facts are the facts, and i'm not concerned about what others say about it. now, with respect to congress, my hope -- i won't prejudge this -- my hope is -- is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts, not on politics, not on posturing, not on the fact this is a deal i bring to congress as opposed a republican president, not based on lobbying but based on what's in the national interest of the united states of america. and i think that if congress does that, then in fact, based on the facts, the majority of congress should approve of this deal. and as i said in an interview but we live in washington, and politics do intrude. and as i said in an interview yesterday, i am not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement. i do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation or misinformation, and -- and -- and that, i welcome, in part because, look there are -- there are legitimate, real concerns here. we've already talked about it. we have huge differences with iran. israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to iran. i mean, you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the holocaust, that has financed hezbollah, and as a consequence, there are missiles that are pointed towards tel aviv. and so i think there are very good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. and i've said this to prime minister -- i've said it directly to the israeli people. but what i've also said is that all those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon. and for all the objections of prime minister netanyahu or, for that matter, some of the republican leadership that's already spoken, none of them have presented to me or the american people a better alternative. i'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about "this is a bad deal. this is a historically bad deal. this will threaten israel and threaten the world and threaten the united states." i mean, there's been a lot of that. what i haven't heard is what is your preferred alternative? if 99% of the world's community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say "this will prevent iran from getting a nuclear bomb," and you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does, it's temporary, or that because they're going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that they'll cause more problems, then you should have some alternative to present. and i haven't heard that. and the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here. either the issue of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war. those are -- those are the options. now, you'll hear some critics say, "well, we could have negotiated a better deal." ok. what does that mean? i think the suggestion among a lot of the critics has been that a -- a better deal, an acceptable deal would be one in which iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise. the problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. what we do have the leverage to do is to make sure that they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done. so to go back to congress, i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one to read the agreement before they comment on it, number two to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they're right and people like ernie moniz, who is an mit nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> mr. president, if i can... obama: no. no. >> prime minister netanyahu said that you know, you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before giving access to military facilities. obama: i'm happy to -- i'm happy to -- that's a good example. so, let's take the issue of 24 days. this has been, i think, swirling today, the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. now, keep in mind first of all that we'll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities: fordow, natanz, arak, their uranium mines, facilities that are known to produce centrifuges, parts. that entire infrastructure that we know about, we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities. ok. so then the issue is what if they try to develop a covert program? now, one of the advantages of having inspections across the entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. you know, there are only so many uranium mines in iran. and if in fact we're counting the amount of uranium that's being mined, and suddenly some is missing on the back end, they got some 'splainin' to do. so we're able to track what's happening along the existing facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a covert program. but let's say that iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly, the iaea, the international organization charged with implementing the non-proliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world, the iaea will have the ability to say that undeclared site, we're concerned about. we see something suspicious. and they will be able to say to iran, we want to go inspect that. now, if iran objects, we can override it. in the agreement, we've set it up so we can override iran's objection, and we don't need russia or china in order for us to get that override. and if they continue to object we're in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that iran's in violation and is cheating. as for the fact that it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site, the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such -- this is not something you hide in a closet. this is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. and by the way, if we identify an undeclared site that we're suspicious about, we're going to be keeping eyes on it. so we're going to be monitoring what the activity is, and that's going to be something that will be evidence if we think that some funny business was going on there, that we can then present to the international community. so we'll be monitoring it that entire time. and by the way, if there is nuclear material on that site, you know, your high school physics will remind us that that leaves a trace. and so we'll know that, in fact, there was a violation of the agreement. so the point is, jonathan, that this is the most vigorous inspection and verification regime, by far, that has ever been negotiated. is it possible that iran decides to try to cheat despite having this entire inspection and verification mechanism? that's possible. but if it does, first of all, we built in a one-year breakout time, which gives us a year to respond forcefully, and we've built in a snap-back provision so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations at the u.n. to put the sanctions right back in place. and so really, the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we've put forward is that iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient because they'd find some way to get around it because they are untrustworthy. and if that's your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. that means, presumably, that you can't negotiate, and what you're really saying is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. and if somebody wants to make that debate, whether it's the republican leadership or prime minister netanyahu or the israeli ambassador or others they're free to make it, but it's not persuasive. carol lee? >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask you about the arms and ballistic missile embargo. why did you decide -- agree to lift those, even with the five-and eight-year durations? are you concerned that arms will go to has the law or hamas and's or anything that you or a future president can do to stop that. i wanted to ask if you could step back with that -- this and look at the deal -- it's obviously emerging as a sticking point on the hill. and are you concerned that arms to iran will go to hezbollah or hamas? and is there anything that you or a future president can do to stop that? and if you don't mind, i mean, i wanted to see if you could step back a little bit and when you look at this iran deal and all the other issues and unrest that's happening in the middle east, what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year-and-a-half? obama: so the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles is a real concern to us, has been of real concern to us, and it is in the national security interest of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah, for example, or sending weapons to the houthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law that gives us authority to interdict arms shipments by iran. one of those mechanisms is the u.n. security resolution related to iran's nuclear program. essentially, iran was sanctioned because of what had happened at fordow, its unwillingness to comply with previous u.n. security resolutions about their nuclear program, and as part of the package of sanctions that was slapped on them, the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included. now, under the terms of the original u.n. resolution, the fact is that once a -- an agreement -- once an agreement was arrived at that gave the international community assurance iran didn't have a nuclear weapon, you could argue just looking at the text that those arms and ballistic missiles prohibition should immediately go away. but what i said to our negotiators was, given that iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about iran's activities let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. and we got that. we got five years in which under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles. but part of the reason why we were willing to extend it only for five, let's say, as opposed a longer period of time, is because we have other u.n. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by iran to organizations like hezbollah. we have other u.n. resolutions and multilateral agreements that give us authority to interdict arms shipments from iran throughout the region. and so we've had belts and suspenders and buttons, a whole bunch of different legal authorities. these legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse after five or eight years, but we'll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. and -- and -- and truthfully these prohibitions are not self- -- self enforcing. it's not like the u.n. has the capacity to police what -- what iran is doing. what is does is it gives us authority under international law to prevent arms -- arms shipments from happening in concert with our allies and our partners. and the real problem, if you look at how, for example hezbollah got a lot of missiles that are a grave threat to israel and many of our friends in the region, it's not because they were legal, it's not because somehow that was authorized under international law; it was because there was insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those so the bottom line is, carol, i -- -- insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those shipments. so the bottom line is, carol, i share the concerns of israel saudis, gulf partners about iran shipping arms and causing conflict and chaos in the region, and that's why i've said to them, "let's double down and partner much more effectively to improve our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity so that fewer of those arms shipments are getting through the net." but the legal authorities will -- we will still possess, and obviously we've got our own unilateral prohibitions and sanctions in place around non-nuclear issues like support for hezbollah, and those remain in place. now, in terms of the larger issues that the middle east, obviously that's a -- that's a longer discussion. i think my key goal when i turn over the keys to the president -- the next president, is that we are on track to defeat isil that they are much more contained and we're moving in the right direction there, that we have jumpstarted a process to resolve the civil war in syria which is like an open sore in the region, and is giving refuge to terrorist organizations who are taking advantage of that chaos, to make sure that in iraq, not only have we pushed back isil, but we've also created an environment in which sunni, shia, and kurd are starting to operate and function more effectively together, and to be in a conversation with all our partners in the region about how we have strengthened our security partnerships so that they feel they can address any potential threats that may come, including threats from iran. and that includes providing additional security assurances and cooperation to israel, building on the unprecedented cooperation that we have already put in place, and the support that we've already put in place. it includes the work that we've done with the gcc up at camp david, making sure that we execute that. if we have done those things then the problems in the middle east will not be solved. and ultimately, it's not the job of the president of the united states to solve every problem in the middle east. the people in the middle east are going to have to solve some of these problems themselves. but i think we can provide that next president at least a foundation for continued progress in these various areas. the last thing i would say, and this is a longer-term issue, is we have to address the youth in the region with jobs and opportunity and a better vision for the future so that they are not tempted by the nihilistic, violent, dead-end that organizations like isil offer. again, we can't do that entirely by ourselves, but we can partner with well-intentioned organizations, states, ngos, religious leaders in the region. we have to do a better job of that than we've been doing so far. all right. michael crowley. >> thank you. you alluded earlier to iran's role in syria. just to focus on just to focus on that for a moment, many analysts and some former members of your administration believe that the kind of negotiated political settlement that you say is necessary in syria will require working directly with iran in giving iran an important role. do you agree, and is that a dialogue you will be actively seeking? and what about the fight against isis? what would it take for there to be explicit cooperation between the u.s. and iran? obama: i do agree that we're not going to solve the problems of syria unless there's buy-in from the russians, the iranians, the turks, our gulf partners. it is too chaotic. there are too many factions. there's too much money and too many arms flooding into the zone. it's gotten caught up in both sectarian conflict and geopolitical jockeying, and in order for us to resolve it there's going to have to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. so iran is one of those players, and i think that it's important for them to be part of that conversation. i want to repeat what i said earlier. we have not, and i don't anticipate anytime in the near future, restored normal diplomatic relations with iran and so i do not foresee a formal set of agreements with iran in terms of how we're conducting our counter-isil campaign. but clearly, iran has influence in iraq. iraq has a majority shi'a population. they have relationships to iran. some are natural. we expect somebody like prime minister abadi to meet with and negotiate and work with iran as its neighbor. some are less legitimate, where were you see iran financing shia militias that in the past have killed american soldiers and in the future may carry out atrocities when they move into sunni areas. and so we're working with our diplomats on the ground as well as our military teams on the ground to assess where can we appropriately at least de-conflict and where can we work with prime minister abadi around a overall strategy for iraq to regain its sovereignty. and where do we tell abadi, you know what? what iran's doing there is a problem. and we can cooperate in that area, for example, unless you get those folks out of there because we're not going to have our troops even in an advisory or training role looking over their shoulders because they're not sure what might happen to them. and those conversations have been ongoing. i think they will continue. the one thing you can count on is that any work that the u.s. government does or the u.s. military does in iraq with other partners on the ground is premised on the idea that they are reporting to under the chain of command of the iraqi government and iraqi security forces. if we don't have confidence that ultimately abadi is directing those soldiers, then it's tough for us to have any kind of direct relationship. ok? major garrett? >> thank you, mr. president. as you well know, there are four americans in iran, three held on trumped-up charges that, according to your administration, one whereabouts unknown. can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four americans? and last week, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. it is perceived that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. many in the pentagon feel you've left the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff high out to dry. could you comment? obama: i've got to give you credit, major, for how you craft those questions. the notion that i am content as i celebrate with american citizens languishing in iranian jails? major, that's nonsense, and you should know better. i've met with the families of some of those folks. nobody's content. and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. suddenly, iran realizes you know what? maybe we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these individuals. makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. and by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we'd still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. that's why those issues are not connected. but we are working every single day to try to get them out, and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families. with respect to the chairman's testimony, to some degree, i already answered this with carol. we are not taking the pressure off iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. as i just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo under this particular new u.n. resolution not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular u.n. resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see iran engaged in those activities, whether it's six years from now or 10 years from now. so we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact, part of my pitch to the gcc countries, as well as to prime minister netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like hezbollah. and as i just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners. ok. april ryan. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to change the subject a bit. earlier this year, on the flight to selma, you said on matters of race, as president, your job is to close remaining gaps that are left in state and federal government. now, how does criminal-justice reform fit into that equation, and what gaps remain for you in the -- towards the end of your presidency? and also, what does it mean to travel to kenya, your father's homeland in the next couple , weeks as president of the united states? and lastly, would you revoke the medal of freedom for bill cosby? obama: you stuffed a lot in there, april. [laughter] you know what -- >> >> i learned from my colleagues. obama: who'd you learn from? jonathan karl? is that what you said? the -- on criminal-justice reform, obviously, i gave a lengthy speech yesterday, but this is something that i've been thinking about a lot, been working first with eric holder and now loretta lynch about -- we've been working along with other prosecutors of the -- the u.s. attorney's office. it's an outgrowth of the task force that we put together post-ferguson and the garner case in new york. and i don't think that the criminal-justice system is obviously, the sole source of racial tension in this country or the key institution to resolving the opportunity gap. but i think it is a part of the broader set of challenges that we face in creating a more perfect union. and the good news is -- is that this is one of those rare issues where we've got some republican and democratic interests as well as federal, state and local interest in solving the problem. i think people recognize that there are violent criminals out there, and they've got to be locked up. we have got to have tough prosecutors. we have to support our law enforcement officials. police are in a tough job, and -- and they are helping to keep us safe, and we are grateful and thankful to them. but what we also know is this huge spike in incarcerations is also driven by nonviolent drug offenses where the sentencing is completely out of proportion with the crime. and that costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money, it is debilitating communities, who are seeing huge proportions of the young men in their communities finding themselves with a criminal record rendering them often times unemployable. so it compounds problems that these communities already have. and so i am very appreciative of -- of folks like dick durbin and cory booker alongside mike lee and rand paul and other folks in the house, who are working together to see if we can both reduce some of these mandatory minimums around nonviolent drug offenses, because again, i tend not to have a lot of sympathy when it comes to violent crime. but when it comes to non-violent drug offenses, is there work that we can do to reduce mandatory minimums, create more diversion programs like drug courts, then can we do a better job on the rehabilitation side inside of prisons so that we are preparing these folks who are eventually going to be released to reenter the workforce. on the back end, are we doing more to link them up with reentry programs that are effective? and you know, this may be an area where we could have some really significant bipartisan legislation that doesn't eliminate all the other challenges we have got. because the most important goal is keeping folks from getting in the criminal justice system in the first place, which means early childhood education, and good jobs, and making sure that we're not segregating folks in -- in impoverished communities that have no contact with opportunity. but this can make a difference. you know, i met these four ex-offenders, as i said yesterday. and what was remarkable was how they had turned their lives around. and these were some folks who had been some pretty tough criminals. i mean, one of them had served 10 years. another was a repeat offender that had served a lot of time. and -- and in each instance, somebody intervened at some point in their lives, once they had already been in the criminal justice system, once they had already gotten in trouble, and said you know what, i think you can live a different way, and i'm willing to help you. and -- and that one person, an art teacher or a ged teacher, or somebody who's willing to offer a guy a job, i want to give a shot out to five guys, because one of the guys there was an ex-felon, and five guys gave him a job. and he ended up becoming a manager at the store and was able to completely turn his life around. but the point was, somebody reached out that person and gave them a chance. and so part of our question should be how about somebody reaching out to these guys when they're 10 or 11 or 12 or eight as opposed to waiting until they've already gone through a criminal justice program? that's part of why we're doing my brother's keeper. but -- but this is an area where i feel modestly optimistic. i think in the meantime, we've got to stay on top of keeping the crime rate down, because part of the reason i think there's a conversation taking place is, violent crime has significantly dropped. last year, we saw both incarcerations and the crime rate drop. and you know, this can always turn if we start seeing renewed problems in terms of violent crime. and there's parts of the country where violent crime is still a real problem, including my hometown of chicago, and in baltimore, and you know part of what i've asked attorney general lynch to do is to figure out how can we refocus attention if we're going to do a package of criminal justice reforms? part of it would be actually having a greater police presence and more law enforcement in the communities that are really getting hit hard, and haven't seen some of the drops in violent crime that we've seen in places like manhattan, for example. with respect to the visit to kenya, it's obviously something i am looking forward to. i will be honest with you, visiting kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as president, because i can actually get outside of the hotel room or a conference center. and just the logistics of visiting a place are always tough as president. but it's obviously symbolically important, and my hope is, is that we can deliver a message that the u.s. is a strong partner, not just for kenya, but for sub-saharan africa generally, build on the progress that's been made around issues of health and education, focus on counter-terrorism issues that are important in east africa because of al-shabaab and some of the tragedies that have happened inside of kenya, and continue to encourage democracy and the reduction of corruption inside that country that sometimes has held back this incredibly -- this incredibly gifted and blessed country. and with respect to the medal of freedom, there is no precedent for revoking a metal -- medal. we don't have that mechanism. and as you know, i tend to make it a policy not to comment on the specifics of -- of cases where there might still be, if not criminal, then civil issues involved. i will say this. if you give a woman, or a man, for that matter, without his or her knowledge, a drug and then have sex with that person without consent, that's rape. and i think this country, any civilized country, should have no tolerance for rape. all right. have we exhausted iran questions here? i -- i think there's a helicopter that's coming, but -- but i really am enjoying this iran debate. topics that may not have been touched upon, criticisms that you've heard that i did not answer, the -- i just -- go ahead. go ahead. i know josh is getting a little stressed here, but -- i just -- i just want to make sure that we're not leaving any stones unturned here. go ahead. >> thanks. mr. president i'll be brief. the argument has been made that iran now has a cash windfall, billions to spend. your people seem confident they're going to spend it at home. why are you confident they're not going to spend it on arming hezbollah, arming bashr al-assad, et cetera? obama: i -- i think that's a great question, and i'm -- i'm glad you brought it up. i think it is a mistake to -- to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on daycare centers and -- and -- and roads and -- and paying down debt. we think that they have to do some of that, because rouhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of iran. that economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions. so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the quds force, i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. -- activities in the region that are a threat to us and our allies. i think that is a likelihood. do i think it's a game-changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah, and there is a ceiling -- a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Nevada , United States , Australia , Alabama , Elmhurst , Illinois , Brazil , Tel Aviv , Israel , Angola , Syria , San Francisco , California , Mexico , Arizona , New England College , New Hampshire , Egypt , Shawnee , Oklahoma , Massachusetts , Tehran , Iran , Iowa , Libya , Memphis , Tennessee , Poland , Spain , Chicago , Canada , Japan , Mississippi River , Louisiana , Green River , Washington , Germany , Missouri , Ronald Mcdonald House , Florida , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Virgin Valley , Indiana , Georgia , Virginia , United Arab Emirates , Toronto , Ontario , Huntington Park , Oregon , Cincinnati , Ohio , Michigan , Carlton , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Iraq , North Brook Glen , New Jersey , Idaho , Folsom Lake , Saudi Arabia , Maryland , North Korea , Lithuania , France , King County , American Bar , San Joaquin Valley , Vermont , State House , Turkey , Minnesota , Lincoln County , China , Russia , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , New Orleans , San Joaquin River , Nigeria , India , South Carolina , Central Valley , Donaldsonville , San Francisco Bay , Sacramento , Los Angeles County , Ireland , Greece , New York , North Carolina , Oakland , Texas , Kentucky , Boston , Arlington Cemetery , Rhode Island , Puerto Rico , Natanz , Esfahan , Wisconsin , Indonesia , Nye County , Mississippi , Champaign , Kenya , Lawrenceville , Nebraska , South Dakota , Phoenix , Kansas , Yemen , North Dakota , Paris , Rhôalpes , Italy , Town Hall , Utah , Egyptians , Puerto Ricans , Mexican , Israelis , Iraqi , Italians , British , Israeli , Chinese , Russian , Britain , Saudis , Spanish , Syrian , Irish , Americans , America , Saudi , Greek , Texan , Iranians , Turks , Californians , Iranian , Russians , Japanese , American , Polish , Californian , Gulf States , Africa Asia , Thurgood Marshall , Stephanie Burke , Joe Mcquaid , David Cameron , John Kasich , Ronald Reagan , Edward Lee Longmire , Brad Pitt , Vladimir Putin , Lloyd Mckinney , John Kerry , Benedict Arnold , Jeh Johnson , Dwight David Eisenhower , Lou Gehrig , Bobby Scott , Barack Hussein Obama , Ray Donovan , Michael Capuano , Jim Oberstar , Cathy Mcmorris Rodgers , Robert Allen , Ronald Reagan George Bush , Mike Lee , Lyndon Johnson , John Rankin , Martin Luther King , Cindy Monroe , Metro Bustos , Karen L Haas , Holmes Norton , Javier Vega Jr , Ernie Moniz , Thomas Cornwell , Abraham Lincoln , Barack Obama , Lindsey Graham , Ray Lahood , Cathy Mcmorris , Richard Nixon , Jim Sensenbrenner , John Baker , John Cornyn , Wendy Sherman , Ben Rhodes , Barbara Lee , Gail Gleason , Bonnie Watson Coleman , Jerrold Nadler , Rodney Davi , Daniel Webster , George Bush , Raul Labrador , George Miller , Loretta Lynch , Watson Coleman , Miller Matthews , Hussein Obama , David Grossman , Steve Stivers , David Joyce , John A Boehner , April Ryan , Joaquin Delta , Carol Lee , Paul Larkin , Steve Gleason , Dick Durbin , Cory Booker , Steve Scalise , Joseph Randolph , David Valadao , Martha Roby , Jonathan Rosado , Ford C Max , Dwight Eisenhower , Los Angeles , Mcmorris Rodgers , Michael Crowley , Harriet Harman , Mcmorris Rogers , Jonathan Karl , Ernest Joseph , Jesus Christ , Sam Rayburn , Frank Lucas , Christine Lagarde , Kenny Hahn , Tom Cole ,