live coverage here as long as it lasts on c-span3. [ banging gavel ] rules committee will come to order. and good afternoon. and welcome to another fun day at the rules committee. today we have an exciting panel with two very experienced members who take time to visit the rules committee often. we welcome the young chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from dallas, texas, mr. hensarling, as well as the gentlewoman, my dear friend, ms. waters, from los angeles. and we're delighted that you're here. the rules committee today will be considering hr-3971. the community institution mortgage relief act of 2017. and hr-477, the small business mergers acquisition sales and brokerage simplification act. of 2017. and house joint resolution 123, which will be the second part of the hearing today, the continued appropriations act of 2018. m & a brokers provide necessary services for small, private companies that are looking to merge. and/or to be acquired. but m & a brokers can face substantial compliance costs associated with a one-size-fits-all regulatory schema associated with broker/dealer registration. costs that ultimately, once again, just get passed down to small, private companies and puts them in need of not only those services, but then having to pay those bills. hr-477 helps alleviate the most costly burdens on small companies by allowing m & a brokers to have simpler, less costly regulation requirements. and doing so will facilitate liquidation in small businesses which help preserve and create small jobs and i think create we get wealth for people who have worked hard in the marketplace as they make transitions associated with the life of their company. the committee today will also consider hr-397 1, the communit institution mortgage relief act of 2017, another piece of legislation out of the financial services committee. this legislation amends the truth in lending act and the real estate settlement procedures act of 1974. to modify the work requirements for community financial institutions with respect to certain rules related to mortgage loans and/or other purposes. this bill benefits install financial institutions and consumer protections by allowing community banks to serve the local economy through relationship banking. it also ensures constituents continue to have access to various credit choices and allow other similar community institutions to enter the mortgage market without being deterred by the high cost of regulatory compliance. once again, remembering that the costs get passed on to the consumer. the consumers that we want to be able to have not only the housing part of the american dream, but to be able to get the cost in the house that they can sustain over the long run. rules committee will also be considering, as i spoke about, the continuing appropriations act of 2018. it's a relatively short, page or so piece of legislation that deals with the continuing resolution, which will extend government funding through, as we have all been told, december 22nd, 2018. i believe that's a friday night, mr. chairman. so without objection, i would like to welcome the distinguished gentleman from texas, chairman hensarling, as well as the woman from california, ranking member waters, to the panel. and as always, you've been here a lot. you're a star witness many times. you'll remember without objection anything you have in writing we would like you have for our awesome stenographer to complete the record accordingly, namely to support your testimony. however, before we move further, i would like to recognize the gentleman from florida, the ranking member of the committee, for any opening statements he would like to make. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i'm happy to see a bipartisan amendment offered that addresses many of the concerns that we have on both sides of the aisle. and i understand that miss waters, the ranking member, will support this bill if this amendment is made in order. and ultimately adopted. as it pertains to the continuing resolution, i would borrow from miss lowey and ask the question, what you believe you can accomplish in the next two weeks that you haven't been able to accomplish in the last two months. but i'll get a chance to ask that question. but principally, that two weeks from now we're going to be here again discussing another fix. and i've already heard that we will be back to do another short-term cr at the end of this year going through mid january. and my belief is, you ought to do that one now rather than be bouncing back and forth during the holidays. thank you, mr. chairman. >> yes, sir. well, the gentleman is correct. there are answers that abound. we have two star witnesses today that will work us through the two pieces of legislation. the most immediate from financial services and our third witness on the cr ain't much of a guy. it will be me. but i will attempt to do my very best answer of the gentleman's questions to move forward so that we may have this on the floor and resolve, at least for the short-term, these items. and i thank the gentleman very much. mr. chairman, we're delighted. the chair is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the rules committee. and as the chairman and ranking member of the house financial services committee, we have many stars on our committee on both sides of the aisle. and we are happy to represent them today. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you yet again to testify on behalf of two bipartisan bills that were favorably reported out of the financial services committee, and have a strong track record of bipartisan support. today we'll discuss hr-3971, the community institution mortgage relief act. and perhaps spend a little less time discussing for the reasons articulated by the gentleman from florida, hr-477, the small business mergers acquisition sales and brokerage simplification act of 2017. hr-3971 addresses concerns that the cfpb's rules implementing dodd/frank act provisions on escrows and mortgage servicing are overly burdensome for our small banks and community credit unions and unfairly restrict consumers' access to mortgage credit. all this bipartisan bill would do is simply relieve smaller banks -- certain smaller banks and credit unions of the obligation to provide escrow accounts if they have consolidated assets of $25 billion or less. and -- and hold the mortgages on their balance sheet for three years. loans held in portfolio by community financial institutions should be exempt from such requirements, because when the loans are held in portfolio, lenders have every incentive to protect the collateral, by ensuring that taxes and insurance payments are made and kept current. a large majority of community banks do not -- do not currently escrow, because of the cost. and requiring them to do so will only stop them from making loans to many needy individuals. the community banker in missouri told us the cfpb's rule has forced his bank to limit in-house real estate lending, end quote. further, this is hurting the housing market in our community. a credit union official in pennsylvania told us that this bureaucratic requirement has caused his credit union members to become, quote, very upset and confused as to why they were unable to pay their taxes how they always had. and he went on to write, quote, these members had managed their tax and insurance payments for years without institution interference. but suddenly feel like the government now told them they were not responsible enough to manage their own affairs. unquote. the important corrections in hr-3971 will give small credit unions and community banks greater flexibility to ensure that more of their members and customers can get a loan to buy a home and stay in their homes to ultimately make credit more available and less expensive than it otherwise would be. i have further comments prepared on hr-477, but given that the ranking member and i are recommending to the rules committee, and should they see fit, to make an order, the sherman amendment, we will both support that amendment and if so, the ranking member, i believe, has informed us she is prepared to support the underlying bill. that is a recommendation we made to rules committee. so unless there are questions on hr-477, in the interest of being efficient with the use of the time of the rules committee, i will not make introductory comments on that, and i appreciate again, mr. chairman, the opportunity to appear before the rules committee and i'll yield back. >> mr. hensarling, thank you very much. we appreciate not only your testimony, but bringing these bills forward that would allow listening to these community banks, bankers, credit unions, the needs that they needed to fulfill customer demands in the marketplace. we're delighted, maxine, that you're here and the gentle woman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and members. on hr-39721, this bill would allow a large number of mortgage servicers to drop important consumer protections and set the stage for a return of the harmful practices of the subprime meltdown and the worst financial crisis since the great depression. specifically, the bill would harm consumers by raising the consumer bureau's exemption threshold on escrow account requirements by higher price mortgage loans. mortgages are classified as higher price if the annual percentage rate or apr exceeds the average prime offer rate by 1.5%. higher-price mortgage loans often reflect riskier or subprime borrowers. current consumer bureau rules require those with higher priced mortgage loans escrow their homeowners insurance, property taxes for at least the first five years of their mortgage. escrow accounts are an important consumer protection mechanism, especially for higher-risk borrowers, because they ensure that homeowners have funds for these expenses, thereby reducing funds for defaults. escrow accounts also keep homeowners from being blindsided by additional costs at the end of each year, and provides a more accurate monthly cost estimate for home ownership when the loan is originated. that frank task, the consumer bureau with implementing mortgage rules under the truth and lending act that would restrict the types of practices that led to financial crisis. that is why the consumer bureau's rules are designed to ensure that homeowners understand and can meet the full cost of home ownership. the consumer bureau has -- was careful to draft its escrow requirements to address the fact that large servicers and especially servicers that service loans they did not own for an extended period of time often did not adequately communicate with customers or approximately track paperwork. appropriately, i'm sorry, track paperwork. during the crisis, this contributed to millions of unnecessa unnecessa unnecessary foreclosures and later on abusive and fraudulent business practices. proponents of this bill say that it would provide relief from overburdensome regulation of small services. but currently, banks with less than $2 billion in assets that serve rural or underserved areas are already exempt from the consumer bureau's escrow requirements, which reflects the bureau's commitment to balanced and tailored regulations. this bill would make a dramatic leap from the consumer bureau's targeted relief and exempt banks up to $25 billion in assets from escrow requirement, regardless of whether they are serving underserved borrowers and without any evidence that this large exemption would increase access to credit for those who need it. the consumer bureau also provides other flexibilities through either exemptions too or just adjustments from the respa mortgage loan services and escrow account administration requirements for small bank services. provided they and their affiliates own the loans they service and service no more than 5,000 loans per year. hr-3971 would increase this exemption by 500% from 5,000 loans a year to 30,000 loans, allowing significantly larger bank servicers to avoid these important consumer safeguards. and only requiring the lenders to hold the loans in portfolio for three years. let's be clear. homeowners do not get to choose their own mortgage servicer. and the least we can do is ensure that they are adequately protected as they navigate the system, as we saw leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, servicers often choose profits over people, and that is why we need the consumer bureau to look out for the needs of consumers. the consumer bureau has continued to do its job, in spite of the unrelenting republican campaign to slow it down or eliminate it completely. simply put, 3971 would enable larger servicers whose incentives are not aligned with the owners of the loans or the borrowers to be able to revive the abusive practices involved with predatory lending that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. this is the second time in less than two weeks that i've come before you to discuss a bill that would erode vital consumer protections under the truth and lending act for borrowers with high-priced mortgage loans. i cannot support legislation that would keep consumers looking at high-cost mortgages from the vital protections. and scrutiny they deserve. although i understand that mr. sherman will offer an amendment to lower the emgss provided for in in this bill, i continue to oppose the bill, because it would undermine the consumer protection in home ownership. i must note, this bill comes on the heels of the recent and unlawful takeover of the consumer bureau by the new omb director. mr. mulvaney is in the process of unlawfully restricting activities of the consumer bureau and will soon begin rolling back consumer protections. congress should not be complicit in these acts by passing legislation that further erodes the rights and protections of america's consumers. for all these reasons, i oppose hr-39721, and look forward to answering any questions you may have. thank you, mr. chairman. >> yes, ma'am. thank you very much. mr. chairman, there was a question that the gentle woman just brought up about the illegality of an action by the president of the united states to actually point the gentleman, mr. mulvaney, as the acting director. it's my understanding that this went to court, and a court decided the remedy. is that correct? >> well, yes, mr. chairman. and, in fact, the cfpb's own legal counsel, that was appointed by mr. mulvaney's predecessor, mr. cordray, agrees that the president gets to appoint the acting director. this is based upon a 20-year-old statute. it is the opinion of the justice department. it is the opinion of the cfpb, and it is the opinion of the 1 circuit court, the 9th circuit, a very liberal circuit, that has opined on the matter of the vacancy reform act. and so the overwhelming legal precedent in this land says that the president gets to appoint the acting director. and what is also very disconcerting, mr. chairman, even if the president didn't have have that authority, nobody debates that he has the authority to appoint the permanent director. and we also know that under the current conventions of the united states senate, that permanent director can be confirmed with 51 votes, not 60. and the permanent director could undo anything that the interim director did. so regrettably, this is not helpful to democracy. it is not standing on firm legal ground. it doesn't help democracy, it doesn't help our economy. it's not on good firm legal ground, and it is very, very unfortunate that it has happened. and is keeping the work of the cfpb from going forward. >> well, thank you very much. yes, ma'am. >> mr. chairman, if i may? >> the gentle woman is recognized. i would ask you the same question. the gentle woman reiterated her opinion that this was an unconstitutional use of direction. the gentle woman have an opinion about that? >> i do, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, if you take a look at and read section 1011, the dodd/frank reform act, you will find that the language is the deputy director shall serve as acting director. so mr. cordray, in his role as director, appoints the deputy director. and that deputy director, according to section 1011 of dodd/frank, would then act as acting director, in the event the director leaves, is not in a position to serve or something happens that keeps him from carrying out his or her duties. and it is not may. it is shall. and i believe that the intervention by the president in sending over mr. mulvaney is in direct violation of dodd/frank section 1011, and the language that clearly indicates the deputy director shall serve as acting director. >> mr. chairman? >> well, again, mr. chairman, there are numerous statutes to be found in the federal code dealing with succession. the courts have opined that it is the president's option on which statute to avail himself of, number one. point number two. my friend, the ranking member quoted or paraphrased from dodd/frank. but if you read carefully the passage of dodd/frank that she cites, it speaks to the absence or the unavailability of the director. not the vacancy. and many other succession statutes specifically mention the term "vacancy." and our former colleague and former chairman of this committee, barney frank, was recently quoted as saying, well, perhaps i -- i paraphrase, this statute could have been more clearly written. so, again, you will not find the word "vacancy" in this section. mr. cordray is -- the director is not absent. the director is not unavailable. there is no director. he resigned the office to pursue his political ambitions back in ohio. and, again, the only court that has opined on this has opined in the president's favor. the legal counsel -- the legal counsel of the cfpb itself has ruled and opined in favor of the president. this is just an unsupportable position to take. it is unfortunate. i think it is derived from people who still haven't accepted the outcome of the last election. and i think it comes from a realization that the statute underlying the cfpb is a flawed statute. and so in some respects, we ought to take this beyond a fight between president trump and president obama. and it really shouldn't even be a fight between the right and left. it ought to be a fight between what is right and wrong. and we have an agency that is probably the single-most powerful unaccountable agency ever written into law. one of two agencies that i'm aware of that have ever been found unconstitutional. at least in my lifetime. and there are serious problems where this agency has eroded separation of powers, of checks and balances. due process. and for anybody who is a democrat, lower case "d," i would think they would be absolutely aghast at the power this agency has. and so now all of a sudden when they see this tool that they created in the hands of president trump, and our former colleague, milk mulvaney, it should send shivers down their spine. i hope they will work with us on a bipartisan basis to reform this agency, so it really can engage in the true business of consumer protection, and do it in a way that is commensurate with checks and balances and our democratic values shl democratic values. >> mr. chairman, it up very much. also we could add some of the problems that existed, including personnel problems that abound. so it's my open hope -- >> how much time do you have, mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. so it would be my hope that the president of the united states appoint someone with the knowledge and desire to structure and make sure they are structurally constructed in such a way that we conform to the needs of the constitution and the agency would be conformed to present itself in better light in their financial decisions and their decisions that are made by personnel and the success of the organization. i could think of a few people that might fill that bill. and i will continue to hope that the president of the united states receives input on that. mr. cole? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i bet we have exactly the same person in mind. >> i don't doubt that at all. >> it's good to see both of my friends here. always great members. and it's nice -- i know you have some differences on some issues, but it's also nice to see the measure of bipartisanship, as well. i hope it becomes infectious around here. it would be nice to see a little bit more of it as we move toward the end of the year. but i congratulate you both on the bipartisan measure that you are bringing forward. i don't really have any questions. i just want to -- you know, there are still a few days left, chairman hensarling, where you can change your mind and file in texas. so that's the christmas present i want. if this other one doesn't come to pass, i would much prefer my friend stay. i wish him well and thank him for his hard work and know he will continue to work hard on behalf of his people as he finishes out his term, unless -- unless we have that christmas miracle and you decide that you're going to stay in congress. which i wish you would do. with that, i yield back. >> the distinguished gentleman -- my remarks to a t. and i thank the gentleman for his comments. mrs. slaughter. judge hastings? >> no questions, mr. chairman. >> has the gentleman from colorado seek time? >> no, i don't. thank you. >> the gentleman does not seek time. does the gentleman from -- the distinguished gentleman from georgia seek time? >> i do, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to point out that not only did we -- do we have a piece of bipartisan legislation here, but we have a piece of legislation on which folks genuinely and not politically disagree. i thought the ranking member's comments, trying to protect home buyers from being blindsided at the end of the year by a tax bill were very sincere. and telling that we're talking about how to protect people from losing their home and for folks who were not accustomed to buying a home, accustomed to seeing an annual tax bill. having one show up at the end of the year could absolutely blind side them. i confess, i never had crossed my mind that we would require more escrow, as a tool to prevent folks from being surprised in that way. the chairman said, for pete's sakes, we're talking about local credit unions and small community banks. not that are pawning these loans off on -- into some pool, but who are keeping these in their portfolio, who are trying to nurture these home buyers. so often, we are -- we come to the rules committee, we have a political conversation on things, which we just entirely disagree fundamentally about what the goal of the bill is. to have the two of you sitting here together, saying we both have a real interest in protecting local consumers, we could do that through a cfpb regulatory process, or we could do that by putting consumers in the hands of their neighbors and their local financial institutions. i thought was a refreshing -- was a refreshing change for me as a rules committee member. so i just want you to know, you may not have come here to lift me up today, but you did. and i thank you for it. i'm going to hope it -- thank you, maxine. keep on going. there's -- there's more space. we had a tough day here yesterday. i feel better. i feel better about today, mr. chairman. i i thought just sitting beside tom cole was going to be hard, because we've got a tough new years day coming up together. but i found that to be more rewarding than i expected it to be. and i have and i have found this to be more rewarding. so so i thank you. i yield back. >> sooner or later, the dogs will get a chance. the gentleman does not seek you did time. you did catch on to that sooner. okay, that's sooner. i know you did, mr. chairman. >> uh-huh. >> the gentleman from the great state of washington, mr. >> newhouse. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your honesty, but i have no >> questions. >> thank you very much. it's good to see you today, dan. okay. i see that there are no further questions of the esteemed panel. i would remind you, please, recall that we have an awesome stenographer. and if and if you would please leave whatever you've got in writing to allow her to create her record appropriately. >> excuse me. >> yes, ma'am. >> i want to make sure that we have all of the information on 477 on the record. did you do 477 also? you did 39. >> i spoke of 39 -- >> oh, yeah, you did. we had two. we have two. >> we tended to take your testimony of hr-477 and 3971 in the same vein. and it is true, i do want to talk about appropriately, if you leave, if you choose, the -- what is called the cr bill. continuing resolution bill. but i think we spoke about, did you want to add any to the >> testimony? >> i had some talking points on 477. but but it is not necessary for me. we will make sure they are entered into the record. >> that would be great. without objection, of course, that will be entered into the record as the gentle woman has provided, and we appreciate that very much. thank you very much. i hope you both have an awesome end of your day. the only other member who would seek to give testimony, hr-477. hr-391. we would now move to just close the hearing portion of hr-477, hr-3971. we'll move to the second section of the attempt that we have today that was discussed in my testimony, hr -- hj-res, furthering consideration. the committee will now consider house joint resolution 123, the continuing appropriations act of 2018. this short-term cr will extend government funding through december the 22nd, 2017. this will provide this body and the senate with more time to reach a long-term spending resolution to ensure there are troops that are military continue to have the resources as well as the overall funding of the government to ensure our interest in home and abroad are taken care of. additionally, the cr addresses the children's health insurance program known as chip, to ensure the program has the necessary funds to continue helping our most vulnerable means of our society that are our children. specifically, the joint resolution waves a pro action rule in the current statutory formula to give the centers for medicaid and medicare -- maid indicated services, flexibility to allocate currently available redistribution dollars to any state that exhausted its federal championship funding. this change means that cms can make states whole or allow them to be hole with federal dollars through december 31st, 2017. even if a state has already reserved, received its original share of the redistribution funds under the current proration rule. this also extends to federal flood insurance program through december 22, and ensuring those in flood prone area it be those who continue to receive the necessary support for this program. so this is a short as have said, bill. it's a date range, which is a couple weeks from now, will fund the government and allow the house and senate to continue their work on these important activities so with that said, would anyone like to ask me any questions about this, or should we move forward and in this section moved to resolution. i would open the floor up. >> no questions. >> mr. chairman? >> the cr, sir. >> yeah, i have ea couple minuts on it. >> well, the gentleman is recognized. >> oh, good. so i first want us to amend to protect the bears national monument. this is very important, not just for the state of utah, but also a precedent-setting bill. it's obviously of great importance to our native nations. i had the opportunity to meet with members of the u-tribe yesterday. this amendment is the language of an existing bill, nearly identical with mr. guy agoo's and my bill that would return the barriers, national monument to its original boundaries. these changes proposed by the president would all but erase this iconic monument. and when this was established, the purpose was to preserve the sanctity of the land for our first nations, to protect further lines for future generations. i'm worried this is potentially the beginning of a slippery slope that could pull back protections for many national monuments if congress allows this to continue. we can begin by saving bears ears. so i would encourage the allowing a vote on the polis and gallego amendment, mr. chairman. and i have one more, if i may, mr. chair? >> the second amendment is the d.r.e.a.m. act. so some of the language introduced by representative roy ballard, that i'm a co sponsor. this important legislation would allow daca recipients to receive commercial permanent residency and some day earn their sheriff'ship. we know this congress is on the clock with regard to the status of our aspiring americans. because president trump has announced he's going to terminate the daca program, which is a program created under stiff word. so it will be the congress to create a solution to law. the d.r.e.a.m. act i'm confident would pass on the floor of the house if we can include an up or down vote. it would get the issue off the desk for opinion leadership and allow leadership to focus on other opportunities. and i think this is a great opportunity to show a bipartisan win. my amendment does that. >> it has significant support from democrats and republicans. it would allow those today who came here to this country at a young age and brought here by their parents and grew up in this country and know no other country, to finally rest easier knowing they're no longer in danger of deportation they don't remember or no. perhaps where they even speak language where the young people don't speak. americans across the board believe the d.r.e.a.m.ers need to be protected. that's why, mr. chairman, i simply allow an up or down vote with sufficient time for debate on the floor. i'm going to request that we will you an hour on each side for debate. i know we often do minutes. but at the commit's investigation, i think allowing debate would be good. again, i think the overwhelming najt of the house does nor the dream act. we can include a free up or down act. it will guarantee that 1 million aspired americans will have the chance to live and work in the country where their contributions are valid, the only think rethey know. i would ask the company to make the polis amendment for the dream act in order, as well. >> thank you very much. the gentleman is actually providing testimony. this would be testimony just as i provided testimony on my portion. the gentleman was providing testimony on amendments that he had to that. and so the gentleman has done that. would the gentleman open himself up to questions from the committee? >> of course. >> the gentleman would open questions regarding the two amendments. is there any -- mr. cole? mr. wood all? >> mr. chairman, i was looking for our colleague rick. i heard my friend say this was important to protect the state of utah. i did not hear the name of the utah kochk person co supporting this amendment with him. >> you know, i think if we advance to the floor, we can see which utah members vote four it and against. congress hasn't been asked a question yet. so we don't know where different members stand. >> i don't know. but i thought -- >>ion where different members stand. the only way to find out would be to have -- >> i understand. >> is it -- mr. polish, you said you spoke with the ute tribe. did they discuss with you the 100,000 or more historic sites or artifacts or -- that are important to the tribal communities? >> they did. and they also expressed the grave concern without these protections, many tribal artifacts where looted and they were afraid that would begin again if they were moved. and he emphasized the importance of preserving the boundaries of the national conibility. >> and on your other measure with reference to the d.r.e.a.m.ers, do you have a thought as to what legal status they should achieve and how that should work out. >> you know, what we do in the d.r.e.a.m. act and i know the gentleman joins me as a support. i want to be clear. this doesn't give instant citizenship to anybody. and that is not what democrats are proposing, not what republicans are proposing. it simply creates a way where people who have only been in this country from a young age can get in line that would be created that would some day allow them to your honor citizen system. there is aprovisional status that they would become green card holders for a period of time. and only after becoming green card holders would they be eligible for citizenship. i have to look at the math. i can it's somewhere in the 10 to 12-year time frame before the earliest, any of them, could take the citizenship and test to become citizens. in practice for many, it might be 15 years, it might be 20 years. so it creates an orderly line, a legal who are legally able to work today would still legally be able to work after daca is repealed and eventually eligible to take the test of citizenship, and if they pass that be able to become citizens in ten-plus years. >> i'm pretty sure a significant number of them will be able to pass the test, in light of the fact that in my district, three of my high schools, valedictorians, d.r.e.a.m.ers. and i think they would pass the test well, not only in terms of meeting requirements, but -- even too long. i agree there should be a line. but we need to address comprehensive immigration in this congress. and with that, mr. chairman, i have no further questions of mr. polis. but i would have a question with you with preference to the cr, if you would permit. >> yes, sir. i'm going to finish -- >> yes. >> yes, sir. as you alluded to. we're now going to ask and how the committee to ask a question. is there any member who would seek time? >> seeing none -- the gentleman from washington. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i don't really have a question, but just to make a statement about the -- mr. polis' effort to add the d.r.e.a.m. act on to this continuing resolution. and i would caution that -- or just throw out the thought there are a large number of people on both sides of the aisle. a lot of effort is going into finding a balance situation that people on both sides of the aisle can support. and that would just submit that it's -- in light of that work going on, that do amend something as important as this -- i agree with the gentleman from colorado. these young people are oup outstanding members of our community, contributing a great deal to each and every one of our communities. and we do need to find a lasting legislative solution to that. to their predicaments. and in light of the work going on there, i would submit that this is an issue that can stand on its own merit. that a bill that would be able to come forward in front of the congress would be able to do that and to add it to a continuing resolution, at least today, in my mind, is not the right move. so that would be -- that would be my statement, mr. chairman. and i appreciate -- i do appreciate the gentleman's effort. and certainly will agree with many of the things he said. but to me, this is not the right vehicle. >> if i can respond, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> yes, sir. >> you know, i would sue that this amendment is part of that effort. you know. >> and i think, again, it would be nice for republicans or democrats to get this taken care of. i do think the d.r.e.a.m. act has the votes to pass. i don't think it's ever been in question that this body could pass the d.r.e.a.m. act. i also want to thank -- this is -- was not set up ahead of time, but so that happens huh i have a meeting with some d.r.e.a.m.ers, and i just wanted to welcome to our committee, ccl gladys, javier, martha, maria, anna, aid anna, fabiola and caitlyn. we're so excited to have you here. we just offered -- i just offered the d.r.e.a.m. act as an amendment to the continuing resolution. to allow a pathway to citizenship for young people that were brought here at a young age. i'm hopeful the committee will adopt that. again, as the efforts from the gentleman in washington indicated are ongoing. i think this committee now has the opportunity to solve it and to do our property, which is not to pass the d.r.e.a.m. act into law, but to refer to the full house. just to allow a vote. where i am confident, and it has the votes in its present form by a reasonable margin. to pass. thanks again to the d.r.e.a.m.ers who continue to make sure that members of congress are educated and aware about their everyday battle to be able to work legally and remain in the only country that they know. and i kneeled back. >> thank you very much. is there anyone else that would seek or call for questions to the gentleman? seeing none, this would satisfy that. that side will now move to the section that might be the -- considered the cr. before i do that, i would like to recognize that we do have a number of students that are here, and who have taken time to not only come to the rules committee, but have come to congress to express their ideas. and ime and i want to acknowledge you have brought those students here, and i would like to, before we go to the second part, where i am, the gentle woman, mrs. slaughter, ranking member, would like to be recognized for the purpose of making a recognition also. the gentle woman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i've got three of the most extraordinary interns today that are going to be leaving us very soon. and i want to introduce them to you. emma coglynn, masters student and medium strategic communication at george washington university. she grew up in the city of san francisco, received a bachelor's degree in political science and a minor in our history from the university of california los angeles. she has done extraordinary work in communications. samantha masstin, communications at international university. is interested in foreign affairs. has done amazing work on that. specifically transatlantic relations and security, and kevin orseeni. kevin is a recent graduate of the london school of economics with a masters in human rights. he's a rochester native. received his bachelor's degree in international relations, and history from buffalo, new york. and i know that all of us, because of our wonderful interns, appreciate that all of you go on to do such extraordinary things. you give us so much. we hope that you can take away something of value, as well. thank you very much for your work and best wishes for your future. thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome to the d.r.e.a.m.ers. >> yes, louise, we do welcome the young man, kevin, who london school of economics. that's -- >> that's not easy work. >> that's a pretty high standard. so we recognize that. also, you know, i -- >> they have all done extremely well. >> i walked in here today and had a chance to meet my son, bill, who is a third-year who is a third year medical school student and his beautiful girlfriend, fiancee, i'm not sure which it is. i got to be careful. >> be careful. >> i do are to be careful. >> he don't mess around. >> he left me a note here saying that it was good to see you. we get reminded occasionally. >> i saw him yesterday. >> that was nicklaus. nicklaus was on the replay. big old smile back there but bill had to head back to medical school but we're reminded of how special and kevin's parents i know are proud of him too. >> as well as those girls. >> she's from henrietta. >> they're going to make major differences and i'm very proud. [ inaudible ]. >> he come back here for good theater. it's nice to have you here. >> good to see you again. what we're looking at now is the approximate the end of the rules committee hearing but you're now going to get to see where they get to question me because i'm the witness, mr. pollis could have been down at the stable, chose to be there to give his testimony on what is called the continuing resolution bill. i know have told the members that it's a date change. we're going to add the chip funding necessary requirements and that it would go to december 22nd, short bill, easy concepts but i would open myself up for any question that members of the committee may have for me as i'll be the expert witness on this. >> mr. chairman? >> the judge, you're recognized. >> acknowledging that there may be others. >> there might be. >> in any event, mr. chairman, you've had three months to write your spending bill since the last cr which followed a different cr from april and you control the majority, the house, the senate, the white house and yet you're here today seeking more time. now earlier this week and i said that in my opening remarks when we began, ranking member of appropriations made this statement. i'm eager to know what republican leadership believes they can accomplish in the next two weeks that they haven't been able to accomplish in the last two months and i'd like to pose that same question to you. >> good, good. you have two members of republican leadership that are present right now. i myself a sitting republican leadership and the gentleman mr. collins from georgia sits in republican leadership. >> when did he get in? [ laughter ] >> the answer is he sneaked in. >> nobody wants to talk about it. >> the answer is -- >> thank you for telling me that. >> he sneaked in. >> i'll be nicer to him. >> that would be a great thing, so do you have a question for myself or do you have a question for the gentleman, mr. collins, i'd be glad to answer -- >> i posed that question to you. what are you going to do two weeks from now? mr. chairman, people don't complain all the time to the leadership but we complain to each other. it's the holidays and a lot of people don't like to say what is pretty obvious. are we going to leave here at some point, come back on the 22nd and i guess what i need to know from you is can you assure us that this is going to be the last cr of the fiscal year? >> the gentleman asked a very good question and i will tell the gentleman i wanted us to solve our funding issues on september 30th. i want and need this -- any organization but especially the federal government to take its resources that this body decides and we have been through these spending bills, we've been through the budget, we've been through the appropriation bills. i believe it's vitally important to offer any organization that's as large as the federal government to tell them the rules of the game and the money and let them manage what they're supposed to do for the best interest of the country. this is in particular necessary as we deal with emergencies but issues in fema and the core of engineers and a lot of other agencies that have important work to do. more importantly, the pentagon needs a chance to run the military budget, the cia, their intelligence budget and nsa, those important activities. so i would be the first to say to you i wish we were doing it. i wish we had done it several months ago. is this going to be the last time when we moved this to december 22nd. it is my hope and it is not my promise but my hope that you have seen a good bit of conversations that has taken place not only among our members but with our leadership. i have expressed my opinion several times but we're trying to do this also with the united states senate and so we're now trying to work through what would be one important bill and that is the tax bill and i think a lot of issues are now turning to this, so yes i would say in my opinion it would be my best opinion that december 22nd we better come up with an answer because i think that after that, and i've stated this,hñpublicly after that it presents some problems for a number of people including the united states military unless we find a way to fund them completely. >> let me tell you what i think, mr. chairman. i think we're debating another cr because instead of working to address the needs of ourry, your party chose to ram through the partisan tax bill and you did that without any hearings and with a process that was completely closed off to democrats. the senate bill wasn't even typed up in all of its particulars. it had notes scribbled on it and people are still talking about that so no one in the senate can even say with honesty that they read it. in the end the legacy of the tax bill will speak for itself and it'll speak to the values that your party has come to aspiespo it is fortuitous that three of my high schools that i'm privileged so serve all had young people that are d.r.e.a.m.ers as valedictorians and that's not the first time. the president has ended daca and said that it's up to congress to pass a permanent fix. now the lives of 800,000 or more young people needlessly hang in the balance. we also need to address temporary protected status for haitians, in this case rog wans and hon dur rans and other nationals taking refugee in our country. haiti is still not recovered from the hurricane and earthquake and an ongoing col lerra outbreak. i worked with our colleague, republican, who introduced a bipartisan fix to the temporary immigration status. can you tell me that the d.r.e.a.m. act will be moved in the coming weeks along with the long-term funding bill? >> thank you very much for your question and i would respond with a reminder that we heard the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse, allude to that he believes that they're within our party -- i believe had been forthright about including regular interactions the with media on the status of that working relationship but towards the timing of that. i believe my party going back some period of time that we have brought up a number of times including a mr. pollis and yourself and the gentleman from massachusetts and the ranking member who have brought up a number of times a viewpoint that this is one of the highest priorities that you envision that the congress should be achieving. i felt like that when the president gave us a deadline it was something that we as members of congress, the majority party, yes, were either going to adjust to and accept that challenge or we were going to wimp out and not accept the challenge from the -- from article 2, the president of the united states. it is my intent and i have satisfied myself in as much as the work that i have seen that is taking place from a working group that is very serious that includes members that would be a fair representation of the differing viewpoints that people may have in the united states congress, yes, in the republican party, but viewpoints that i believe would coincide with some of the ideas that might be shared by some of you on this committee. the facts of the case are there is an active working relationship that is expected to deliver a product but i do not anticipate that will be by the end of the year that would be ready for us to move forward into a piece of legislation, but i do believe that the timing is that -- and i have to be careful here because my words do matter. while i have no real control, i do have a vision and a voice myself. i'm encouraging us to get this done as the president had suggested we with -- >> and the president suggested march as the drop dead date? >> i believe that's absolutely correct and i believe that's what we're aiming at. i would look out to young people for letting us hear their ideas. >> appreciate it very much, mr. chairman. i'm sure you understand the agony not only of those young people but the others that i mentioned, the nationals that are seeking refugee as well. >> i would say just as an attribute and i don't take advantage of you when i say this at all, at all, but there was a question as you as a cosponsor that the gentleman mr. polis answered to remind us what the legislation is. i think we all need to know what the legislation is that we're going to be voting on and i think all the body needs to focus on it and i think we will have several weeks devoted to not only testimony but to understanding this so we speak about this in terms of the knowledge of what would be expected. >> sound like i said today mr. chairman, about bump stock. we don't need any study. we all know how many of these. our young people are here and the circumstances that they're confronted. >> that might be but still engaging the gentleman i would say to you we're going to have to determine circumstances from those who may not have conducted themselves in such a manner, whether they would qualify -- whether if we had someone that was seeking admission into this country from another country we would expect a background check in some circumstances. and i think that that would still be appropriate in my opinion that would still be appropriate so it's not so easy we say the right answer. >> you know something, mr. chairman, you and i were here active professionals when president reagan allowed amnesty for the persons that were in the united states at that time and it created no added problems for this nation, not in any respect. now we live in the western hemisphere where many of our citizens and citizens that would be come from. nevertheless, let me move on. flood insurance is something that i know you know is a critical import to a lot of us and the hurricane season was particularly devastating and it underscores the need for reauthorizing the national flood insurance program. now we have extraordinary fires that are ongoing and you've heard me, mr. chairman, as well as other members here talk about the fact that the federal emergency management organization has been handling more than just hurricane relief, they've had tornadoes, they've had floods and we continue to kick the can down the road on many of these things. will you commit to including the long-term authorization of flood insurance in the coming cr or any other long-term funding measurements, mr. chairman, and that's my final question? >> yes, sir. i thank the gentleman for his respectful and insightful answer and the answer is, i believe it would be irresponsible for us to say that we have taken care of funding the government without the resolution of those two important programs to understand as we not only turn to a new year but as we turn on the tv to see the fires that are raging in ventura county. i believe it's ventura county, california, at this time and i would say to you that it's caused quite a discussion not withstanding that i'm from dallas, texas. i know people from houston. i know people that serve in areas as members and they represent people who need to know what next year is going to look like because they have to protect their homes. so i would think it would be irresponsible for me or my party to present a bill where we did not have some answer to address it. >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman. that's all i have. >> judge hastings, thank you very much -- yes, sir? >> on the cr, i noted that -- i'm sorry, mr. chairman, i noted that it continues the chip funding for states that have exhausted their federal chip. i would just like to point out the situation in colorado and i think many states is the chip money is not expired yet but we are sure to expire early next year or i think that is where the majority of states are, the state that mr. buck and i hail from is in that category. i just want to be clear that this cr for this two week period still leaves that uncertainty over what will happen next to the states that are going to run out of children's health money early next year and it is very important that we incorporate the funding into the full end of year funding bill for the following year because otherwise -- it's my understanding that this funding -- has makes no difference from colorado will run out. secondly, i just wanted to ask the -- this goes through the 22nd and does it maintain spending at the current levels of the existing -- across every agency? >> that is what a cr does until it specifically specifies as it does in the chip program about a reallocation that may take place and extends that through the end of the year, i believe. >> just in contrast, certainly again i think that as the gentleman from florida indicated, members on both sides of the aisle have had ample time to study the d.r.e.a.m. act and other proposed solutions for years, prankly. in fact, a similar bill was even passed by congress in 2010. so it's nothing new. it is the subject of a lot of legislative education efforts and i think that all indications are it would have strong bipartisan support and pass if we're able to pass that along for an up or down vote. i thank the gentleman for his testimony and i yield pack. >> thank you very much. >> i do feel obligated to make a statement about the funding for the children's health insurance program. of course you know, mr. chairman, that bill, a five year bill passed the floor of this house in a bipartisan fashion the first week in october, yes, it is true that we did not meet the september 30th -- end of the fiscal year requirement. it had the work had been done in committee, it had -- we had waited because the senate had asked us to wait. we had waited because committee democrats asked us to wait to see if we couldn't come to a complete agreement. >> that's the ranking member of the energy incumbent. >> that's correct. i hope the gentleman from colorado will discuss with his senators in his state that yes the house passed bill is awaiting activity. it is the five years that the senate asked for for chip funding. i preferred a two year bill. when you pass the affordable care act to authorize the children's health insurance program to the end of fiscal 2019, i thought a two year funding would make sense and we could work on a longer reauthorization because if you'll recall we were told when the affordable care act passed we wouldn't need the children's health insurance program any longer because everyone would have the affordable care act. turns out we do need it and i think it deserves -- i thought it deserved a more thoughtful approach than trying to get it done during this year. but we conformed to what the senate requested. they passed in their committee a five year bill, two years at the affordable care act level of funding, one year at a step down from that and then two final years at standard traditional chip funding to give states a chance to ramp down their spending from the levels that had been bumped up to the passage of the affordable care act. it was offset responsibly. theoff sets were not -- were not unreasonable. there could have been greater agreement but for whatever reason the negotiations broke down. still, there were members on your side of the dais who voted for the s chip bill when it passed the house and it has lan kwished in the senate. i don't know why. i don't know why they won't allow that bill to come up for the vote. i think they should have the 60 votes to cut off debate, pass the bill and get that money to our states. your state needs it. my state doesn't need it yet. i expect mr. hastings' state is in a similar situation. i don't know what the situation is in massachusetts but their many states bumping up against their statutory limit on that. we have done our work on the house side and it now is -- it is kul this time truly the senate's move next. thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to get that off my chest. we spent a lot of time working on that in committee this year. >> the gentleman as we know serves as the subcommittee chairman for health in his daytime job at the energy and commerce committee and i thank the gentleman also the gentleman mr. buck has been interested in making sure that we're moving these things. has spoken to me a number of times. i know the gentleman has spoken to me from colorado. the gentleman mr. buck, mr. burgess has been intensely interested in this and it should be noted that while it might appear that we're a bit frustrated, we believe we have done good work on are asking to be met by our colleagues in the senate. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i would say some of us do have a problem with the way you the offsets for chip. >> then vote no. >> i did vote no on that and that was lousy offset and what frustrates us we're spending time today's on a stupid nra bill that doesn't do anything to enhance the security of people in this country that is basically an attempt to get more money from special interest groups, that's what we're doing today when we should be finishing up appropriations, we should be finding a way to come together on the d.r.e.a.m. act, on funding chip and so many other things. so the frustration level is pretty high based on the priorities that have been put forward by this leadership and i thank the chairman i yield back. >> yes, sir. with great respect, we believe we are addressing issues. we bring those bills through to committee up here and we believe we're trying to forge rightly mover them and any other discussion anybody would choose to have concerning this cr? okay. this closes the hearing portion of hj res 1, 2, 3 and the chairman will now be in receipt of a motion. >> [ inaudible ] 477 small business mergers acquisitions sales and brokage simplification act of 2017 pro provides one hour of debate equally dividing control by the chair and ranking minority member. [ inaudible ] the rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of a tax 115-43 shalling considered as adopted and the bill shall be considered as read. rule makes an order only the further amendment in part a of the rules committee report if offered by the member designated in the report which shall be considered as read shall be debatable for the times specifispecif specified dividing. rule ways all points of order against the amendment printed in part a. [ inaudible ] section two of the rule provide for consideration of hr 3971 the community institution mortgage relief act of 2017 under structured rule. rule provides one hour of debate dividing control when the chair and ranking minority member. the rules ways all points of order against consideration of the bill, the rule provides that an amendment in the nature of the substitute -- shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shalling considered as read. rulesw rulesways -- only the further amendment printed in part b of the rules committee report if offer by the member designated but shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report and unowe poe nent shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. rule raise all points of order. the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3 of the rule provides for consideration of hj res 1, 2, 3 for fiscal year 2018 and for other purpds under a closed rule. the rule provides one hour of debate equally dividing control by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on proemgs. rule raise all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. the rule provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. rules raise all points of order against provisions in the yoint resolution finding the rule provides one motion to recommit. >> i'll thank the gentleman from oklahoma. i would yield myself one minute. the gentleman that you have just heard, chairman cole has offered the motion, the motion that is one rule three measures hr 477, small business mergers, acquisition sales and brokage. simplification act, structured rule one hour of debate. second hr 3971, structured rule, one hour debate, financial services. one amendment made in order that is democratic amendment and motion to recommit hj res 1, 2, 3. motion recommit. is there -- now that we have heard the motion, is there amendment or discussion to that the gentleman from colorado. >> i move the committee make an order and make the necessary waivers to ha res 123, number one, with 20 minutes of time allotted for debate and number two with two hours allotted for debate? >> this would allow for full debate and passage of the d.r.e.a.m. act and also for the national monument expansion act. again i believe that we owe it to the young people effected to provide some certainty with regard to being able to work legally and remain in this country and earn citizenship some day. i'm confident if we pass it along to the floor of the house it should be able to pass fairly overwhelmingly. i did because of member interest allow my amendment for two hours of debate and i think that there labor lot of people that want to speak for the amendment, even a few that want to speak on the other side. but if we can resolve this matter, i think it'll make all the end of year issues easier. we know there needs to be a cr omnibus by the 22nd. there's a tax reform proposal that i know republicans are working on. i think it would be a great opportunity for this house to remove the d.r.e.a.m.ers out of this debate and simply address that issue in a bipartisan way advancing this as an amendment to the cr along to president trump for his signature. i'm hopeful you'll allow those two amendments and look forward to if they're allowed to debate on the floor of the house. >> you heard the amendment from the gentleman of colorado and the discussion is there further discussion. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i know my friend is sincere in his efforts and tries to add language such as this to. you will remember we sat through hearing after hearing produced all the appropriations bill on time for the first time in a decade. i'm sitting beside one of the kadnals who produced the first labor hhs bill that i've seen in my entire congressional career. we have put in the work to get this done and this two week cr isn't supposed to be a major legislative initiative, it's supposed to answer the seemingly unanswerable question the gentleman from florida asked which is if you couldn't get it done in three months why in the world are you going to get it done in the next two weeks. i don't know what the answer is. we made 500 amendments of orders. when it moves through this house we got three folks from ms. slaughter's team living us. i don't want folks to think we didn't invest time and hour and week and month in getting this package right. this is a continuing resolution for a spending bill. it is not an authorizing bill on any of these other bills that the gentleman wants and i'm glad he made the effort to put more time in should these amendments be made in order because it would be a disservice to the size of those issues to put them on a simple funding bill like this but to put the issue on there at all i would tell you. not only threatens the ability of this body to keep the government open, which i think is an important priority but also threatens the quality of the debate that we have on the issue as well. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i would oppose -- >> will you yield for a question? >> be happy to. >> the reality that we've been living over here just doesn't seem to correspond well to your remarks. we have not done most of the major appropriation bills. i know we tried a couple of them but most appropriation bills we didn't do. secondly, i personally have had amendments blocked. i know that for sure. they were not allowed out of this committee. i experience that. >> reclaiming my time, i would share with the gentleman and it's been an incredibly busy and productive session. i don't fault the gentleman for not seeing it all. we, in fact, passed every single appropriations bill, not just every single bill, passed every single bill for the first time since i've been here -- >> are you referring to that week where we lumped most of them together into one bill? >> we did national security package and a domestic package. >> okay. >> hasn't been done in ten years -- >> so. >> i'm good either way. >> i've been here, you know, nine years now. i do remember when we had an appropriations process. it was chairman oweby at the time. he would come down for each appropriations bill. there would be amendments. i think what you're referring to which is a very different process and not one is anal justice to open processes. we put a bunch of bills in a omnibus, it was almost -- two-thirds of all the government spending in a week and we didn't even allow most of the amendments. you can dress that up any way you want but that's not this normal appropriations congress that congress has done historically. happy to yield back. >> reclaiming my time, i would say to my friend he was able to vote on more amendments in this so-called sprerted process that you just described than he was able to vote on -- >> the number of amendments depends on how many people offered amendments. i offered amendments that were not allowed. i assure you. i was very disappointed. >> i make no effort -- promise of resolving all of our differences in this forum. i'm only pointing out that this two week extension is only supposed to be that, a measure to get us to that more powerful bill that i know my friend would like to be a art of. i know his intentions are good i must oppose -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> be happy to. >> we talk about all these wonderful process and all these amendments and here we are doing a cr and we'll be here in a couple weeks doing another one. we can spin this all we want in black is white, square is round, but the reality is that however you want to do it i would -- i don't think that this process is something we can all be proud of. it's quite a mess and here we are at the end of the session. i agree with the gentleman. on the issues he raised with the d.r.e.a.m. act. come on. the idea that this is too important to be able to deal with this right now. we've been trying to deal with this for months. for years. so whatever. you can have your spin but i just wanted to say for the record this whole process has been a mess and with that i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back my time. >> i was happy to yield to my friend. i share my friend from florida's frustration. particularly with all the young people in this room today it's doing a disservice to suggest that we have not gotten done more together than we've gotten in a long time. there's a simple way to get this appropriations bill across the floor of the senate. it's easy to do. all we need to do is have the republicans in the senate change the senate rule to completely eliminate the rights of the minority and we can get this done tomorrow. we'll get it done tomorrow. for my friend to suggest that we have a majority would be kraut. to say we have control would not be accurate. we could abolish the rights of minorities tomorrow and get this done. there's some disagreement about whether we should do it that way or not but let's just be clear about why we're sitting here. the house has gotten its job done and senate republicans have refused to shut out the minority on the senate side and we could be sad about that or celebrate that but those are the facts. >> would you yield? this idea that you could just shut the minority out completely as you have done here and that you recommend being done, is that really what you think that we should do in this democracy? >> reclaiming my time as my friend from massachusetts warned us about as you heard me say very clearly, we did not do that in the senate and i am not proposing -- >> but you have done that here? the rules have almost consistently every one have been opposed. we have not had amendments. i don't know what all these things are you're talking about. >> the gentle lady was a very successful leader of this rules committee. our current chairman made more amendments in order on a single appropriations bill than you were able to do in your entire two years of final year as chairman of this committee. it's a hard job that the two of you have and there's lots to be frustrated about. i just want to recognize successes when we have them. perhaps we have them too seldomly but we should celebrate them when we do. >> i feel pretty shutout, i don't want to speak for my colleagues. it's been a long time since we've had amendments. >> we're ready to shut it out again yes. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much. by the way, this is this part of making legislation. i'm proud that our students are here to see this. we have an amendment on the floor, the pollis amendment. we've now debated that amendment. i would offer the information we're on a vote that time is running out and so we're going to move forward with the [ inaudible ] those opposed no. >> roll clerk vote. >> mr. cole. >> no. >> mr. burgess? >> no. >> mr. collins, mr. byrne? >> no. >> mr. newhouse? >> no. >> ms. chaney? >> no. >> mr. hastings? >> aye. >> mr. pollis? >> aye. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> four yeahs, eight nays. >> amendment not agreed to. now we'll now move as we remember the one rule those in favor -- i'm sorry did the gentleman announce the vote? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> i believe the gentleman did. okay. i need help. your help is welcome, that's okay. we're now going to vote on the motion from the gentleman gished young gentleman from oklahoma those in favor single by saying aye? >> aye. >> those oppose. >> no. >> mr. cole. >> aye. >> mr. woodall. >> aye. >> mr. collins, mr. byrne? mr. newhouse. >> aye. >> mr. chaney. >> aye. >> ms. slaughter? >> no. >> mr. mcgovern? >> no. >> mr. hastings? >> no. >> mr. pollis? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> aye. >> clerk will report the total eight yeahs fourniers. >> the motion is agreed to. the gentleman will be handling this for democrats and mrs. slaughter for the democrats. the committee is done with this work for the week, thank you very much. tomorrow testimony from fbi director christopher wray on oversight issues at his agency. he speaks for the house judiciary committee, we have it live on thursday 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. earlier this week the supreme court heard an oral argument of the was of master piece cake shop. jack phillips owned the cake shop and he refused to make the cake calling his cakes art and saying he doesn't bake cakes if it goes against his religious beliefs. the two say he discriminated against them because they are gay. under colorado's law a vendor can't refuse service based on sexual orientation or gender. you can hear that oral argument friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan. also friday, president trump holds a campaign rally in florida. he's expected to address tax reform efforts in congress and those comments start live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. you can also wax online at cspan.org or listen on the free cspan radio app. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, yale university historian joanne freeman on alexander hamilton. >> now when washington became president in 1789 he made hamilton the first secretary of the treasury and in that post, hamilton structured a national financial system and pushed to strengthen and empower the national government launching a really fierce political battle against those who wanted a far less powerful national government and obviously thomas jefferson and james madison were his foremost political opponents. >> on real america, the 1980s training film unwelcome affection about inappropriate behavior in the workplace. >> your new here on the staff and it's like to remind you that around here on the staff that i make a lot of decisions. i am the one that picks up evaluation reports, i sign three day passes and leaves and just a word of advice, if you want to get along on this staff it would be beneficial to you to be nicer to me. >> and at 8:00 on the presidency, historian daniel feller on president andrew jackson's efforts to challenge and even cripple the bank of united states during the 1830s. >> no president before had said anything like this. other presidents had warned americans against entangling foreign alliances. they had warned americans against sectionalism and excessive partisanship at home. jackson warned them against control of their own government by in his words, the rich and powerful. >> american history tv, all weekend every weekend. only on c-span3. >> by the time i came back to the district or shortly there after, both of my uncles were sent to prison. they were convicted of -- one with of them sexual assault and the other armed robbery and so for the part of my childhood that i can remember it was my mother, her two sisters, my grandmother and my cousins in the house on 13th street. >> sunday night on cspan's q&a. tiffany wright senior associate at the law office of will mer hail talks about growing up in washington, d.c. and her time as a clerk for supreme court justice sonya sotomayor. >> i think the poll the justices are looking at is really small. you have some pretty impressive people willing to speak up for you in the form of recommendation letters. you clerk for one of a very small number of judges that routinely feed clerks to the court and so for a person of color, particularly african-american or latino to get into that pool, there's so many obstacles to that that it's -- it is -- it becomes a real problem and i think it hurts because the perspective of diverse law clerks is so important. every one of my clerkships there was a case where i felt like i saw something that because of my life experience that someone else didn't see. >> q&a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on cspan. next a hearing on the effectiveness on u.s. sanctions on countries like iran and north korea. we hear from two with officials, one from the state department and the other from the treasury department who talk about sanctions held by a house financial services subcommittee. this runs an hour and a half. committee will come to order. without objection the chair is