Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  June 9, 2015 9:00pm-11:01pm EDT

9:00 pm
this amendment relies on violations reported to the federal awardey to the information system. that system looks book to look at actions. thr amendment differs from previous amendments that i have offered similar to it because it targets actors who repeatedly engage in wage theft. the amendment would ensure that it would not disqualify a contractor but would show that clearly someone who made repeat ed violations would not be able to benefit from the contract. i urge members to vote in favor of this particular amendment because a penny worked for and a penny earned must be a penny paid particularly when that penny is derived from a company with a federal contract. we have a right to believe that
9:01 pm
we are going to be treated in an honest way. . i yield to the gentleman. >> everyone is entitled to fair pay. there are those who make workers work off the clock, refuse to pay the minimum wage, these things go on. mr. price: the least we can do is make sure those employers don't receive new federal contracts. that's what the gentleman's amendment does, i commebbed him for offering it and urge colleagues to support it. i yield back. mr. ellison: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. ellison: let me point out a few things, and i want to thank the gentleman for his support. an important think tank looked at this question and found that on average a low-wage worker
9:02 pm
uses $2,600 in unpaid wages, representing about 15% of their earned income. one thing i believe democrats and republicans can agree on if you break your back on the job all day long, trying to earn a living, and you don't get paid what you're supposed to get paid and your check is light, then we all have to agree that's wrong. i expect to be -- to have an all green board up there because to do otherwise would say you want to stand on the side of the wage chief the ones who are willfully and repeatedly making violations of the fair labor standards act. i think as the united states congress we should stand together and say a penny worked is a penny that's going to be paid and we're going to insist upon it. finally, i just want to say that breaking the law is a bipartisan problem. nobody can stand with contractors who do this it's one thing to underpay your workers in a way that's consistent with the law by paying them the
9:03 pm
federal minimum wage rate. i want to raise it, we may not agreen that but for sure we've got to agree that for people who work with frl contractors we've got to insist that the contractors who pay these workers even less than they have earned should not benefit from a federal contract to help the workers -- contract. to help the workers eff with to do this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i want to thank the gentleman. the gentleman's amendment is obviously well intentioned. however the amendment as drafted is so broad that for example, a contractor could be excluded for something as minor as failing to display a post for the a break room. again, it's well intentioned but we have to remember something. we fund a lot of contracts. everything from phone service to
9:04 pm
the computer systems that ensure an orderly and efficient air space. so potentially this amendment could eliminate a number of those transportation industry dependent contracts. nobody wants to allow for law breaking. but because it's so broadly drafted, the unintentioned -- the unintended consequences, i think the folks that could be caught in, are a lot more than i think many folks understand. so again though it's a well intentioned amendment, i would urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back the remaining part of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.
9:05 pm
mr. ellison: madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. -- >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. emmer of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 228, the gentleman from minnesota and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. emmer: i rise to address something that's playing a role in crippling america's transportation system by driving deficits and exacerbating the need for highway trust fund. as we debate how to fund transportation this body is being forced to make hard choices. i want to thank chairman diaz-balart, the ranking member
9:06 pm
and the members of the subcommittee for their work on bringing this appropriations bill to the floor. their work is definitely appreciated by me and my constituents. that said, it is inconceivable to me that as we kick the can on a long-term transportation authorization bill, we continue to allow frivolous spending on transit projects. as important as new start transit projects are to my state and district, one would think that every last available dollar would go toward ensuring transit new starts have the funding needed to make a line operational and as cost effective as possible. madam chair that is not what's happening. within federal grant applications, extras are being included that can dramatically raise the cost of transit new starts. excessive enrichments such as art work, landscaping and bicycle and pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks,
9:07 pm
paths, plaza, site and station furniture, site lighting signage, bike facilities and public fencing are included in the overall grant application. even more shocking is that the federal transit administration doesn't include these extra costs in the cost effective measurements for the overall cost of the project which serves to deceive taxpayers and congress as to the project's real price tag. madam chair, in my district alone i have city that was placed a moratorium on new business development due to severe transportation issues. it is insane to me and my constituents that we blindly spend money on nicities rather than prioritize funds for the necessities. there are numerous reasons that our federal highway trust fund continues to run deficits and will continue to have that -- we'll continue to have that debate. but one place we can agree certainly is that federal taxpayers should absolutely not be paying for things like art work, furniture, lighting and bike racks while transportation
9:08 pm
projects remain unfinished across america. i understand the need and desire for transit projects, i have them in my district which is why i offered this amendment. we should make funds available to ensure more federal dollars go to what the hardworking taxpayers who fund these accounts expect. transit projects rather than expensive add-ons that are driving deficits in our transit accounts. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: in considering this amendment it's important tore very -- to be very clear about what the amendment means when it refers to enrichments. it refers to improvements to a transit project, like a sidewalk. paths. plazas. the lighting and signage. things that can help individuals in utilizing transportation
9:09 pm
infrastructure and ensure that they do so in safety. unfortunately, madam chair, there are approximately 4,000 pedestrian deaths, comprising 14% of overall traffic fatalities each year. these enrichments are just the kinds of projects that could help reduce the risk for pedestrians for bicyclists and other users of our systems. now the gentleman offering this amendment has just bordering on ridicule when the talks about sight lighting -- site lighting. really? site lighting. what's more important to promoting safety, promoting visibility and discouraging those who would prey on individuals than lighting? lighting is extremely important in improving general safety in public places. it's incredibly important for protecting individuals against
9:10 pm
crime. including harassment and assault. that's what we're talking about here. now the amount of funding that goes toward such enrichments is small relative to other expenditures. but it's a commonsense way that we can enhance our transportation projects, we can broaden their use and above all, we can ensure that they're safe for all users. it's an unwise amendment madam chairman, and i urge its rejection. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time they have gentleman is recognized. mr. emmer: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. emmer: i have the utmost respect for my colleague from north carolina but he actually makes the argument for the amendment as opposed to opposed to it. yes it reduces risks for bicyclists and pedestrians when you talk about signage and certain lighting. when you talk ability certain enhancements that are add-ons to
9:11 pm
the project that the federal government and the federal taxpayer dollars are intended to fund. the federal taxpayer dollars should be going to the transit project that is -- that it's intended for instead of all the extras. the local authorities should be responsible for those. again, madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is the only member seeking recognition. mr. emmer: ok. then madam chair, all i would add is i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. it's a clear cut amendment and again, i'd ask support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. price: i ask for a recorded
9:12 pm
vet. -- vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. bass of california. at the end of the bill before the spending reduction account insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the federal transit administration to implement, administer, or enforce section 18.36-c-2 of title 49 code of federal regulations for construction hiring purposes. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentlelady from california and a member
9:13 pm
opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. bass: madam chair, as the economy continues to recover, .5 million americans are still unemployee. meanwhile the effectiveness of local transportation agencies to spur job creation in their local communities is unnecessarily obstructed by restrictive department of transportation policies. limiting the ability of local officials to contribute to targeted job growth is detrimental to local economies across the united states especially in communities where many remain jobless. local hiring and procurement policies have helped to provide quality job opportunities to residents in communities hardest hit by the economic downturn. my local hiring -- my local hire amendment is designed to help spur local job creation through federally funded transportation projects nationally. my amendment would prevent the department of transportation from issuing regulations that prevent local hiring. specifically it would limit the regulations and burdens placed
9:14 pm
on local government 58 agencies, preserve the -- local governmental agency, preserve the cost effectiveness man cate in our current rules that govern federal transit graphs give local agencies the flexibility to apply geographically targeted preferences when making hiring decisions for federally funded highway and transit projects. it is important to note that the local hire amendment does not require transportation agencies to implement local hiring policies. it simply gives local leaders the opportunity to do so if they determine it is in the best interest in their communities. madam chair, i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. it will reduce burdensome regulations and spur local job creation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
9:15 pm
in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i van amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. zeldin of new york. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the administrator of the federal aviation administration to institute an administrative or civil action as defined in section 47107 of title 49 united states code, against the sponsor of the heast hampton airport in east hampton, new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from new york and a member
9:16 pm
opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. zeldin: thank you, madam chair. i'm proud to represent a district that is home to some of the most scenic destinations in the country and all forms of transportation are part of our tourism economy. yet with the high season upon us many of my constituents are finding themselves bewildered by actions of the f.a.a. federal agencies ought to stand by their word and keep their commitments to members of congress and the citizens we represent. in 2012 the f.a.a. made assurances to my predecessor that in light of a 2005 court settlement between the f.a.a. and a community group, the town of east hampton, new york would not be subject to certain regulations after december 31, 2014 when certain grant assurances ex -- 2014, when certain grant assurances expired and could adopt restrictions on their airport without f.a.a. approval. the f.a.a. has writ than the
9:17 pm
town could proceed on -- written that the town could proceed on certain courses and not fear f.a.a. reprisal for their actions. the democratically elected town board passed a set of airport regulations all predicated on the f.a.a.'s written assurance to not take negative action against the town. recently, however, the f.a.a. has started wavering. i'm offering this amendment, which is 100% consistent with the prior written assurance made by the f.a.a. this amendment will hold the f.a.a. to its word on this critical local issue, a local issue that should have a local solution, bring all sides to the table to improve quality of life on the east end this high season. i urge all my colleagues to support this effort. the people around america deserve straight answers and follow through from government agencies. with that i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina
9:18 pm
seek recognition? mr. price: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i do this, though, simply to express some concerns about this amendment. and others like it that we've heard over the course of this debate. i do have some concerns about limiting flight path options for the f.a.a. in a piecemeal fashion from the floor of the house. the f.a.a. needs to have appropriate flexibility to use flight paths in the wisest way. particularly if there are safety risks for incoming or outgoing aircraft. i do think however, the f.a.a. needs to take note and to be more responsive to the concerns that have been raised in these limitation amendments. and there have been several. this evening and the prior days this debate. i also want to observe that the f.a.a.'s authorization expires at the end of the fiscal year. as i mentioned in the debate
9:19 pm
last week, our colleagues on the transportation and infrastructure committee are exploring options to reform the f.a.a. including separating the f.a.a. from the department of transportation, allowing it more independence over the use of its resources. i'd say this is an important time to encourage caution. to encourage our colleagues to think very carefully about what a more independent f.a.a., one that does not have to rely on annual appropriations, what would -- would it be as atent to have concerns such as those raised by communities and by our cluents here tonight? we ought to move very cautiously here in this area. so i strongly urge the f.a.a. administrator, in observing this parade of limitation amendments, to take note, to ensure that the f.a.a. is more attentive to the concerns that are raised by communities when developing their new flight procedures. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized.
9:20 pm
mr. zeldin: i thank the gentleman from north carolina for his comments. i certainly -- certainly concerns within the first congressional district of new york is the reason why this amendment is being offered. i strongly urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and ensure that these local issues have local control. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lewis of georgia. page 56, after line 15 insert the following new section,
9:21 pm
section 416 notwithstanding mortgagee lever 2015-12 of the department of housing and urban development dated april 30 2015, or any other provision of law, the secretary of housing and urban development shall one, implement the mortgagee optional election m.o.e. -- mr. lewis: i ask to dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? without objection, pursuant to house resolution 287 -- does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. lewis: thank you madam chair. madam chair i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 2577. when i was first elected in
9:22 pm
1987, congress created the first nationwide home equity conversion mortgage program. also known as reverse mortgages, these loans differ from traditional mortgages and have very good intentions. they're designed to help seniors stay in their homes by using the value of their property as means for living a more stable and independent life. since the borrower must be 62 years of age or older lenders often advise some borrowers to remove a younger spouse from the title. this allows them to be eligible for the program, to qualify for a greater loan. unfortunately madam speaker, many seniors are experiencing challenges in the program's actual operation. for example a zeven my district, mrs. helen griffin,
9:23 pm
reached out to my office last year she and her husband took out a reverse mortgage on their homes in order to qualify -- homes. in order to qualify, she agreed to be taken off the title. the lender promised that she could be added back to their title at a later date. if they refinanced. unfortunately she and her husband had no idea how expensive refinancing would be. like so many others mrs. griffin was now in the dangers -- dangerous financial situation. upon a reverse mortgage's bore -- reverse mortgage borrower's death, the spouse owes 95% of the vam of the property simply to remain in their home. my amendment would protect people like mrs. griff be and allow -- griffin -- griffin and
9:24 pm
allow them more time to protect themselves from foreclosure. i think we must do everything in our power to inform and protect unknowing senior couples from the dangers of not only losing their loved one, but also their nest egg. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from florida insist on his point of order or will he continue to reserve sfr mr. diaz-balart: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i would like to withdraw my amendment. i want to thank the gentleman from florida and his staff for working so hard on this legislation and make a commitment to this issue. i look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman to make sure that we do all that we can to realize the full goal of this important program. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
9:25 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. denham amendment number 1. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. denham of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for high speed rail in the state of california or for the california high speed rail authority, nor may any be used by the federal railroad administration to administer a grant agreement with the california high speed rail authority that contains a tapered matching requirement. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: thank you madam chair. i'm here once again, one more year offering another amendment to end this incredible waste of taxpayer dollars. i've been clear about my position on high speed rail.
9:26 pm
high speed rail has a future in the united states. it just can't be done as it's being done in california $70 billion over budget, completely clanged from the proposition -- changed from the proposition that the voters originally voted on. if the governor and the obama administration are committed to bringing this high speed rail to fruition, then it should go back before the voters and actually uphold the will of the voters. this is a case study, if you want to get it wrong, if you want to end high speed rail across the nation, then go ahead and continue to waste dollars in california on a project that continues to have many different flaws. this authority in california is not only demolishing homes but it is demolishing businesses. the only way they can continue to get right of way is through eminent domain. slashing farms tearing down businesses and now kicking people out of their homes. today it was announced that
9:27 pm
instead of ending the initial construction segment on the outskirts of bakersfield, the rail work will now stop just north of shafter. a full eight miles of what the original segment was. and still no operating segment that will allow people to travel from one end of the state or the other or even one end of the valley to the other. currently if you ride amtrak from north to south, you have to get off in bakersfield, gets on a bus go over the mountains and take that bus until it hits rail in the l.a. area. now we're going to have a bus in shafter. this just doesn't make any sense. they continue to change over and over again and the thing that we are asking now in the wake of the amtrak accident 188, we are just saying with the incredible focus on safety necessary to pass p.t.c. across the country, why wouldn't we take high speed rail dollars
9:28 pm
and actually fix the safety improvements that need to be done in california? where's the commitment on safety? let's fix the positive train control and make sure that our trains in california are safe and end this project that continues to waste taxpayer dollars. and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i wish to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. it's a new twist on an amendment that the gentleman from california has been offering over the last few years. the net result, however, is the same. it would stop the development of california high speed rail in its tracks. so to speak. the amendment would prevent the federal railroad administration from administering the funding of the california -- that california received under the american recovery reinvestment act. this would have the effect of preventing the f.r.a. staff from providing routine project
9:29 pm
delivery oversight or invoicing and all of the environmental work funded under the grant agreement. do we want the federal government to conduct oversight of projects that receive federal funding? furthermore, with the recovery act funds set to expire at the end of fiscal 2017, the amendment would make it virtually impossible for the california high speed rail authority to spend all of its funding by the deadline. it would put completion of the project in grave jeopardy. in january, governor brown and other california leaders came together to mark the commencement of construction on the california high speed rail project. the project is expected to create 20,000 jobs per year. i ask unanimous consent to include in the record two letters. one from industry, one from labor groups. both support the california high speed rail project. the chair: the request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman continues. mr. price: i cha the chairman. ed a -- the thank the chairman. the administration's been clear that it strongly opposes
9:30 pm
provisions in this bill that would restrict the development of high speed rail. moreover, the california congressional delegation has overwhelmingly opposed these restrictive riders in the past and i'm happy to stand with them again tonight. urging my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: at this time i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> let me read you some headlines. california high speed rail is off track. mr. lamalfa: high speed rail noise concern. protesters rail against high speed rail proposal.
9:31 pm
high speed rail opponents expected to converge at meeting. finally, what an unholy mess this bullet train meeting is going to be. this is reflected in southern california planning for a route that isn't planned yet, yet billions of dollars of california taxpayers', but more importantly in this body, federal taxpayers' dollars are being planned and spent and will be spent if we don't stop this here tonight, for a route, a plan, a project that isn't a plan. you couldn't send astronauts into outer space without a plan to bring them back yet they're hell bent on this project to spend the money as fast as they can without having any idea where the route is going to go. we're seeing people all over california protesting for a project that's tripled in price. yet here we are seven years later with a ground breaking that involves knocking down
9:32 pm
buildings, without a real project that you can count on being a true route under prop from san francisco to los angeles. we need to put a stop to this now. madam chair, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. price: -- mr. denham: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is the only one with time. mr. denham: if my colleagues in california if the minority body of this body would like to continue on, where is the $87 billion? i don't see a proposal from them nor do i see a proposal from the governor for $87 billion. we are going through a big drought in california. we would love to create jobs. let's utilize the money that
9:33 pm
would be spent on high speed rail on projects to help our infrastructure and agriculture as well as people throughout california. there's a good way to spend taxpayer dollars this is not it. we cannot afford to leave the next generation with an $87 billion hole that will not only continue to put california in further debt but continue to show our priorities are misguided. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. peters of california. at the end of the bill -- the chair: is there objection? the objection is heard. the clerk will read.
9:34 pm
the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of executive order 11246 relating to equal employment opportunity. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> madam speaker, no one should be denied a job for who they are or who they love. my amendment would make a simple change in the text of the bill but make an important difference in the lives of lgbt americans across the country. president obama signed an executive order in july, 2014, prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual oryebtation or gender identity against their plorse those seeking employment. mr. peters: this amendment would affirm that order by ensuring no
9:35 pm
funds in the bill are used to conflict with the president's rule. it would demonstrate to the american people that congress supports fairness and equality for all. today, only 18 states and the district of columbia have nondiscrimination protections for lgbt communities in sexual orientation and gender identity in both employment and housing that means in a number of states, an lgbt individual can get married in the morning and fired from his or her job or denied an application that afternoon for no reason other than the change in marital status. that's unacceptable. as a country that believes in equality for all people we must do better. june is pride month. in cities and towns across the country, millions of americans will celebrate the vibrant diversity of the lgbt communities that enrich our society. we can help provide a small window of equality for all
9:36 pm
member -- members of the lgbt community by passing this amendment. i urge my colleagues to stand on the side of equality and against discrimination. support this amendment. thank you, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. peters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman. mr. price: i want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. in various with ways we ensure that the federal government doesn't pay substandard wages, doesn't do other things that are detrimental in the workplace. or that set a low bar, set a low standard system of this amendment adds to that. thing a very constructive way. adds to worker protections by prevent anything company that does business with the government from firing employees based on who they are or who they love. i commend the gentleman. it's a fine amendment.
9:37 pm
i hope colleagues will support it. i yield back. mr. peters: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. no one seeks recognition. the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. peters: yeas and nays please. the chair: is the gentleman asked for a recorded vote. mr. peters: no thank you. the chair: the amendment is adopted. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.
9:38 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> madam chair i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mullin of oklahoma. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enforce subpart b of part 750 of title 23, code of federal regulations, regarding science for service clubs tissue signs for service clubs and religious notices as defined in section 156-p of such part. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 28 , the gentleman from oklahoma and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. mullin: churches and civil groups are in danger of being forced to tear down their information highway signs. some of these signs have stood for decades. the current law states that religious and civic groups can
9:39 pm
no longer have signs larger than eight square feet. that's two foot by four foot. however, free coffee signs in the same law is unlimited in size. my amendment would allow churches and civic organizations to keep their signs that are larger than eight square feet. this is a reasonable amendment. it would be beneficial to the safety and traveling public and allow our federal government to focus its resources on more critical infrastructure uses. we need to be focusing on repairing our roads and bridges, not tearing down church signs. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: madam chairman, i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: this amendment would suspend enforcement of rules governing the size of billboards. for religious organizations and service clubs. these rules have been in place for a long time.
9:40 pm
since 1975. as i understand it, the gentleman is seeking to increase the allowable size of billboards for religious organizations and service clubs from eight square feet to 32 square feet. this isn't the appropriate place to deal with this issue. we've barely heard of it before it was offered. we certainly haven't had extensive deliberations. haven't heard from state authorities, local authorities people who have a stake in this. it needs to be reviewed and debated within the context of the surface transportation authorization. the authorizing committees are in the midst of working on the new authorization bill right now. that's where i would suggest the gentleman might want to take his concerns. this is not the place here tonight. i urge colleagues to reject this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: i yield two minutes
9:41 pm
to my colleague from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you madam chair. i rise today to give my very strong support to this amendment offered by my colleague from oklahoma. the federal government creates a regulation. that regulation says that if you're a church or if you're a civic group or if you're some kind of community organization you are limited in your -- in the size of your sign to eight square feet. two feet by four feet. mr. bridenstine: however 23 you're -- if you're a billboard company you can have 25 feet by 30 square feet. this is discrimination against civic groups and i would say the state of oklahoma has weighed in. they would like to regulate the signs in the state of oklahoma and i think that's ablutely -- absolutely not only appropriate but i think it is constitutional that the state have the right to regulate the signs in its own state. here's the sad part that i'd
9:42 pm
like to let people know and understand. if the state of oklahoma chooses not to enforce this federal regulation that is discriminatory then the state of oklahoma risks losing 10% of its federal funding for roads. this is the federal government using oklahoma taxpayer dollars against the state of oklahoma. it is federal bullying. this amendment offered by my colleague from oklahoma is a good amendment. i fully support it and i highly recommend my colleagues support it. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullin: our churches and organizations have better ways to spend money than tearing down signs. our states have better -- better ways to spend time if they didn't have to enforce a law that our state doesn't work.
9:43 pm
if we could be focusing on the important issues like roads an bridges, not wasting federal dollars and state dollars on enforcing an out of date law, this wouldn't even simply be an issue. i would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i have an amendment. the chair: would the gentleman specify which amendment? >> i don't have a number on the
9:44 pm
amendment, it's dealing with tenant based rental assistance. the chair: will the gentleman tell us if it's the first or the second? >> the first. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act under the heading department of housing and urban development, project based rental assistance, may be used for any family who is not an elderly family or disabled family as such terms are defined in section 3-b of the united states housing act of 1937 42 united states code 1437-a-3 and who was not receiving project based rental assistance under section 8 of such act 42 united states code 1437-f. as of october 1, 2015 and the amount otherwise provided under such heading is reduced by $3 million. the chair: the gentleman from
9:45 pm
minnesota and a member -- the gentleman from wisconsin and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. grothman: the first thing to look at when we look at this budget is cost. this is one program that's going up in cost, we're still in a position in this budget in which we anticipate borrowing about 14%. we have the $18 trillion debt. this amendment will reduce the cost in this budget by $300 million which by itself is nothing to be sneezed at, but the real reason for the amendment is the perverse incentives in the section 8 and other tenant based rental assistance programs. . all of there's programs are conditioned on having little to no income. it is wrong to encourage people not to work. i find so many employers who cannot find employees today in part because they feel it pays better not to work. but secondly, more importantly, this program, like so many other programs designed to
9:46 pm
help poor people, has a huge marriage penalty associated with it. in order to get this low income housing, it almost encourages, it does encourage one to have children without a mother and father at home. to continue this program or even to expand this program to more people is just to destroy the moral fiber of america. this amendment is tailored to not include or not reduce low-income housing for elderly or disabled. i'm aware of the fact that we have people in this country on social security, maybe making $500 a month, and they may find it very difficult to find anywhere else to live. so i'm not chipping away at that part of the program. however i can see no reason why the federal government should be operating a program which base you canly says well, i'll give you an example. in my district, i talked to someone who ran one of these low income projects. not section 8, but more of a project-based one. and they were very proud of what a nice low-income housing it was. it was very nice.
9:47 pm
very general rowls. they pointed out the only -- generous. they pointed out the only thing you needed to do to get these appointments for $25 a month was not have a job. can you imagine anything so foolish as to encourage people not having a job? so in any event, i hope this program -- i hope this amendment passes. i hope there's nobody else in this room who would have any objection to this commonsense amendment designed to restore the moral fiber that made america great. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. grothman: yes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i wish to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: if there's an air of familiarity about this amendment and what the gentleman has just said about his amendment listeners may want to tune in or remind themselves of virtually the same amendment being offered last week. now, i should begin by saying
9:48 pm
that tenant-based section 8 housing, a program by the way that conservatives should love because it is market-based and the tenants pay a substantial portion of their income in rents tenant-based section 8 housing in this bill is just barely held even. held with more or less level funding. of course other things in the bill are treated much worse. but the gentleman apparently thinks there's too much money in this bill, too much investment. too much investment. with thousands on waiting lists across this country. well, this amendment would certainly increase those waiting lists. now, last week it was $614 million cut. this week it's $300 million the cut. so not quite as -- million people cut. so not quite as many people would be evicted. and this week the gentleman is saying that the elderly and the
9:49 pm
disabled would not be evicted. so who does that leave? it leaves everybody else. it leaves working families. i ask anyone in this body to go to their local community's housing authority and ask about those waiting lists ask how many people are waiting for a roof over their head, willing to work, willing to participate in financing housing, but needing just a leg up. the kind of support that tenant-based and project-based section 8 represents. it escapes me why the gentleman would offer this amendment a bill that's already at rock bottom. i urge colleagues to reject this amendment, just as we did last week. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is
9:50 pm
recognized. mr. grothman: well, i do not give up hope that by the time this budget rolls around next year, you see the wisdom of the amendment. i think a lot of people get confused when they find waiting lists for this sort of program. if you're handing out apartments for $25 a month, of course they're going -- there are going to be waiting lists, ok? so that's not surprising. even then, there are certain areas in my state, in my district where they are trying to find people, not in the local area, to fill these units. because there are an excess of units. but nevertheless, i think you want to think about the perverse incentives you have in a program in which the more you work, the more your rent goes up and in order to get in in the first place you almost can't work at all. and secondly what the long-term effect on our society is if you tell somebody, if they raise a child out of wedlock, you get a free air
9:51 pm
conditioned, maybe two bedroom, two bath apartment, but if you get married to somebody with a job, you lose that apartment. i mean, is that the type of incentives we want for the next generation? i reserve the balance of my time if i have any time left. the chair: the gentleman controls the time. there are no other speakers. mr. grothman: ok. that's it. i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsno. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grothman: i have another one. the chair: does the gentleman from wisconsin have another amendment? mr. grothman: yes. we'll bring up the second
9:52 pm
amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act under the heading department of housing and urban development public and indian housing programs, tenant-based rental assistance, may be used for any family who is not an elderly family or a disabled family, has such terms as defined in section 3-b of the united states housing act of 1937 42 united states code 1437-ab. and who was not receiving tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of such act, 42 united states code, 1437-f, as of october 1 2015, and the amount otherwise provided under such head something reduced. the amount specified under such heading for renewals of expiring section 8 tenant-based annual contributions contracts is reduced and the amount specified under is such -- under such heading for administrative and other expenses of public -- of public
9:53 pm
housing agencies and administering the section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program is reduced by $300 million, $210 million, and $ 0 million representively -- and $90 million recipientively. the chair: the gentleman and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. grothman: i think he all we talked about in that last amendment applies to this amendment with one additional thing that people should find offensive. because here we're dealing with project-based rental assistance. not only are we encouraging some people not to work very hard, not only are we encouraging people not to raise children in an old-fashioned nuclear family, we are also kind of having a strong element of corporate welfare here too. which is something i don't care for. over time we have this kind of industry growing up in which you operate low income housing. in some ways i assume, because people are running into it,
9:54 pm
it's more profitable than pure free market sort of thing, and i would think that people are opposed to corporate welfare, ought to be opposed to it for that reason as well. reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: here we go again. once again, a reprisal of the amendment offered by last week and rejected. the amendment offered tonight separates that amendment in two tenant-based section eight project-based section eight. the argument does apply i think, to any of this assisted housinging. it behooves us to reflect on some numbers, i think on any given night 575,000 of our constituents are homeless
9:55 pm
absolutely homeless. that's 50,000 veterans, by the way. now, they get on these waiting lists for these section 8 projects and the waiting lists often have thousands of names, they finally get into section 8, they're paying a large proportion of their income in rent they're struggling to get a leg up, struggling to find jobs by the way how likely is one to find a job if one's homeless? if you're talking about suffering alliances, isn't it better to have a roof over your head, to have. so basics of life, so you can go out and seek work? evictions, we're talking about evictions here, how does kicking out children, how does kicking out families promote marriage for goodness sakes, how does it promote wedlock? how does it promote self-reliance? it's likely to promote destitution and desperation.
9:56 pm
we're a better country than this. i plead with colleagues, look at this amendment, look at it closely. think about what we stand for. think about the fact that this bill is already, already inadequate. let's not make it worse. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. grothman: first of all, i'd like to clarify something in the amendment. the amendment does not apply to people who were receiving rental assistance -- and neither did the other amendment -- prior to october 1 of this year. so it's not matter of kicking people out, it's a matter of not putting any more people on. furthermore, i think we have to discuss how generous this benefit is. there are so many people in our society who are living with parents, living with other family members, living with roommates, ok? and working to afford that rent.
9:57 pm
to give somebody a freestanding apartment, some of these very nice apartments you know, two bedroom, two bath, air conditioned apartment, without having to work at all to receive that apartment, is just a horrible incentive. i would ask the gentleman to go back in his district and talk to people who live in the neighborhoods where they have these subsidized projects. one of the things i find is, sometimes people who live in maybe high-end areas and are not familiar with these get confused. but i think if you talk to people who know people who live in these subsidized housings, you will have no problem finding many anecdotes of people who are clearly not hurting materially and in order to keep their subsidies going cannot work or work harder or get raises and above all can't
9:58 pm
get married. i think you have to ask yourself whether we ought to condition with these programs -- continue with these programs or whether it's high time to look at these programs, change the underlying qualifications, change the time limits, change the amount that has to be paid, and quite frankly also sometimes look at the very generous accommodations that the government is providing. quite frankly, more generous accommodations that than a lot of people who are working quite hard have. i yield the rest of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the
9:59 pm
desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. issa of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to acquire a camera for the purpose of collecting or storing vehicle license plate numbers. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, madam speaker. this amendment reflects a simple principle. the government does not and should not have unchecked power to track american citizens. there are many very legitimate reasons to observe using camera technology license plates. every day in america law enforcement drives through neighborhoods looking for stolen cars. cameras and computers identify the number of that plate, run it against the database to see
10:00 pm
if it's stolen. but again, there's no reason to store that data. the bulk collection of the location of every american's automobile is well beyond a reasonable standard. it's a difficult one, but it's simple in this case. the federal government should not provide money for cameras that inthe scamly bulk collect information on where you are at all times of. . i hope that this amendment will spark a healthy dialogue similar to the one we had in the patriot act, one in which we agreed that although with a court order you can collect this kind of data, with a court order you can seek it work a known database of stolen cars or wanted criminals, you can compare a camera image, but the simple collection in bulk of your location, of your car, 24 hours a day, using
10:01 pm
thousands, tens of thousands, or perhaps millions of cameras is far too 1984 for members of this body or the american people. with that, i would reserve, or if there's no opposition, yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: madam chair, this amendment is well intentioned. i realize. but i think it's an overreach and certainly not appropriate for this appropriations bill. records of license plate information can serve as a helpful clue to investigators, they can produce leads in criminal cases. this information is also used routinely by law enforcement and by the national center for missing and exploited children to help find missing children. i understand there are legitimate privacy concern, i share those concerns.
10:02 pm
but there is already a federal law that governs the use of such data. the data is not used to track citizens in realtime, despite what some assert. putting restrictions on law ep forcement's ability to obtain and use this license plate information without really fully ex-employering the facts or giving due consideration to the consequences needs to be done by the appropriation committees, but doing it here tonight seems risky and unreasonable actually, to expect taos legislate on this matter in the context of this appropriations bill. i'd like to insert in the record a letter from the fradernl -- fraternaled or over police and other entities -- the chair: if the gentleman will suspend that will be covered under general leave. mr. price: thank you, madam chair. with that, i urge opposition to the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman is recognized.
10:03 pm
mr. issa: i respect the gentleman's opinion but we are not legislating on this appropriations bill. what we are doing is determining that the relevant committees of jures diction have not authorized broad collection of data of the american people. the committees of jurisdiction have not authorized this sort of proactive tracking of people because at some point, someday, there may be a reason to use that database. so in fact, it is perfectly appropriate not to spend the money, not to authorize the money, until or unless the authorizing committees have made a thorough decision of what should be authorized and what safeguards need to be in order. so my amendment will simply limit until such time as a legislating amendment or authorization from a committee can in fact ensure that we both authorize law enforcement to collect and protect the privacy of american citizens, because
10:04 pm
ultimately these are the taxpayer dollars of the american citizens and the privacy embodied in the constitution and guaranteed to every citizen. therefore i insist that members consider voting for an amendment that recognizes just as the minority clearly said, we have not yet had a debate on the basis under which we should pay for the bulk collection against the american people without their permission or safeguards of their rights. with that, i urge support for the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.
10:05 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: madam chair i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: madam chair, we're coming to the end of several days of floor debate on the 2016 transportation housing and urban development appropriations bill. i want to again express my appreciation to chairman diaz-balart subcommittee members from both sides of the aisle, and our remarkable dedicated staff for all the hard work that's gone into this bill and for the orderly and civil character of our floor deliberations. i very much wish that all of this work and all of our efforts at cooperation were being more adequately rewarded. but they're not. and that's not the chairman's fault. it's the fault of the majority's profoundly misguided and flawed
10:06 pm
budget policy, a policy that has left this bill a mere shadow of what it should be and has decimated the investments a great country should be making. make no mistake, madam chair. our roads and highways are crumbling. one out of every nine bridges in this country is structurally deficient and in need of repair or replacement. americans spend the egive lebt of one workweek a year sitting in congestion caused by overcrowded highways, and the capital backlog for our transit systems is nearly $78 billion. and make no mistakes, our public housing resources don't meet the basic needs of millions of vulnerable and low income americans. on any given night, 575,000 of our constituents, including more than 50000 veterans, are homeless and the maintenance backlog for public housing approaching $25 billion. ma dam -- madam chairman, this
10:07 pm
is a crisis or this generation. the opportunity to improve transportation options and create jobs for american family, will instead dig the hole deeper by cutting safety programs, to maintenance budgets for public housing. it would be bad enough if the cuts were limited to our transportation and housing systems but republicans have taken the same shortsighted approach with each of this year's domestic appropriations bills. unfortunately, the majority has targeted domestic appropriations to bear the entire brunt of deficit reduction. that means deep cuts not just to our transportation and housing infrastrur chuck -- infrastructure, but to programs that make college more affordable the very things that make this country the envy of the world. meanwhile, the majority lacks the courage to address the real drivers of the deficit which i think most members of this body
10:08 pm
realize are tax expenditures and entitlement spending. in the 1990's, we achieved budget surpluses as a result of concerted bipartisan efforts to balance the budget through a comprehensive approach. we paid off $400 billion of the national debt. until we have a similar budget agreement this year, one that sets responsible funding and revenue levels across the board we cannot write a bill that addresses our country's crumbling roads and bridge that brings our rail system up to first world standards or that provides shelter for america's elderly, disabled and other vulnerable populations. in fact, we cannot make any of the investments that we simply have to make to continue as the greatest country in the world. so i implore my colleagues to work, vote no on this shortsighted, irresponsible bill, but beyond that, to consider the long-term consequences of fiscal -- of the fiscal course we are on.
10:09 pm
we have to make a correction for our country's sake. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i want to thank the ranking member first for his kind towards me right now -- kind words toward me right now but also for his willingness to work to spend the time and effort. both he and the committee staff have worked awfully hard on making sure we do the best job we can and i'm grateful for that. i want very briefly to mention that this bill, this is a bill that prioritizes funding and funds our country's priorities. it's a balanced bill. and very important, madam chair, this is a bill yes, it does not raise taxes. now i know that a lot of folks have talked about the
10:10 pm
president's requests and the president's requests and the president's requests for the th area are much higher in many areas than what this bill is funding. but let's remember a couple of things. the president has massive taxes. tax increases in his proposals. number one. and also that this bill adhere's to not only the budget that was passed by congress house and senate but this bill adhere's to the law. the law that was passed by congress and signed by the president of the united states, the so-called sequester law. so if we go above and beyond that level, which some people i guess don't remember, it gets sequestered. madam chairwoman, again, i thank the ranking member for his hard
10:11 pm
work. this is a balanced bill a good bill a responsible bill, it pays and funds the priorities of this great country and i'm going to ask our colleagues to give us a favorable vote on this fine bill. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on this amendments on which further proceedings were post-owned in the following order. an amendment by mr. yoho of florida, an amendment by mr. brooks of alabama, an amendment by mr. hultgren of illinois, an amendment by mr. meehan of pennsylvania, an amendment by mr. garrett of new jersey, an amendment by mr. ellison of minnesota, amendment number 28 by mr. emmer of minnesota, an amendment by mr. peters of california, an amendment by mr. issa of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the
10:12 pm
request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, dr. yoho, on which further proceedings were pogsponed and on which the yeas -- were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoho of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient numbering are viz -- having risen a recorded vote is 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.]
10:13 pm
just to give you an update on what has transpired come as many of you may have heard, before 2:00 today, a bomb threat
10:14 pm
concerning the room we are now all in was called into the metropolitan police department. local pd contacted secret service officials who determined for the safety of all of us, they needed to evacuate the room and suite it. fortunately, the secret service maintains the resources necessary to quickly make the room safe and make sure it is safe for all of us. they did that quickly and now we are ready to restart. before i get to your questions i used the time to gather more information in terms of answering the previous question about encryption. i can tell you that officials at the white house have received the letter and we are aware of it and we appreciate the input and perspective of these organizations. the administration firmly supports the development and robust adoption of a strong
10:15 pm
encryption. the president hasn't knowledged it can be a strong tool to secure commerce and trade and promote free expression and association. we are also understandably concerned about the use of encryption by terrorists and other criminals to conceal and enable crimes. the fact is that even though some people misuse this encryption technology, we believe responsibly deployed encryption helps employee responsible communication. >> who covered up the cameras? they were covered up or pointed down. when we were escorted, wasn't -- there wasn't anybody with our news organizations but someone cut off our ability to see what was going on. who did that and why? >> i was also evacuated so i was not in the room. >> these cameras are owned by
10:16 pm
the news organizations and someone has gone to every one of them, even the ones outside were tampered with. >> was president obama or his family asked to evacuate? >> they were not. this was the only room i graduated. >> it was not exclusively this room. how far outside of this room did the evacuation go? >> when i said i was evacuated i left the room at the same time all of you did. >> it was a safety be in the room adjacent here? >> i went back into my office. let's just do this one at a time. >> this room was about to it in. was the lower pressroom a vacuum would? >> it is considered part of the press area. >> was any staff outside of this adjacent room evacuated? >> it is my understanding no one
10:17 pm
else was affected. >> more than 20 minutes passed and that time. is there any concern for a delay? >> the information was received by secret service. i don't know how long it took for the information to be transmitted to the secret service and the decision to be made to transfer the room. >> what was the president doing at the time? >> they had to move us all the way over to the executive office building.
10:18 pm
10:19 pm
10:20 pm
10:21 pm
10:22 pm
10:23 pm
10:24 pm
10:25 pm
10:26 pm
10:27 pm
10:28 pm
10:29 pm
10:30 pm
10:31 pm
10:32 pm
10:33 pm
10:34 pm
10:35 pm
10:36 pm
10:37 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are --
10:38 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 244, the nays are 181. the amendment is adopted.
10:39 pm
the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, on which further proceed wrgs post-pobed and on which the -- proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, the -- a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
10:40 pm
10:41 pm
10:42 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 246 --
10:43 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 246 and the nays are 180. the amendment is adopted. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. the chair would remind members that these are two-minute votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren on which further proceedings werestponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hultgren of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has
10:44 pm
been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
10:45 pm
10:46 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 237 --
10:47 pm
10:48 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 240 and nays are 186.
10:49 pm
the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meehan of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
10:50 pm
10:51 pm
10:52 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 199 and the nays are 227. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which further ed production -- further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the
10:53 pm
amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
10:54 pm
10:55 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 231 and the nays are 195. the amendment is adopted.
10:56 pm
the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 182 and the nays are
10:59 pm
243. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 28 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. emmer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. emmer of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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.]
11:00 pm

19 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on