tv House Session CSPAN July 13, 2015 2:00pm-9:01pm EDT
over the people's rights. i think we need to have some balancing, leveling, fairness. host: our guest has been katrina vanden heuvel, she is in new york. she is the publisher of the nation. it is celebrating the 150th anniversary this month. >> and the house gavel back in. working on legislation dealing with small business administration. pray. we give you thanks o god for giving us another day. we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given. encourage the members of this house, o god, to use their abilities and talents in ways that bring righteousness to this nation and to all people. ever remind them of the needs of the poor, the homeless, or forgotten and those who live
without freedom or liberty. may they be instruments of justice for all americans. may your spirit live with them and with each of us and may your grace around us and those we love that in all things we may be the people you would have us be in service to this great nation. may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. p senator santorum: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from california mr. mcnerney. mr. mcnerney: i ask everyone to join me in pledging allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
senator santorum: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: to revise and extend. senator santorum: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, recently president obama struck another blow at destroying american jobs with his new proposal to raise the salary threshold for overtime. this topdown burdensome regulation will inhibit job creation burden small businesses, and penalize hardworking americans by increasing the wage threshold, businesses in south carolina and across america will be faced with difficult choices. reducing hours for workers and cutting jobs. this change will hurt hardworking employees who will face a lack of flexibility limit opportunity for advancement within their jobs and lower base salaries. the new mandate joins other administration regulations including mandatory wages and fix work schedules destroying jobs. the failed liberal welfare
state policies of the last 50 years have produced increased poverty. and we should change policies to promote a limited government of expanded freedoms, creating jobs. in conclusion god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war ontry. -- on terrorism. senator santorum: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. senator santorum: without objection, the gentleman virginia tech for one minute. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker homeownership is one of the corner stones of the american dream. yet since 2007 housing crisis millions of americans have lost their homes through the foreclosure process and many more continue to struggle, addressing foreclosures and short sales is critical. accelerating the short sale process for homeowners would be part of the solution. unfortunately, in california and across the countryf the most significant factors that slows down the short sale process takes place when a homeowner's second mortgage
lender delays final negotiations on the short sale. and too often second mortgage lernsd use stonewalling tactics to delay payouts from the first mortgage lernsd. this unfortunately delays and hurts the homeowners, willing buyers, and the economy at large. after further investigation on this issue, i will be introducing a bill to address short sales and ask the federal housing finance agency to provide an update on what it is doing to facilitate short sales and protect homeowners. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. senator santorum: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. senator santorum: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2898, the western water and american food security act. mr. lamalfa: this is by a representative from california. i appreciate his hard work and
bipartisan efforts on this. california's drought is having devastating effects on agriculture and our food supply nationwide. last year drought related water cutbacks cause the an estimated 400,000 acres to be fal lowed, costing thousands of jobs and leaving consumers less food choices in the united states. while the solution is certainly not going to be all encompassed in one bill, this will be great start towards getting california back where we need tore drought relief. we cannot stand by and watch families suffer and small businesses leave the economy when we should have the jobs in the valley. it end the blame came and advances commonsense policies to fix the situation long term. it would update federal laws. streamline water permitting and indeed it also ensures sound and real time science and water delivery methods so we don't have a situation where we are releasing 15,000 acre-feet
twice the benefit of 30 steelhead fish. let's get on with getting california's water supply back on track so that this important legislation is not stalled by the usual suspects on the environmental left. indeed, the proof will be in the pudding. i yield back. senator santorum: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. senator santorum: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker i rise today to recognize two young constituents, connor hanson and sky lar elaine fraser, for being among the top students to place in the national shooting sport foundation's annual essay contest. mr. emmer: connor took the top honors and sky lar placed in the top 15 and also received a learning for life award. in minnesota, hunting is a way of life. these traditions are often passed down from one generation to the next and teaching many life -- important life lessons along the way.
connor depicts this in his essay, describing the bonding experience with his father, the spirituality of the hunt, as well as everything that the hunt has taught him about life. connor writes that the quote, hunting season allows me to see and experience the truth through god's creation, close quote. i want to congratulate connor and sky lar on not only placing in this competition but accurately portraying how important hunting is to our culture in minnesota. well-done. i yield back. senator santorum: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. senator santorum: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as a result of the shale energy revolution, the united states is benefiting from the economic and energy security and i might add environmental benefits of a natural gas abundance. however, the e.p.a. is threatening to take this energy advantage and make it a disadvantage. the e.p.a. is currently trying to further regulate the
byproduct of natural gas production, that of methane gas. the e.p.a. unthe obama administration is at its worse. the obama administration mission is clear, if it is not a green energy source that he likes, it should not exist. mr. meadows: and obama has proven he la use the e.p.a. to do all he can to make it more difficult and expensive for american families to utilize this incredibly wonderful source of natural gas that we have here in america. lower energy prices for americans. and we have also helped the environment. so i would urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing the burdensome mandates that will unnecessarily hinder the natural gas production of the united states and thereby dismantling and diminishing the energy advantage that we have today. i yield back. senator santorum: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks.
senator santorum: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. friday afternoon of last week this house passed what may well be the most important piece of legislation that will be passed in our lime times. i'm talking about h.r. 6, cures for the 21st century. this is legislation that is to improve and enhance the discovery, development and delivery of new medicines new devices, lifesaving efforts that can bend the course of someone who is trapped right now in an intractable disease. we all know what they are. alzheimer's, diabetes, recalcitrant cancers, heart disease. what if we were to be able to solve one of these riddles? what a boon that would be to the federal budget because as we can see in the out years of expenses for health care it's nothing but up. in may of 2012 glenn campbell and his family came to the library of congress and came and testified before the senate. they gave a very moving
presentation on why it was important to deal with diseases such as alzheimer's. in fact that night when glenn campbell gave a concert at the library of congress you can see him here with his daughter, as they were playing on stage. it was a wonderful reminder just what's at stake here. what if we could provide one more time for a daughter to smile at her father because we found finally the cure for this intractable disease. it's time to get the senate to move and get this done. i yield back the balance of my time. senator santorum: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 10 2015, at 12:53 p.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 2620. that the senate passed senate 143. senate 1180, senate 1359.
>> this weekend on c-span's road to the white house, two major political events from iowa and we are the only place you can watch and listen to these events in their entirety. friday night at 8:00 eastern we'll be live in cedar rapid for the democratic party hall of fame dinner. it will be the first time all five presidential candidates share the same stage. and all day saturday beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern we'll be live in ames for the family leadership summit where nine leading republican presidential candidates are scheduled to speak. on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. c-span's road to the white house, 2016, we take you there. >> republican presidential
candidate rick santorum spoke this morning with the washington bureau chief of the "christian science monitor." he answered questions about his campaign, running for president a second time, and the issues this time around. this is about an hour. mr. cook: our guest today is former pennsylvania senator and current presidential candidate rick santorum. his last visit with us was in july of 2005. we are glad to have him back. he was born in virginia but moved to pennsylvania when he was 7. he's a graduate of penn state. earned a m.b.a. at the university of pittsburgh, and has a law degree from dickenson law school. in 1990 at the age 32, our guest ran for the u.s. house, defeeth an incumbent who outspent him almost 3-is. in 1994 at age 36, he beat
another incumbent for u.s. senate seat and won a second term before being defeated in 2006. he's currently making his second run for the white house having been the last conservative challenger standing against mitt romney in 2012. the senator and his wife are the parents of seven children. thus ends the biographical portion of the program. now on to the ever so compelling recitation of ground rules. as always we are on the record here. pleas no live blogging or tweeting. in short no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. there is no embargo when the session ends. to help you curve that selfy urge, we'll email several pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. and as regular attendees know, if you like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i'll call on as many reporters we can in the time we have with the senator this morning. we'll start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments and then
questions around the table. with that thanks again for doing this, sir. appreciate it. senator santorum: thank you-all for coming this morning. appreciate it. look forward to your questions actually not. i'll do my best. i would just say that i think this is as someone who ran four years ago, this is a very different election. for me one that's a much more satisfying election as a candidate because this is an election, at least from my perspective, the republican primary, four years ago the election was about who was the conservative alternative to mitt romney. the entire justification as a candidate was establishing yourself as a foil for what seemed to be the establishment pick for the nomination. this is a race that's obviously a wide open rice -- race.
it's a real opportunity to go out and talk about the important things that confront this contry, important issues that confront this country and why -- what your vision is and why you believe you're the best person to be able to tackle the problems that america's facing right now. so in that respect it's a more interesting race for me as a candidate because it's a race about issues, it's a race not about who your opponent is. i think if you look at most of my comments, it's certainly in the last few months, i don't talk about my -- other folks in the race. to me it's not relevant. there are so many faces out there that paying any attention to any one is -- isn't necessarily important from the standpoint of the success. i don't think it's relevant.
what the voters are trying to figure out right now is who is on my list. i don't think they are looking for any help from the candidates in trying to take people off their list. i think they are looking to see what candidates are potential viable presidential candidates going forward. i look at that as a real opportunity to make the case as to why we are -- we are the candidate that is -- has the right solutions for the country right now and has the best possibility of success in the general leaks. that's really the focal point of our campaign so far and will continue to be. that's exciting for me because it's about how we can help the country, what we can do to make things better for -- to the people who are struggling in this contry, and -- country,
and why winning is not as important as winning something that's worth winning. it's not just about winning the election. it's actually winning for this country in a way that we haven't seen in my opinion, in several elections. i'm excited about the message we are delivering. that's why i announced from a factory floor in western pennsylvania. i believe that message. looking at the people in america today who are not succeeding. looking at the middle of this country that needs to be filled with policies and values that are going to make america a much more top to bottom successful country going forward. i think we have some very unique ideas in that regard that separate us from the pack. that's when i travel around the country we do a lot of manufacturing events.
we'll be in identify way probably 19 out of the next 33 days we'll be in identify way. -- iowa. we'll be doing a manufacturing event almost every single day we are there because that to me is one of the real big keys of help making america stronger from top to bottom. making things and creating the jobs and opportunities that are available to people who are not succeeding through a resurgence in that sector of the economy. on the other side, we have the national security which has become really important issue in this election which was not at all important four years ago. again we believe that our message is different. we have experience that nobody else in the field has. an a track record that certainly distinguishes ourself from hillary clinton, but the experience to go up against a hillary clinton. that's an important part of this race is how -- what are
you going to do for america? but also how you juxtapose that with the likely democratic nominee. i think a lot of fronts we match up very well because we have matched up well in the past. i think i'm the only person in the field that has any real experience having gone toe to toe with the clinton machine and hillary clinton specifically when i was in the united states senate. i think that -- if experience matters, i think there's a lot of folks who believe now experience is more important than it once thought it was, that recommends me to the electorate as time goes on. i'll be happy to stop there. mr. cook: one or two and move around the table. let me ask you about fundraising. as you know jeb bush has raised an enormous amount of money, $114 million. and the estimates are that cruz raised and allies raised $51,
and rubio $45 million. cruz's folks say that you don't need to be the most well funded but that you need to have the money to go up against jeb bush. conservative does not need to raise the most amount of money to beat an establishment candidate. we are a raw funded conservative candidate and the only one. can you give us an update on what your -- what you have raised and your folks have raised and what your response is to the argument from folks like cruz's staff that you need to be the best funded conservative to really have a place at the table? senator santorum: look at it this year. four years ago, four years ago we raised less than $2 million. and we started raising money april 1 of 2011. we raised less than $2 million heading into iowa. and we won the iowa caucuses. after that point we raised
about $20 million. i think if you go back and look at how -- campaign itself, how fundraising was going, we were at times outraising romy. it was towards the end of the campaign romney was laying off staff because they were not -- in some respects keeping up with us with the fundraising pace we had. i would make the argument that money is important, but what's money for? money is to get you votes. so the most important thing is how effective are you in getting votes that you need to be able to win the election? and clearly four years ago we ran a race with being outspent four and five to one and still were able -- primarily four and five to one because of the super p.a.c. situation. i don't think this time around you're going to see that same
type of dynamic. four years ago we had an establishment candidate that everyone backed and including the vast majority of super p.a.c. donors. i just don't think that there is that candidate this time. i understand that jeb bush has raised a lot of money, but there's a lot of other money out there on the sidelines that i think is willing and able and will support a conservative candidate as that conservative candidate emerges in february and march of next year. i think the question is, how much money do you need to win iowa and be competitive after that? and my opinion, it's not new the money being talked about. mr. cook: you didn't give us a number. do you want to give us a number? senator santorum: we'll report the number at the appropriate time. mr. cook: trying. let me ask you one other, fox news has said to be on stage at
their debate in cleveland you have to place in the top 10, as you know. the average five most recent national polls ason ducted by major nationally recognized organizations, an analysis by the cnn polling director recently released has you 11th. it -- how damaging is that to your bid to overtake the other conservatives in the field who are likely to be there? ben carson, mike huckabee, ted cruz. what's the strategy to get you on the stage? senator santorum: i don't pay a whole lot of attention to things that go on this far ahead of a an actual vote. go back four years ago and we finished fourth in the iowa straw poll. most people would have thought that was not a particularly good thing to happen. it turned out not to be particularly relevant at all. so a lot of things have
happened six, seven months before an election sound big at the time but in the interend don't turn out to be very consequential. i think there are pluses and minuses of the way that the fox has set up their debate and cnn has set up their debate. we'll participate in whatever their black box -- black box way of determining what polls at what point in time. i think -- i have been very, very vocal about this. i think staff and national media plays such a -- an important role early in a primary to determine who the top tier are and who is not it's undermining the advantage, if i was an r.n.c. chairman, it's undermining the process that was established by the r.n.c. to let the states and voters make that call as opposed to the national media.
techly using -- particularly using a yardstick that historically has had no relationship to who the actual winner of any of these primaries are going to be which is months before the election, 1% or 2% national polls two weeks before the iowa caucuses, i was at 4%. i won the iowa caucuses. so given that benchmark, i wouldn't have been included in they were going to eliminate 2/3 of the people in the debate prior to the iowa caucuses, i wouldn't have been included. yet i was on the way to winning the caucuses. to me it's a miscarriage of -- by r.n.c. to agree to something like that. having said that, we'll play by the rules. i don't think our game plan hasn't changed much. we are probably going to do a little bit more television,
radio this month than we otherwise would have, but i think i just told you, i'll going to spend 20 of the next -- 19 of the next 33 days in iowa. my game plan hasn't changed much. we are going to continue to work and make sure we win the iowa caucuses. one of the things do i know from four years ago, the people in identify way don't pay attention what guess on here in washington, d.c. they decide for themselves who they pick as president. mr. cook: way in the back from cbs. first question. it -- [inaudible] senator santorum: he's the democratic party. he's the base. he's the heart left. hillary clinton is moving to the hard left that's who the democratic party has become and their activists and downers. they are the party of the left. it's not a far cry to say the party to the left would be very welcoming of someone who is a
self-identified socialist. mr. cook: next to "the washington post." p -- >> national security which is an area you have -- economic inequality. you're still talking about issues like abortion. do you worry about alienating new people that you might need in the general election? senator santorum: i'm a conservative across the board who speaks on all the issues, national security to economic to moral and cultural issues. i don't see them as indistinguishable. they fall together. if you don't have a strong family structure in america, i have said this many times, as the american family breaks down the ability for limited government becomes less and
best possible. when the government has to fill in for the problems that come with the breakdown of the family and in those communities, then the ideal of the -- of economic conservatives in the republican party that want to talk about these or even members of the public why do i need to focus on, if you look at every study that's been done by the left and right, i always talk on the campaign trail, i talk about the two books on the campaign trail, "coming apart." and one called "our kids" read both our books. the principle problem, and every study done on income economy, the principle reason income equality is as intractable problem as it is today is first and foremost the breakdown of the nuclear family. so you can say, well, you still talk about those things. i talk about those things because they are relevant to
the debate on how we get our vibrant middle of america, and how we create better opportunities for children to be successful. so i think they are important -- it's important to understand that none of these things are sort of issues unto themselves but they interrelate. national security, if we don't have a vibrant middle of america, the desire of america to engage in the world is -- you saw the story in the recession, you saw republicans pulling back saying we don't -- we can't afford to do this anymore. we have to cut the military. that became a very -- even within the republican party. why? because people were really hurting. when people are hurting at home, the last thing they want to do we need to be going off and doing these things arne the world. all of these things interrelate. to me the foundational element
is make sure we have strong families. we have strong families that are together and raising children. i think it was said it's more important for parents to read to their children the first four years of life than to pay for four years of college. i don't think that message is out there. that the message from either party about how important these -- this public policy issue is of reknitting the american family. mr. cook: nicole from "roll call." [inaudible] senator santorum: obviously i talk about the importance of targeting voters who have been left behind by this economy in
the last 10 years. so i announced that on the factory floor. you look wages have been stagnant. you look at medium income has declined in the last seven years. party that have is the recession but it hasn't recovered. and you see this stagnation that has really made this a much more important issue that i think republicans are -- have been and continue, many not all, many continue to ignore at our peril. so i think this idea of laying out a vision for how pro-growth economics can translate into improved job opportunities for the 74% of americans age 25 to 65 who don't have a college degree and we are going to provide a pathway for a more stable optimistic future for them that's a -- that is a -- an issue that was not as
clearly as important 10 years ago as it is today. and going forward. the prospects don't look a whole lot brighter. so i think the focus on that for me is nothing new. if you look at my track record when i was in the senate, we were very -- always interested in these issues, but it now becomes more front and center. obviously the cultural issues i talked about, big changes in the culture in the last 10 years, but to me it's just a continuation of what we have seen for the past 30 years. we have seen a continual break down of the understanding of marriage and family, and it didn't start with the current marriage debate. it started a long time ago. it started 40, 50 years ago. we have seen the impact of that with ever increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates. ever increasing absentee fathers. ever increasing levels of poverty. as you read the book, it's pretty jarring when you read
that book is to see that the changes in communities and opportunities are available for young people growing up in broken families and poor communities. there just isn't the network of support there. so all of those things are big cultural shifts that require the republican party to begin to address them. i think we are stuck. i think the republican party is stuck. i wrote this book many of you know last year called "blue collar conservative." one of the chapters in the book is a chapter saying a rising tide lifts all boats. unless your boat has a whole in it. i think republicans still use the rising tide lifts all boats, which is a john f. kennedy line nevertheless we use that line all the time and we don't recognize there are a lot of people say, the tide has risen. i'm in deeper water and i'll bailing fatters -- faster and i feel like i'm sinking as the tide is going up. we have to have specific policies oriented toward how we
are going to help those who are sinking. and we don't. we talk -- we still talk in macroeconomic terms. we still are unwilling to carve out public policy that addresses particular microeconomic categories or people. because that's -- that's tinkering with the -- it's not purist. i would just make the argument that that's a losing strategy on economics. and there are -- from my perspective, if we are going to win this election and if we are going to create a win for the american public who are hurting, we have to have a different message than what we have been saying for the past 20 years. mr. cook: we are going next to john of the b.b.c. and herb jackson, jonathan easily, todd, dana, and miles.
[inaudible] senator santorum: i welcome the spotlight. the manner which he's done it is donnell trump, not rick santorum. there will be a differentiation between the way we talk about this issue and the substance of what we talk about, because i saw donald over the weekend talking about how he wants more and easier legal immigration. he wants more people coming in and make it easier for people to come in. i have been very different approach to that. while i think it's important he's focused the issue of immigration which i do believe is important. particularly for the workers i have been talking about. i said in my announcement, we have seen 35 million people come to this country in the last 20 years. that's over 10% of the population of this country have come to this country combined legal and illegal to live here. we have more people living in this country who weren't born here than any time in the history of our contry. we are approaching the highest
percentage of folks not born in this country living here. that can all be good. that's not necessarily -- it's not necessarily bad, let me put it that way. but we have to analyze what the impact is on the very people i was talking about. what's the impact on those struggling the most in america? and to do that is not zone phobic -- xenophobic it's simply a rational policy discussion we should be able to have in this country without being called various names that are not particularly appetizing in the public. i always refer back to the last immigration commission that was constituted under president clinton run by barbara jordan. she said immigration policy is first and foremost in the national interest. we need to have a discussion of what's in the national interest. i think certainly a part of that is how american workers
are doing under this system. i make the argument when you look at flatline wages now for those 74% of american workers who don't have a college degree, you look at what their wages have been, look at their incomes over the last 20 years during this period of record, record immigration not even close to any 20-year period, that includes the great wave. so i think it's rational and responsible for public policy discussion as to what the impact is on the people who are most affected. and i would make the argument that the people most affected are those workers that i talked about and they are not doing well under this. we have an obligation to take a step back and say what is the -- in the best interest of the american workers, by the way both native born and those who came to this country legally over the last 20 years and before that, and see what we -- policy going forward will
address those issues. that's why i've suggested not just what most republicans talk about, which is border security and tracking our visa overstays and talking about e-verify and the importance of using e-verify and find folks who are here illegally, but what we are going to do about legal immigration, particularly the large amount of unskilled labor that we are bringing into this country legally to compete. i use this number again, age 25 to 65 you look at since 2000 there have been about 6 1/2 million net new jobs created in this contry. what percentage of those net new jobs are held by people who are in this country who were not born in this country? the answer is all of them. there are fewer native born americans working today than there was in the year 2000. and there's 17 million more native americans in the work force.
and so you can make the argument that, immigration is a good thing for america, but if you look at stagnant wages, if you look at the fact that immigrants primarily are taking all the net new jobs and what the impact is on those wages and benefits, i think it's pretty clear what's happening. so to suggest as i have that we have to make some changes to that, i think it's simply a topic that needs to be front and center and talked about, and i think most americans would like to have this conversation without being made to feel by many that they're somehow anti-immigrants. i don't think you're anti-immigrant if you, as i have suggested, still are after the proposal that i have laid out there, and i did a couple months ago, called for a 25% reduction in legal immigrants in this country, we'd still be at the highest level we have been at plire to this 20-year period. mr. cook: herb jackson at the end.
>> senator, i have a transportation question. the tunnel amtrak uses under the hudson river is more than 100 years old. juan 20 years it's going to fail they say because of damage from hurricane sandy. the existing car tunnels and bridges are at capacity. that's going to have a major impact in the northeast. congress so far not addressed. if you were president would you support building a new tunnel? senator santorum: i have taken the approach on transportation that the federal government should do less not more on transportation. in fact i'm supported -- i supported proposal that would dramatically reduce the gas tax and put the federal government back in the position of simply doing what we should be doing which is dealing with interstate commerce and movement of, which of course includes movement of people, from an interstate capacity. doesn't necessarily mean just
interstates class definition, it could be u.s. highways and other major interstate movers of goods and people. and that we reduce the gas tax to the level that can maintain and in fact improve that system. and then cap the tax at that amount and send the rest back to basically cut it and let the states deal with all these other issues that are more local in nature. we haved not traditionally, obviously, with passenger trains, we have supported amtrak very generously over the years. as you know the federal government has traditionally not gotten involved with rail construction. certainly freight rail construction we have stayed away from. we have done some passenger rail construction. so i guess my gut reaction would be that's not -- that getting involved with a project like that would be one of those gray areas that i would look at
because it is interstate movement but it would have a high bar in order to cross to do that kind of project. mr. cook: jonathan from "the hill." >> senator you said at the outset this has been in some ways a more satisfying campaign for you. is it also frustrating you at all? it doesn't abeer a lot of the base you had in 2012 has transferred over in support in 2016. is it frustrating to be in some ways starting from scratch? senator santorum: i remind everybody that prior to the iowa caucuses we were at 2% or 4%. a lot of support we got came late. and it was after looking at all the candidates they made the decision. that's one of the things -- i certainly know about iowans as we call around and we are talking to our supporters. we are getting a fair number of them to say, yeah.
they are still with us. which is pretty encouraging. but a lot of them are saying, you know what, we really like you, but, as i have said -- there's a lot of new models on the show room. we are taking a look at everybody. i'm not surprised at all. there are a lot of new models. there are a lot, as i said public, a loft good people out there that people are going to take a look at. i have always felt confident that four years ago i felt this way when i was starting from scratch. i feel very much the same way this time in spite of all the new models. i think this model is a good reliable model that people will come back to and say you know what, all that glitters is not gold. and i'm using the example of donald trump. trump's the best guy on immigration. then you read, he may be tough on the border, but on a lot of other immigration issues he's not very good -- not considered
a conservative on those things. that just takes time and my -- one of my concerns and i plained about this at the time, didn't complain, commented, the lack of debates means that really most americans have -- most primary voters have no idea where most candidates stand on the issues. they don't. it's all just -- i always wish these national surveys would start without saying who you're going to vote for and list the candidates, who are you going to vote for? and just -- can you name all the candidates running for president? i guarantee you that most people couldn't name more than two or three candidates. and so it's just -- all these questions are not relevant. because it is so early and people aren't paying that much atefpkts clearly in identify way, what i do know, they make their decision the last month or so.
not to say they won't be for someone today, but as i find out just because they are for someone today doesn't mean they'll vote for someone later on. i'd rather not be their favorite now. i would rather be their favorite when it matters. mr. cook: bloomberg. >> two-part question. going back to september of 2005 when you were in the senate, knowing everything you know, would you still confirm john rob snerts where are you on the constitutional amendment following the decision on same-sex marriage? should it define marriage as a man and woman on a federal level or let the states do it? senator santorum: knowing what i know now would i confirm john roberts? look, i confirmed john roberts because he was -- had he a good strong track record of someone who paid attention to what the constitution said and followed it. everyone's entitled to a mistake every now and then and he's made one mistake twice.
and that's disappointing, but he's also written a lot of really good and strong opinions. i wish i could say that every -- everybody i ever voted for on anything not just judges but for elections didn't disappoint me at some point in time, but that's just not the world. by and large he's been a solid supreme court justice. looking at the best case scenario of his opinions, the opinion was one that was deferential to the congress which even though i'm running for president, i like presidents and courts that defer to congress because that's the body that our constitution wanted to wrest most of the power in washington -- rest most of the power in washington, d.c. on. i'm not happy with the decision. looking at it sort of the other way, i can get myself to not be as upset about it as i might
be. as far as a constitutional amendment, i co-authored and pushed for the vote on that amendment way back in 2004. i believe we need a national standard for marriage. i don't think you can have a standard one state to another what marriage is. so i would continue to support an effort to redefine -- define marriage the way it was defined for 4,000 years of human history. >> that sets you apart from governor cruz and governor walker? senator santorum: i think that's a mistake. i argued that 10 years ago when others wanted to do that 10 years ago. you can't have a hodgepodge of marriage. the reason -- one of the reasons the court decided the way decided because they recognize you can't have different marriage laws in different states.
just creates tomb too much confusion out there for -- on a variety of different levels. mr. cook: todd gilman from "dallas morning news." >> there are those on the other side of the cusp. do you see any evidence of anything -- if [inaudible] senator santorum: i'm going to do media appearances. i don't spend money this far out in the campaign. >> do you see evidence that anyone in the field is gaming the system to try to get into the top 10? is there any way to jews your numbers? you or any -- juice your numbers? senator santorum: the people who set the game up have the biggest influence on who gets in because it's going to who they put on the network and give air time . to they control in some respects the ability to put
their thumb on the scale to give someone -- not that 24er doing t i am searnl not a media -- don't watch a lot of television. i have no idea who -- what they are doing. but they certainly have the ability to do that but -- if they decided, for example, they wanted rick santorum to be in the debates, it would be helpful to them for some reason to have -- they could say we are going to put santorum on every single day and have our anchors talk about this guy stories. the point is they can. i'm not saying they are or will. but they certainly can have an impact because what's driving national numbers is? it's news coverage. that's what drives national numbers. if you folks had rit written as many stories about jeb bush as you did lindsey graham, i guess jeb bush's numbers wouldn't be where they are today.
>> is it a death spiral. if you don't make the debate, you or anybody else, you're probably not going to make the next debate or next one after that? senator santorum: here's what i found. go back and look at -- look at every election cycle. people go up, people go down. that debate to be a very interesting time. and could prove to be a wonderful opportunity for some and as we saw in the past it could be a disaster for others. it could shoot their campaign right between the eyes. and so you just -- the idea that being in the debate or not, there were debates i wasn't in last time. and it had oob asleuthly no impact on the campaign -- it had absolutely no impact on the campaign. i think something this early on with all the things that are going to happen between now and caucus day i just don't think
it's going to be that important. mr. cook: dana mill bank -- milbank from the post. >> the trump effect. you got this widely fragmented field and it appears in order to break out you got to say something outrageous. and you're here very nicely talking about robert putnam which is terrific. but it's not outrageous. do you think you can do basically what you did last time, sort of plodding along? are the rules going to be fundamentally different this time and it's going to be all about money and all about being provocative to get the media attention? can you be plotting and get to the finish line? senator santorum: i hope so. that's -- we haven't really changed how -- who i am as candidate and what i believe in. and i don't think iowa has changed. i know everybody likes to look at all the things going on in the national media. but in the end, iowa's going to
cut this field down dramatically much more than whether you attend the debate or not. if you can go there and connect as we did in the past, and be successful, we are going to be one of a handful of guys or gals i should say who are going to be the nominee of the republican party. i would say i'm the tortoise and the hare. slow and steady wins the race. we are not going to -- i don't see any real opportunities for us over the next six months to break out. i didn't see it six years ago we were going to break out. what i believe in is that when people get down to the serious business of judging who they want to be their president, not who they are enjoying for the moment, not who gets them excited and gets them to cheer for something that they feel frustrated that no one's speaking for them, but in the
end who they want to sit beyond the resolute desk, i think it's a different calculation. we went through 20 debates, 18 debates, you think of a memorable line that rick santorum said? no. that's not -- i give good solid answers that are knowledgeable, that show a clear vision for what i want to accomplish. and what's best for this country. and on a variety of different topics and eventually people came around and said i think that guy can be president. and it coalesced. we had a lot of really wonderful people you may say there are just better fecks out there. they are stronger. that may be the case. but one of the things i learned is you don't know that this far out. what i do know is that we passed that test before and i think we can pass that test again. mr. cook: miles.
>> you began this session talking about income inequality and your belief that -- what you read about it being primarily caused by a break down in the family. senator santorum: i said that's what the studies have shown the principal reason. there are others. education, problems with education. mentioned the manufacturing sector of the economy has been dramatically reduced in this country and therefore opportunities for a lot of noncollege educated people to get good-paying jobs and rise has been compromised. there's a lot of factor. -- factors. that is certainly one of them. >> is a conservative view of limited government, can government do anything about re-establishing the american family? and income equality?
or are those things not the business of the government? senator santorum: i would say the answer is yes and no. when i say yes and no, there are things that the political system and public policy can do to effect the family. on a policy side, i use the example of when i was campaigning in wisconsin four years ago now congressman grossman shared with me a study when he was state senator showed that if you are a single mother with two kids, and you're making $15,000 a year in the state of wisconsin you are eligible for $38,500 in welfare medicines. if you got married you would lose those benefits. and so what the government had done all with the intent of trying to help people, was create a barrier for marriage among lower income single moms.
and that's why you see for the first time in the history of our country a majority of kids will be raised at homes without a father in the home at some point in time. number two, majority of kids born in america out of wedlock are born with fathers living in the home but not married. there are several reasons for that. one the marriage debate i would make the argument has now separated the idea of children for marriage. marriage is no longer about children. i think that's part of it. part of it is because of government programs that particularly for low income individuals. government programs make it economically not viable to get married because you have to be making $50,000 to $60,000 a year which is above median income in america, that person you're going to marry, to net $38,000 in basically tax-free benefits. the government has done things all with the intent -- i don't describe ill intent.
with the intent of trying to help. what they have done is create a barrier to marriage in america among lower income individuals. that's number one. we have to look at public policy changes to stop that disincentive. it's damaging for mothers and children in particular. that's one idea of publicpolicy. shift over to what is another important area which is the power of the government to -- the bully pulpit. using the power of the presidency or the government to convenient -- convene a discussion and movement to try to do something in america about this problem. the president uses his bully pulpit power for many things, but no more than climate change. he's constantly out there -- we passed a bill on climate change. no. but if things happen in this country over the last six years on climate change. yes. why? because the president has been out there talking to the
business community and the churches and our schools and all of these institutions out there that have a huge impact on what goes on in america. the president has driven this issue so they have taken up this cause. and implemented and done things to promote this idea. imagine a president who said the most important issue right now is restoring the nuclear family in america. is what can we do in your business to help? i was at a business in tennessee, the reason i mention that is in my book 10 years called "it takes a family" i wrote about chattanooga and a program there called first things first. it's the first time a community at large came together because they had very high rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock birth, single motherhood, etc., so they decided as a community to do something about it. government didn't pass the law. but the churches and schools and businesses and the civic
and community organizations came together in this group called first things first, and implemented a variety of different things to try to get the community to bring families together. i was at a a business there a couple months ago. i said, do you do anything for your families? and i didn't have to explain what he said. what do you do? for example, everybody we have in our company, we give them a free dave ramsey course so they can -- we give one of our benefits is marriage counseling. so they went through all these things they do to support the nuclear family in chattanooga. why? because they made a conscious effort that the schools now talk about marriage and the importance of marriage and what marriage is and why it's important to be married, to have children. i would suspect most schools in america don't do that, right? they talk about the importance of fathers. they talk about in fact,
condoms but they don't talk about what it's about to be a responsible father and a responsible family. all those things can be done without any government programs because if we identify and, you know, dana's talking about the putnam book. i don't know how many read the putnam book. when you read that book you can't walk away and say, we can continue this in america. you can't. there's no effort on the part of the federal government. nothing by this president. nothing. he has poofert summit. when you talk about using the power of the presidency to try to change and start a debate in this country of what we can do so the situations that are occurring every single day in america because children are abandoned by a system that is not focused on kids, i think we can make some real changes. >> we've got about 10 minutes left. we'll try to get in three more questions. paul.
paul: senator, four years -- senator santorum: what if i filibuster? paul: senator, four years ago your family played a big role in your campaign. you're a dad of seven. how have things changed in four years? is it easier, harder? how do you -- how do you stay dad? senator santorum: it's hard. seven kids, going through those teebage years and everything, it's -- there's challenges out there. i'll be honest with you. i feel -- first, the biggest issue, if you recall four years ago, was our daughter bella and the health problems that she had. i'm just -- we're just real excited she's doing better she has ever done and has been for about three years. after the campaign, we -- you know, we realized we had to look at some things because she was just getting -- there was a
pattern of her getting sick, very seriously sick. and she had that pattern but it was getting worse. so anyway, we dug into some things and we actualry found a therapy that's just -- -- actually found a therapy that's in our book. she takes something to boost her immune system and it's just changed her life. she's doing great. and so i -- if she was in the same position as she was four years ago, i wouldn't be sitting here. but she is doing great. and so we feel very, very comfortable on that front. we have six other kids. as i said, they're going through their teenage and college years. i don't need to say any more than that. but it's a -- last time around, it was a family enterprise. and in spite of the travel and other things, it actually in many respects brought the
family even closer together. and everybody is excited about it. you know, our kids are -- it's just fighting them off as to who goes to what trip because everybody wants to go and be out on the trail and do things. it's sort of like the family business in some respects. you want to go to the store and participate, but it's -- so i feel very good. our family is well prepared to do it. not to say we don't have our issues like every other family but if we didn't then you should be worried about it. paul: you would be taking a pay cut if you win right? senator santorum: yeah. it's pretty good job. >> mr. rappaport from "the new york times. >> talk about taking on the clinton machine. is it more or let formidable candidate than president obama? senator santorum: yeah, we took on a machine in 1994 when i ran
against harris and we were you believe against carville and begala and bill and hillary came to pennsylvania with great frequency to campaign against us. you know pennsylvania's not the redest of states. we felt we went up against their best and brightest. health care was the big issue back in 1994. the guy i was running against was the senate sponsor. in fact, you go back and look at your political reason, kids in 1991 really ushered bill clinton into the 1992 campaign because cargo and -- carville made health care the issue of the 1991 special election and went down to little rock basically took their experiences in pennsylvania in 1991 and applied it to the race in 1992 and the rest is
history. they had a lot riding on pennsylvania in 1994. let me assure you, they threw the kitchen sink at us and we were able to survive. i remind people in 2000, we won by five points in 2000 in the state that bush lost by four. we were the only conservative to win in a state that bush lost. i think we have a good track record of being able to overcome big election odds. i beat two incumbents. i represented a 60% democratic seat and a 70% democratic seat in my first few terms in the congress. i think we have a pretty good track record. when we get to a general election we can be pretty effective. i feel like hillary clinton is in some respects tougher than barack obama. in some ways. in some ways easier. i think hillary's going to have a harder time galvanizing her base. i think she probably has a little bit more of an opportunity to appeal outside
of her base. the president last time obviously lost independents and moderates, and that would have been an opportunity for me, at least i believe, we could have done better there. i think she'll -- she'll have pluses and minuses but, again, we have a track record. not just gone up against the political team but also went up against her in the united states senate on more than one occasion and i think we did pretty well when we did that. so if you're looking at debate performances and how well you can stack up and be effective, i think we have some pretty good evidence that we'll do very well. >> phil, last question. senator santorum: i kept trying to finish up. phil: are we going to see mrs. santorum this time? last time she had a pretty tough go at it.
what is her role in the santorum 2.0 is going to be? senator santorum: the least disruptive model possible. particularly with our daughter, who's doing well but she is still 24/7 care. if care is not there, then we got to hire someone to be there. that becomes economically challenging, let's just put it that way. so i'll be honest with you. a big part of it is just family economics for us to have nursing care when karen's not home 24 hours a day gets expensive and it's not covered by insurance or anything like that. so part of it is driven by just the family realities of having a disabled child that requires 24/7 care and the other reality is we have six other kids. they're going through teenage years and sort of good to have a parent around. that's happening. we had some experiences about that in the last year or so.
and so karen and i is a division of labor, if you will. while i think karen does an amazing job on the campaign trail, is a huge asset the most important asset that we have is our family. and while she maybe a great asset on the campaign, she is the indispensible asset at home and that's the way we'll view all sorts of opportunities on the campaign. >> thanks for doing this. senator santorum: you bet it. >> appreciate it. senator santorum: appreciate it. what painless. somewhat. >> i'm glad. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> and we heard from another republican candidates, scott walker. he announced this morning he's running for president, bringing the number of candidates seeking the republican nomination to 15. he'll be making an official announcement about his presidential campaign tonight at the waukesha expo center in wisconsin. that starts at 6:15 p.m. eastern time. >> this weekend on c-span's "road to the house white house" two major political events in iowa and this is the only place you can listen or watch these events in its entirety. we'll be live in cedar rapts for the democratic party hall of fame dinner. it will mark the first time all five candidates share the same stage and beginning at 11:00
a.m. eastern saturday, we'll be live in ames where nine leading republican candidates are scheduled to speak. on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. c-span's "road to the white house: 2016," we take you there. >> president obama is commuting the prison sentences of 46 people convicted of nonviolent crimes. just one of the topics white house press secretary josh earnest talked about during the daily briefing. he also answered questions about the nuclear negotiations with iran as talks enter their final stage. >> good afternoon, everybody. happy monday. i do not have any announcements to make at the top so we can go directly to your question. >> we're approaching another
deadline, i guess you can call it, on the iran talks. whether the parties will have to extend the gpoa or reach a deal, what's your expectations what happens in the next few hours? josh: julie what we do expect is that the action will remain in place. the reason is that it's an interim agreement that's been place for over a year and a half that's frozen iran's nuclear role and rolled back in key areas. now obviously if we can reach a final agreement then that would supersede the interim agreement but the talks continue in vienna. the thing i can tell you is that they have made jen rin progress in those discussions and i think even over the last week or so there is progress -- important progress that has been made. there has been some key issues in the negotiations that have been closed. and that's a good sign. that said there continues to be
some sticking points that remain unresolved and as i've been saying for the better part of a couple weeks now, the president's directed his team to remain engaged and participate in conversations as long as those conversations remains useful. and given the progress that's been made and given the success they had in closing out some key issues, that's an indication that talks are useful. but the president has also been clear that there are -- there's a bottom line that must be met and that is making sure that any final agreement lives up to the parameters that were established and there will not be a final agreement agreed to by the united states, at least and by our p-5 plus one partners until the final agreement reflects that. julie: based on what you're saying, it sounds like the president is going to let john kerry and the negotiators stay past today because those talks continue to be productive? josh: if it's necessary for
them to have conversations and if the conversations remain useful, the negotiating team will remain in vienna. julie: and i guess the question people have about this, because this talk is happening behind closed doors it's hard to know what is actually being agreed upon and what is not being agreed upon. i guess i don't have a great sense of why the president feels like another two days, another three days will close -- you know, close the door on all these issues that's been happening for months? josh: the chief obstacle for us providing greater insight of what exactly is occurring behind closed doors is this key tenant of our talks that we've been repeating for a couple of years now which is nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. julie: not in terms of the specifics, is it that he has seen the iranians make concessions on issues? what is it that he's seeing from the iranians that leaves
leads him to believe they'll go toward something? josh: as the negotiations have gone on over the last couple of weeks, what started out as a rather long list of differences has slowly, i would acknowledge slowly but steadily narrowed. and that's an indication that we are making progress toward an agreement and that's why i would describe talks as making jen rin progress. what's also true is that typically some of the more -- some of the most difficult issues are the ones that get kicked to the end. and that's why the president is going to resist any effort to sort of fast forward through the closing here. there continues to be significant issues to remain. that's the attitude taken by -- taken by our p-5 plus one partners. they will not agree until our
talks progress. julie: has he been in touch with secretary kerry over the last weekend? josh: he's been in talks with his national security advisor susan rice and she's been the one principally updating him couple times a day about the status of the talks. those briefings for the president occurred even over the weekend -- those updates occurred over the weekend. i know the president has been touch with the negotiating team in vienna as well. there have not been any secure video telekrchingses than the one we announced last week. but the president is very well aware of where things stand. julia? julia: josh, with no firm deadline in place on these talks, do you have any idea when the interim agreement may be lifted? josh: well, the -- so the issue
is this. the interim agreement has been extended two or three days at a time two or three times now. the latest short-term extension is up at the end of the day today. if the talks are not completed today, then the interim agreement will be extended again. and this is by essentially by the -- as a result of the unanimous view that this interim agreement has been helpful, and i know that's the true of many republicans in congress who originally criticized the interim agreement. it also happens to be the view of our p will 5 plus one partners and of iran. there is an agreement to make sure that interim agreement remains in place but the whole idea of the interim agreement is only when a final agreement can be reached. what we envision is a final agreement that would enter into effect to replace the interim
agreement. julia: but what would have to happen to lift that? would it be walking away from the talks? josh: well, again, i wouldn't speculate what would happen if one party or another would walk away from the talks. what we know is the interim agreement has been useful while the talks have been ongoing to freeze iran's nuclear program in place and roll it back in some key areas. julia: ok. will this be for another three days at a time? josh: if there is a need to extend the interim agreement even for a short-term agreement, that would be made by the united states and our p-5 plus one partners in vienna. i'm not trying to project that here. if a final agreement is not reached by the end of the day today, all of the parties will agree at least short-term extension of the interim agreement to allow the conversations to continue. julia: shifting to criminal justice, i know the president
will travel to philadelphia and talk to the naacp and lay out his criminal justice reform. he said many of the ideas have already come up in congress. also, there have been many ideas that have come up and has been stalled even when democrats had control of the senate last year. why does he think that anything might be different now? what are the chances of getting something through like the smarter sentencing act? josh: because republicans are indicating an openness to doing it. democrats have long been strong advocates of criminal justice reform that would make our criminal justice system more fair. there are clearly some inequities that can be and should be rectified but they will require legislation. obviously there's a republican majority in both the house and the senate, which means any proposal that's going to pass both houses of congress will require bipartisan support. and since republicans -- since democrats have been steadfast supporters of trying to bring some important reforms to our criminal justice system, we
welcome indications from some republicans that reforms -- that they also believe that reforms are necessary. that's the basis for some of the bipartisan conversations that have already occurred on this issue. the president posted one of the questions earlier this year, you recall. i wouldn't rule out additional bipartisan conversations that include the president of the united states, and that's what -- the way we hope we can advance this priority is by working in bipartisan fashion. obviously that's not something that congress has a particularly strong track record of doing, but, you know, whether it's -- there have been areas that's been successful. and we're hopeful that we can add criminal justice reform to the list of areas where congress was able to act in bipartisan fashion to do something good for the country. ok. jim. jim: and senator rand paul is one of the republicans that has talked about it before.
has he spoken with him lately about this? josh: i don't believe so. but i obviously don't read every single conversation that the president has with members of congress. i am not aware of conversations. senator paul has demonstrate and signaled to be a good partner with the obama administration on this issue. jim: and if you look at the numbers, the president is behind some of his predecessors in this category. in terms of con-- it appears he is doing some catching up. is this something we might see accelerate over his remaining time in office? josh: what i would say, jim, in terms of communtations 46 is the largest number of communtations issued by a president on a single day dating back to at least the johnson administration and this brings to -- i believe it's 89, that's the number of people who have received a communtation by
the president of the united states and that's actually more than the number of communtations issued by the four previous presidents combined. so the president has taken operate bold action when it comes to communtations. i think the point you're raising -- so the pardons is a bit of a different story i think the point you're raising, however, is an entirely legitimate one and that is there are significant reforms that need to be implemented into our criminal justice system. and the president is hopeful that he can work with democrats and republicans in -- on capitol hill to advance a legislative solution to address some of those inequities. he doesn't want to have to rely on his constitutional authorities as president of the united states to offer communtations. he actually is hopeful that we can develop and implement a legislative solution that would have a broader, more far-reaching impact in bringing greater fairness and justice in
the criminal justice system. jim: he's visiting a federal prison on thursday. how is that going to work? i assume you guys are pretty confident that it's going to be safe. and everything should go smoothly. josh: we continue to have confidence that the president will be safe. there will have to be some unique steps to ensure the safety of the president and others who will be participating in that event. but it certainly is an opportunity that the president is looking forward to and will he have an opportunity to speak to all of you while he's there. jim: and speaking of president's security, any response to the white house from the escape of el chapo down in mexico? josh: i can tell you that the attorney general of the united states, loretta lynch telephoned her counterpart yesterday to offer the full support of the united states government to the mexican government as they undertake an operation to try to recapture
mr. guzman. obviously the united states is very interested in making sure that mr. guzman is brought to justice. he faces very serious crimes not just in mexico but charged with crimes here in the united states as well. and the united states will support the efforts of the mexican government to bring him to justice. ok. nadia. nadia: just a quick clarification. so if you don't reach an agreement, is the interim agreement or the joint action, can it be extended for weeks and months and not just days? my question, is legally binding or is it just a political framework that a final agreement has to be reached and it's not going to be -- will be redundant after it? josh: i can't speak to the legally binding nature of it. i refer you to the state department who can discuss sort of the legal consequences for this. what we have found is that the
interim agreement over the last year and half or so that it's been in place has been effective in freezing iran's nuclear program and rolling it back in some key areas. that's why the united states and the partners continue even though the talks have extended on for a period of time longer than we believed originally would be necessary. nadia: extend it more than a few days? more than 48 hours? josh: yeah. at this point, agreement has been in place. let's step one step back just to give you greater deal of context here. there was concern when the united states and our p--5 plus one partners originally entered into negotiations with the iranians that the iranians would merely use the cover of diplomatic conversations to continue to advance their nuclear program. this is something they had done in the past and was something that many people were concerned about, including the president of the united states.
and that's why this particular approach was taken which is to let's enter an agreement as we enter in the final talks to ensure that can't happen that we can't drag out the talks so they can advance their nuclear program. so -- but in essence that interim agreement has been in place to facilitate conversations and that's what we're trying to complete and obviously if we can complete the negotiations then there would be no need for an interim agreement. but you raised another question which is would the agreement that was originally in place to support negotiations remain in place even if negotiations are no longer ongoing? and that's a question that frankly i haven't contemplated at this point, but what we have indicated is that if -- if congress kferingses were to break down that the president would continue to have all options on the table before him. but i wouldn't speculate at this point how exactly we'd
prepare for that snoirio. our hope is that the -- scenario. our hope is that the negotiators would reach a final agreement that would go into effect and eliminate the need for an interim agreement. nadia: and retaking anbar what changed from two months ago to now? how confident are you -- the ability of the iraqi army? josh: nadia, there had been speculations that the -- by some observers, that the central government in iraq had not been as effective as necessary to resupply those troops who are in ramadi, and we're doing important work to try to protect that city. so obviously over the last couple months, the iraqi government has had an opportunity to organize their efforts in anbar province to ensure that the security forces reflect the diverse -- the diverse population of iraq. and what the united states has
indicated is that the united states and our coalition partners will be supportive of those forces that are under the command and control of the iraqi central government and we have made clear we believe that those forces should take extra care. even as they're carrying out these security operations to protect the basic human rights of the population there. and -- so this is obviously something that is reflected by the decision made by the iraqi government and a decision made by the iraqi military but the forces that are operating under the command and control of the iraqi central government can expect to have the support of the united states. the other thing i understand is that in recent days our coalition has actually significantly stepped up the pace of military air strikes in iraq. the majority of those air strikes coming in anbar. so that is an indication of the
ongoing coordinate flakes between the iraqi -- coordination between the iraqi military and the united states and our coalition partners. nadia: another question. you don't have to get into the military details but politically, [inaudible] airbases to be used to launch drones against isis in libya, can you talk -- go into some details about [inaudible] and is this like what we did in yemen? josh: well there's obviously a number of details that i can't go into but let me try to answer this as best as i can. let me start by saying that the united states coordinates closely with countries throughout north africa and europe who also share our concerns about the extremist threat that emnates from libya. we are seeing and we have seen some efforts by some extremists
in libya to capitalize on the chaos in that country, to establish a foot hold and carry out extremist acts of violence, not just in libya but even in some surrounding countries. and we saw this -- this terrible terrorist attack in tunisia just 10 days or so ago. so we continue to be concerned about the growing threat from extremistes that are operating in libya. we are going to continue to coordinate nate both on security matters, on security matters and intelligence matters. with the country at a minimum. the united states entered into this major non-nato ally agreement with tunisia. that's an indication of the ramped up security coordination between the united states and tunisia. the united states has a long-standing security
relationship with egypt and there is additional military assistance that was recently provided to egypt as they confront some of the security challenges in their own country as well. that's an indication that united states has some things in the region to try to improve the security posture of others in the region that are most likely at risk here but also to protect the broader national security interests of the united states. the last thing i'll say about this and i probably should have said this first, but our primary effort with respect to libya remains focused on the political negotiations. and this goes back to what i was just describing is we have seem extremist elements, try to capitalize on the chaos inside libya to carry out acts of violence. so the best way for us to eliminate that the ability is the extremist groups to operate in libya is to actually support an effective central government in libya that can provide for the security situation of the
entire country. so there have been some ongoing u.n.-facilitated efforts in morocco to try to bring about this political solution, and there was an agreement that was recently initialed in morocco among those participating in those talks and the united states has been strongly supportive of the u.n. efforts to try to bring about that political resolution. ok. olivia. owe live -- >> will the president have an opportunity to meet with some inmates? josh: i don't have those who will participate in those. >> on the iran deal, when martin dempsey said the united states should not ease restrictions on iran's ability to have missile technology or conventional wisdom, is he
speaking to the administration? josh: well, he works for -- you can rely on chairman dempsey to rely not just -- certainly his own personal point of view but also a point of view that reflects the kind of advice the president is receiving from his uniformed military leaders as well. ok. >> let me clarify on that. lifting the arms embargo on iran in the final days of these negotiations -- josh: well, john what we know is there are a number of u.n. security council resolutions related to eye rain's nuclear program that are under discussion as part of essentially an exchange that -- this is the essence of the negotiations that iran would shut down every pathway they have to a nuclear weapon. in response to relief that they could get from sanctions that
had been applied to their nuclear program and that's -- that's the essence of the negotiations that have been going on for more than a year and a half. it's the sanctions that propelled iran to enter into these negotiations. that's the kind of relief they're seeking. john: i'm talking about the arms embargo which is different from the sanctions imposed because of the nuclear program. is the administration -- is the president willing to see the lifting of the arms embargo on iran? would he go along with that under any circumstances? josh: john, i can't get into the details of the ongoing discussion. john: would the president sign off on lifting the arms embargo? josh: we're clear that the sanctions relief to which iran could be entitled in context of these negotiations would be those sanctions that have been applied to eye rain's nuclear program. -- iran's nuclear program, and there are a number of sanctions that have been applied to iran because of their nuclear program and the possible
weaponization of their nuclear program, and that's -- again, that's the essence of this whole negotiation. that applying those sanctions is what compelled them to the negotiating table in the first place and that's what has isolated them from the international community, and ultimately what we have thought is to get iran to agree to demonstrate clearly beyond a shadow of a doubt that their nuclear program exists solely for peaceful purposes and that in exchange for that demonstration they would receive sanctions relief. john: let me ask you about specifically the arms embargo. iran has been on the state sponsor of terrorism list since the 1990's, since earlier. a long time. there's no plan to take iran off the official state sponsor of terrorism list, is there? josh: well, we have been clear that the -- we have been very
clear about the fact that the significant concerns we have with iran's behavior will persist even after be a agreement is reached if one can be reached? john: there's no plan to take them off the state sponsor of terrorism list? josh: we've been clear of what's the essence of these ongoing sanctions. and that is the sanctions applied at the u.n., in shutting them down a pathway that's different about their inclusion on the state sponsor of terrorism. john: that's why i'm asking them about the arms embargo. how could you consider lifting a ban on sales of military equipment to and from iran if you still consider them a state sponsor of terror? josh: again, i'm not going to get into the essence of the negotiations, but we tried to be as clear as we possibly can about this. that the kind of sanctions
relief that is envisioned in this conversation are those sanctions that are applied to iran's nuclear program? john: and jason, another hearing before the secreted court, is there any indication that any of the americans who are known to be held prisoner by iran, hack maddy, is there indication -- hick maddy, is there any indication they will be released? josh the secure the release of those americans who are being unjustly detained by iran. you named some. we are concerned about the fact that mr. abedini, mr. hekmati are being unjustly detained in iran, we have some concerns about the whereabouts about robert levinson and these are our concerns about the treatment of these american citizens by iran that we have
raised on the sidelines of these nuclear talks. but we have -- and that's something we continue to press but i don't have an update at this point on those ongoing efforts. ok. j.c. j.c.: if in fact a deal is not reached and the u.s. may walk away from the table, how concerned is this administration that saudi arabia will enter a nuclear arms race? josh: well, j.c., the -- one of the reasons that we have sought to pursue a diplomatic opportunity to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is the risk that exists, that if iran does obtain a nuclear weapon that it could set off a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. that would be destabilizing to an already volatile region of the world. it would also have a negative impact on the national security interest of the united states. it obviously would not be good for our oclosest ally in the
region, israel. so that is one of the reasons that we have sought to capitalize on the best opportunity we have to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that's pursuing this diplomatic talk. major. major: so you say there have been some key issues that have been closed. can you give us an idea what they are? josh: unfortunately i can't. as i said to julie, those issues is closed. nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. we believe we believe we have gotten those key issues into place. essentially the negotiations around those key issues have closed. but they are contingent on resolving the concerns that have been expressed by everybody around the table. major: there are issues related to sanctions that jonathan brought up. and inspections application of the joint plan of action. broadly speaking, would you say the issues that have been closed fall on the sanctions side or the technical
implementation side of the joint plan? josh: i can't get into any greater detail about those issues that have been closed. other than to confirm to you that some of them have been. major: there was sensed this weekend it is getting closer and closer. the president has said as recently as last week less than 50%. i'm not asking you to give us a declaration of 90 or -- do you feel over the last 72 or 96 hours you are closer? and this is likely to happen, more likely than it was, say, three, four days ago or would you say you are exactly in the same place? josh: i would acknowledge important progress has been made over the last four five or six days. that is true. that said, there continues to be some pretty tough obstacles to a final agreement that remain in place and that's what our negotiators are working
through. ultimately in order to complete this agreement it's going to require iran to make some tough decisions and to sign off on some significant commitments that shut down every pathway they have to a nuclear weapon and verify their cooperation with an intrusive set of inspections. and since ultimately it will be the responsibility of iran to decide if they can live up to those commitments, that's why it's hard to put a numerical probability on it because ultimately this will be a decision that they'll have to make at the end -- because we've been very clear what our deadline -- our bottom lines are. and, you know, they have a rather opaque process for making these kinds of decisions. but that's why it's hard to put a probability. but to continue the first part of your question, i think it's fair to say over the last four, five or six days that progress -- additional progress has been made. major: everything is trying to -- the administration doesn't
believe that arms embargo was applied to iran in reaction to its nuclear program. therefore, it's not on the table, correct? josh: well, major, i think at this point this is exactly the kind of conversation that if we're able to reach an agreement we'll be able to have. i'm not saying that. i'm saying once we've been able to lay out exactly what's included in the agreement and what's not we'll have a much clearer conversation about what exactly is agreed to. [indiscernible] josh: if an agreement is reached, there will be extensive detail that's made public that you and the american public will have an opportunity to review and that's what we would encourage people to do is to withhold judgment and judge the strength of this argument or the strength of this agreement and the way it protects america's national security interests based on the details that have actually agreed to.
major: on the communtation issues, what would the president -- he's had a long time to deal with this issue and this is late in the game. josh: well, i would just observe that the number of communtations that have been granted by this president exceed the number of communtations that have been issued by the four previous presidents combined. major: that presupposes that the same problems were on the president's -- those presidents' desks as are on this president's desk. and i believe if i understand the president correctly, it's not the case. those working for him noted this disparity snentsing and that cried out for some type of action. so to compare numbers suggests they had the exact same problems. they don't have the -- those presidents didn't have this issue to deal with. this president has, by his own words. josh: what the numbers illustrate is the president has taken an historic step today.
major [indiscernible] josh: the applications for clemsency is very carefully considered. they go through a sprose. there is an effort by the department of justice to make sure that individuals who are then considered by the president for a communtation is a criteria that the president has laid out. the criteria is nonviolent offenders. essentially low level offenders who in many cases who if they were sentenced today would get a substantially shorter sentence and in many of those cases would actually have if sentenced under the rules that are in place today would have served their time and been released at this point. that's an indication of the kind of disparity that the president is trying to rectify and the president believes it's possible to take this step
without substantially negatively affecting public safety. that obviously is a principal consideration as well. but we've also been pretty upfront about the fact that this kind of executive action is not a substitute for the kind of legislative action that we believe is necessary to address some of the more widespread disparities that persists in our criminal justice system. major: one last thing. on coverage thus, it's been suggested to us -- i ask you to review them on behalf of everybody in the association. specifically the white house people that will travel with the president that they be given access to the president, not just for some remarks in the prison yard, but the part of the facility he will go. this being an historic event for this president, first of its kind to my understanding,
the white house press pool should have as much access as possible. and i urge you to err on the side of maximum coverage and access for those who travel with the president. josh: we'll see what we can do. alexis. alexis: on communtation. how would the president like these 46 individuals to be viewed in the minds of lawmakers who is trying to persuade? in other words, is there something about their cases that he -- more than the number, that these individuals he wanted to point to to showcase a point he's trying to make? josh: i think the case that the president is trying to make is that there are -- that, again, these are individuals who are nonviolent low-level offenders. these are individuals who the vast majority of whom would receive a substantially shorter sentence if they were -- if they had been convicted under the rules that are currently in place. and in many cases these individuals would have actually served their time and already been released by this
standpoint had they been coin conn victed under the terms -- under the rules and conditions that are already in place today. and i think the president does believe that that illustrates some inequities in our criminal justice system and it does illustrate that there probably is a better way we can spend taxpayer dollars. and some of these individuals who have been commuted today, who had their sentence commuted today, they were sentenced to life in prison even though they didn't have a violent record. and, again, in the view of the president, there probably are some better things we can spend taxpayer dollars on and there are things we can do to make our criminal justice system more fair. that said, each of these cases was considered individually, and it's the president's responsibility to use this power judiciously. but there is something important that congress can do
about it, and we hope that they will. alexis: on top of these 46, whether the president now hopes to continue to do this on some sort of recurring -- to review these petitions and go through them see quentionally, he's going to keep doing that? josh: i don't have a schedule laid out for you, but i certainly would expect that the president would consider the use of this kind of executive authority in the future. alexis: and then one detail i don't know if you answered, these are effective november 10, four mobts from now. is there anything specific to the four months? josh: i would encourage you to talk to the department of justice. they have a system for helping these inmates, some of whom/in prison for an extended period
of time, transition back into public life, if you will. so that's what this -- i think it's 120-day period for a transition but we'll look into this for you. it's essentially over the course of 120 days, there are halfway housing and other things to prefair for their eventual release. alexis: if by chance there is a deal in iran and the president is traveling would he respond while he's traveling or would he adjust his schedule? josh: well, at this point it's hard to say exactly how things will come about but we'll obviously keep all of you apprised of the president's travel plans. ok. chris. chris: thanks, josh. given there's a human factor to what's going on in switzerland and understandable level of exhaustion, do you rule out then at this point should we go into yet another day that they could stop and start again? they would take any time off?
is it your sense they'll power through and either have a deal or walk away? josh: well, the expectation right now is that the talks will continue, and i'm not aware of any plans to take a break. they surely deserve it but i'm not sure that's what anybody has planned. chris: and mr. guzman's escape. does this point to the need for swift deportation particularly a drug kingpin? josh: well, obviously when mr. guzman was originally taken into custody about a year and a half ago the united states did communicate clearly to the mexican government our view that mr. guzman should face the charges that have been imposed against him here in the united states. the charges are serious and we believe he should face justice and we made that clear to the mexican government.
they are a sovereign government. they have their own responsibilities ensuring that mexican citizens who are charged with serious crimes under the mexican criminal justice system face justice in that country as well. but we've made quite clear to the mexicans our interest in ensuring he faces justice here in the united states. and that's why we're going to continue to be supportive of the effort that's already under way by mexican authorities to recapture here. chris: the crime fighting organization in the president's hometown had named guzman public enemy number one. i think that was the first designation since al capone that they had done. until he was recaptured the last time and now they're very concerned about does this might signal a resurgence of the cartel, which has been a supplier in chicago of both heroin and cocaine. is there a level of concern
about the possible re-emergence? josh: it's my understanding that the -- obviously we're very concerned about making sure that mr. guzman is brought to justice and he does have a long rap sheet and does preside over an organization that has committed a significant number of crimes and does pose a threat to public safety not just in mexico but the united states as well. that's why we believe that mr. guzman should face justice and face the very serious charges that have been put in place against him. and that's why the united states is going to be supportive of the ongoing efforts by mexican authorities to recapture him. chris rarned you mentioned the statement that loretta lynch put out about help. can you give us any more details about what kind of assistance the u.s. might offered or has any specific assistance been requested? josh: well, there obviously is a strong security cooperation effort between the united states and mexico.
particularly in the case of mr. guzman. we're talking about the interests of our countries at stake. mexico again, is a sovereign government and a sovereign country. they'll have the principal responsibility of making sure that mr. guzman has been recaptured but the mexican government can count on support of the united states as they undertake that effort. ok. juliette. juliette: on the question of -- i know you talked about it's a reverse process there's no review. you have something like 35,000 that have applied for klemansy. can you talk about what's going -- clemency? can you talk about what steps have been taken and realistically you talked about how criminal justice reform would be needed to make a major change but how many people realistically can be pardoned by the end -- at the end? josh: juliette, this is a rigorous process. i'll refer you to the department of justice how that process works and how much bandwidth there is in that
process to process applications and each of them has the careful consideration that they both need and deserve. so at this point i can't speculate on a number or a capacity for that particular process. but i do think the numbers that you're citing highlight how important it is for congress to take action, that congressional action in this case could be much broader in terms of delivering the kind of and implementing the kinds of reforms the president believes is long overdue. ok. jordan. jordan: thanks josh. on the criminal justice, senator grassley will play a major role here. and he sent some mixed signals in the past. does the white house see him as a partner on this? josh: well i am not familiar with senator grassley's positions or comments on this particular issue, but we obviously would welcome support for genuinely bipartisan effort
from anybody that's willing to offer it. particularly somebody like senator grassley that will -- as you point out -- have an opportunity to have a substantial impact on the outcome. ok. mark. mark: josh, on the prison visit, isn't usually a bar attending a presidential event? josh: no pun intended. mark: usually someone that has a criminal record they can't attend a presidential event? josh: i don't think that's a rule that this administration has implemented. mark: will there be private meet sngs josh: we'll have more logistics on the meeting later this week. mark: on clemency, he's far behind on most of his predecessors on pardons.
is he aware that people feel he's stingy on pardons? josh: i don't know if he's ware of that. i can confirm he's ware of the numbers but not aware of the stingy label that was offered. i think the president's focus right now is on using his executive authority to try to correct as many injustices as possible but also to try to work constructively in a bipartisan fashion to help congress enact the kinds of reforms the president can't by acting on his own. kevin. kevin: josh, thanks. i want to talk to you about criminal justice reform. is it the president's idea that more needs to be done to restore voting rights for felons, to get them back into the work force? is that his overall position, and would he say to people, if you've done the crime we ought not be using more of our money, frankly, from a public policy position to give them more or
to do more for them? josh: well, i say a couple things about that, kevin. the first thing is that the president has spoken more -- i got asked about this on friday. the president has spoken previously about his support for allowing those individuals who have served their time to have their voting rights restored. and, you know, as the president alludes to in the letter he sent to the 46 individuals who are seeing their sentenced be commuted that the united states of america is a country that believes in second chances and believes in redemption. and that it is in the best interest of our country to ensure that those individuals who have served their time, paid their debt to society, have an opportunity to re-enter society and be a constructive member of the country. you know, there may be some who disagree with that, but i think the president is on pretty firm
bipartisan ground when he says that that would make our country and our criminal justice system more fair. mark: what can the president do to shrink a prison population that dwarfs similar-sized countries? josh: well obviously some of the states that are related to communtations about -- mark: you have a long way to go when you talk about numbers. josh: that's one step that president can take but i acknowledge -- and again, the numbers can bear this out -- when we're talking about the number of people who would benefit reform and deserve some reforms in the criminal justice system we're talking about a substantial number of people and that's exactly why the president is urging congress to consider and act on important reforms that would make our criminal justice system more fair but also ensure that we're being good stewards of the taxpayer dollar. mark: just a couple more. i want to ask you about the
iran talks. senate majority leader mcconnell said over the weekend it will be a tough sell, connolly speaking if a deal is reached. how concerned is the president taking the argument to capitol hill? and what would you say to people it has applied enough pressure to bring iran to the table, why not double down on that pressure to really hold them accountable for their behavior and maybe get even more from them? josh: well, let me say -- address it in a couple of ways. take the last statement first. the kind of pressure that's been applied to iran is significant because it has given iran the space to make some serious commitments at least primarily in the case of one agreement. to shut down a pathway to a
nuclear agreement. the sanctions regime was not put in place to punish iran. there would obviously be ample reason to do that. again, whether that's because they are -- have unjustly detained some american citizens or because they menace israel or because they support terrorism or because they're engaged in all sorts of destabilize -- >> the house gaveling back in. you can watch of this online at c-span.org. working today on measures dealing with the small business administration including one to resume loans to businesses and individuals. clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek reck snigs >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1023, the small business investment company capital act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. caller: union calendar number 141 h.r. 1023 a bill tie mend
the small business investment act of 195208 provide for increased limitations on leverage for multiple licenses under common control. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, and the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend theirers -- their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chabot: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: when an entrepreneur starts a business one of the first challenges they face is getting the money they need to produce their new product or patent their great idea. for small businesses, has remained a constant struggle. however we also know that small businesses are vital to our economic growth and since the recession, have accounted for
60% of new net jobs in this country. for these reasons, over 60 years ago, congress created the small business administration, the s.b.a., and tasked it with vital mission of ensuring that small businesses can get the capital they need. the small business investment company or fdic program is a public-private partnership that provides small businesses access to equity and debt financing. it has been extremely successful over the years providing billions in private capital to help promising businesses grow into household names. pandora, whole foods, apple, even nike were all small businesses that received early financing from the sbic program. in 2014 alone sbic's invested $5.46 billion in small firms that employ approximately 113,000 workers all across america.
in my home state of ohio more than 2,000 people have jobs today because the sbic program helped small businesses there in ohio access the resources that they needed to grow. under current law successful sbic's under common control, frequently called the family -- frequently called the family of funds are limited in the famentf amount of funds they can provide to small businesses. by raising this cap from $225 million to $350 million, as this legislation would do we could estimate up to $750 million a year in capital would be stimulated that would be available to the next nike or apple. given the volatile fiscal climate we can all agree that small businesses would benefit from such a valuable increase in private investment. h.r. 1023 increases this flow of private funds to small businesses at no cost. let me repeat no cost to the
taxpayer. the committee passed this bill with bipartisan support both republicans and democratic support. i want to thank several members of the committee on small business for their support and work on this bill including representatives voss, chu, lawrence luetkemeyer and mention. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1012 and i want to thank -- i want to thank nydia velazquez for her strong leadership on this bill and much of the other bipartisan work we've done ileana is another member of our folks who i strongly support and admire greatly and at this point, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york.
ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: i, too, want to thank the chairman of the small business committee for working in a bipartisan way to craft this legislation and indeed ileana ros-lehtinen is a good friend of mine from florida. so i don't take any offense. small business investment companies have assisted thousands of high growth companies over the years, providing nearly $75 billion in capital. by design, the program fills the gap in the capital markets for businesses that have outgrown the s.b.a. 7-a guarantee loan program but remain too small or too risky for traditional private equity markets to bear. sbic's operate in a unique public-private partnership with
s.b.a. once private managers raise private capital, they pool funds and invest in high-growth businesses. to maximize the impact of the program, the most successful funds managers are permitted to hold more than one sbic license at a time, known as the family of funds. with the benefit of drawing additional s.b.a. leverage. the current leverage cuts implemented in 2010 allow single licensees to draw $170 million on family of funds license -- and family of funds licenses to draw $275 million. h.r. 1023, the small business investment act of 2015, would increase that cap by an additional 55% to $350 million. according to s.b.a. data only seven sbic's would be able to
take advantage of the increase limiting the actual mament of capital that will reach our small business community. the roughly 100 other sbic families are unlikely tover need this increase. similarly concentrating additional taxpayer backed leverage in just a few asset managers necessitates the need for more oversight. i look forward to working with the chairman to strike the right balance ensuring this capital is deployed officially but with less -- efficiently but with less risk. the sbic program has done a lot of good for the small business community over the years. in fact, since 2010, sbic has quadrupled their output to over $3.4 billion last year alone. but it is still coming up short in its assistance to women, minorities, and veterans. this -- these groups receive just 6% of total sbic capital.
it is my hope as we work with the senate and finalize language steps can be taken to address this inequity. providing ways to get more capital into the hands of small business owners is a top priority for both sides of the aisle in this committee. i want to thank chairman chabot for introducing this legislation and i'm hopeful the increased lev -- increase in leverage will provide new tuns to entrepreneurs from every walk of life. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from new york, mr. collins. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 1023 the small business investment company capital act of 2015. small businesses serve as america's economic engine
driving essential job creation. in my western new york district, small businesses provide the good-paying jobs that people need to support their families. however, we need to do more to encourage small business growth. this legislation aids the sbic program which utilizes private investment funds to provide long-term loans and capital to small businesses in need. without this vital programmark of the small businesses in our country would not be able to succeed. since inception, the sbic program has invested $73 billion in more than 118,000 u.s. small businesses. in western new york, program has supported companies like gemcorp in west seneca and is critical to the jobs they provide. this crucial investment is why i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 1023. with that, i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker we'll reserve. i'm not sure if the gentlelady has additional speakers. ms. velazquez: i do not, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: iyield myself is the balance -- i yield myself the balance of my time. since its creation in 1958, the sbic has invested billions into promising startups and small businesses. with the help of the sbic some of these small businesses grow into fortune 500 companies. apple inc., was once an sbic compliant, today it's one of the largest companies in the world. by providing businesses with capital to grow the sbic program has been a driver of job creation. in 2014 alone, the program helped create or retain 113000
jobs. i i look forward to working with the chairman and our colleagues in the senate on this legislation. and i urge a yes vote -- yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: at this time, i'll close we have no additional speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: in close let me reiterate the impact this minor change could have on small businesses across this country. h.r. 1012 would increase the amount of capital available to small businesses and enable well-managed sbics at no cost to the taxpayer to increase investment in small businesses. this legislation is a commonsense, bipartisan reform and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 1023 and i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 10123. those in favor say aye. pez -- 1023. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is passed. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 208, the superstorm sandy relief and disaster loan program improvement act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill: -- the bill. does the gentleman intend to call this up as amended? mr. chabot: yes, mr. speaker, we do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. caller: h.r. 2082048, a bill to make money available to victims
of superstorm sandy. the speaker pro tempore: the charke recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. shah into the p.c. -- mr. chabot: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include ex-train you materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chabot: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: a natural disaster exposes us to the worst of nature yet in some powerful way it brings out the best in people. communities band together. neighbors help neighbors. and volunteers donate their time and energy. all in an effort to rebuild. in the last decade, america has faced some of its worst natural disasters work hurricane katrina in 2005 and more recently hurricane sandy in 2012. in the aftermath of any disaster, it's imperative that the federal government programs operate as efficiently and
effectively as possible so that victims are able to rebuild. and return to their normal live as soon as possible. following hurricane sandy, there have been startling reports regarding the small business administration's inability to properly administer the disaster loan program. the s.b.a. was unwilling to implement and utilize pre-existing statutory authority that would have assisted the agency nits response to sandy. despite our living in the internet era with smart fones and email and apps the s.b.a. was shocked and surprised at the volume oaf electronic disaster assistance applications it received and the systems were overwhelmed and unable to process applications. in a poor pun, the s.b.a.'s disaster loan program was a disaster itself. for the victims of hurricane -- disaster itself for the victims of hurricane sandy. the legislation before us, h.r.
208 is a corrective to those who suffered twice, first by disaster and second by the s.b.a.'s inability to effect i havely provide disaster assistance. as congress did with those who suffered from hurricanes katrina rita, and others, would allow them to apply for assistance in spite of the artificial and nonbinding deadlines imposed by the s.b.a. further given the struggles s.b.a. had in responding to sandy, this makes practical changes to the loan program to help ensure that victims of future disasters do not suffer as those who felt the brunt of sandy did. for example, h.r. 208 this requires them to update their disaster plan, to account for disaster with extreme application vols and allows those affected by disasters to
use s.b.a. disaster loans to build safe rooms as a mitigating measure against few sursimilar disasters. this legislation also makes smart changes to create parity among disaster victims by requiring the s.b.a. to establish credit standards so that similarly situated borrowers are treated in an identical manner following a disaster. these changes, among others, will ensure that the s.b.a. is fully capable of responding to the next catastrophic disaster and unfortunately we all know there will be one or probably many. i want to thank ranking member velazquez consequence once again for her leadership on this issue and for working with me to develop a bill that strivenes to ensure those affected by disasters can rebuild quickly. this bill has broad bipartisan support and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 208 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his
time. the chair -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: thank you mr. speaker. when hurricane sandy made landfall in 2012, new york city was one of the hardest hit areas. thousands of homes suffered damage, infrastructure was disrupted and our cities, small businesses were impacted physically and economically. 32,000 new yorkers lost their job that november. losses many economists attribute to the storm's economic impact. after disasters like this, it is not uncommon for as many as 40% of impacted small businesses to fail. the -- depressing commerce and slowing the community's recovery. the small business administration's disaster lending functions are meant to provide quick credit to small firms and homeowners that have been impacted by catastrophes. with entrepreneurs and homeowners' livelihood at
stake it is vital that the s.b.a. disaster programs operate effectively. that is why in 2008, after katrina, congress passed reforms meant to improve s.b.a.'s disaster response. it became evident after hurricane sandy that there's still more work to be done. the government accountability office inspector general and reports from the small business committee, democrats, have all documented long delays in the processing and disbursement of loans. our committee found for instance, that small businesses waited 46 days to get their application processed by s.b.a. a three-fold increase over previous atlantic storms. h.r. 208 takes the step to address these shortcomings and ensure those affected by hurricane sandy are treated fairly. to begin, they -- the bill
won't allow small businesses to apply again for loans. as s.b.a. was so unprepared for a disaster of this scale it is important that those impacted have another chance at securing assistance. the bill will also correct a number of the shortcomings that have held back the s.b.a. programs from functioning smoothly. businesses will not -- will no longer be prohibited from posting their -- their assets as collateral. this is important, as previously many entrepreneurs have had to use personal assets for loan collateral. by reducing closing and disbursement delays, h.r. 208 will ensure funds flow more swiftly to businesses after future catastrophes. lastly the measure takes steps to require s.b.a. to implement reforms congress passed following katrina. the fact is, the agency has
been woefully slow in making these changes and this law will help hold them accountable. mr. speaker, our small businesses are counting on the s.b.a. in times of crisis to provide badly needed help. so they can recover quickly and continue supporting our local economies. this legislation which enjoys bipartisan support will help improve that process and i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you. does the gentlelady have any speakers? ms. velazquez: no, i don't and i'm prepared to close. mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: when disasters strike, getting small businesses back on their feet quickly can help economies recover. for that to happen, s.b.a.'s disaster lending initiatives must work as intended.
providing emergency capital to firms that have suffered physical and economic damage. the legislation we're considering would allow businesses that encounter delays to reapply for assistance and be made whole. it will improve how the agency functions in the future, speeding help to small -- to small businesses and homeowners when they are most in need. this is a bipartisan bill and it will do much good for sprurs impacted by sandy and for businesses impacted by future disasters. i thank chairman chabot for his support on this legislation. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, we never know when and where the next disaster will strike. but unfortunately we do know that there will be more disasters. given this, we must ensure that the s.b.a. is truly prepared to help victims in the aftermath of those disasters.
h.r. 208 rights the wrongs imposed by the s.b.a. on those who suffered from the effects of sandy. but h.r. 208 does more than just correct past mistakes. it imposes obligations on the s.b.a. to ensure that that agency learns from history and does not repeat those mistakes that so -- so people in this country are actually helped next time and not harmed by the agency. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 208, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does -- without objection, the title is amended. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2670, the microloan
modernization act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 140, h.r. 2670, a bill to amend the small business act to provide for expanded participation in the microloan program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, and the gentlewoman from new york ms. velazquez, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent once again that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chabot: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: the microloan program overseen by the small business administration, the s.b.a., is designed to provide credit for those entrepreneurs that would not otherwise have any access to credit. even basic revolving credit. among the s.b.a.'s capital access programs, the microloan
program is unique because it also provides technical assistance to borrowers. it merges the money with the no-hoe. -- know-how. to borrow a sports reference, microloans punch above their weight. these small dollar loans are often the most difficult to receive and typically are the deciding factor in an entrepreneur's ability to start a business. this is demonstrated by the large number of first generation entrepreneurs who have received assistance under the microloan program. think about the number of successful individuals who recall starting a business with funds pulled from family and friends. well, if no one in your family has started a business or has money to lend, then that entrepreneur's dream quickly fades to distant memory. this is particularly true in traditionally underserved markets. by making small dollar loans
less complicated and more accessible, we will empower individuals to become entrepreneurs, lift up their families and improve their communities. and most importantly create jobs for a whole lot of americans. h.r. 2670 does that. this bill enhances the microloan program by allowing microloan intermediaries greater flexibility in provide loans and technical assistance to their borrowers. the expectation is that the greater flexibility will result in greater participation by microlenders in the microloan program, thereby increasing the availability of critical small dollar loans to these micro entrepreneurs that punch above their size. despite the greater flexibility, h.r. 2670 also provides safeguards to maintain the primary feature of the program, and that's low dollar loans offered to
microentrepreneurs along with intermediary provided technical assistance. by modernizing the microloan program as h.r. 2670 does, we are allowing the little guy a chance to get off the ropes, use their skills and create innovative ideas to compete with the heavyweights of american industry. we all strive for a stronger, more competitive economy and this bill aids in that mission. this bill has broad bipartisan support once again, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 2670 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: since 1991, the s.b.a. microloan program has provided millions of dollars in financing and technical assistance to small businesses and entrepreneurs. by providing loans to nonprofit
intermediaries who in turn lend funds to the smallest of small businesses, the program helps businesses streamline their operations, and create new jobs. however, the program remains substantially the same as when it was first enacted. over the years we have identified a number of programs' elements that could be updated to better deploy capital. with that goal in mind, i want to thank congressman moulton for introducing this important legislation. the microloan modernization act of 2015 will make a number of targeted improvements to assist small businesses for borrowers, s.b.a. set the maximum term of the microloan at six years. particularly for larger microloans, this has caused financial strain due to higher monthly payments and is impeding some businesses from
growing. today's bill would allow a repayment period of up to 10 years for loans greater than $10,000 providing borrowers with the flexibility to better manage cash flow, improve operations and create more jobs. similarly s.b.a. has prohibited lines of credit. yet not all businesses need a fixed rate term loan. a line of credit is sometimes the better product for a microbusiness that has an even cash flow. today's bill will give borrowers and lenders the flexibility to get them in the right loan product for their needs. for intermediary lenders, today's bill would create a new waiver to the 2575 rule that restricts the use of technical assistance grants. this waiver process will help intermediaries more efficiently deploy technical assistance
funding. additionally, the legislation will raise the lending cap by 20%. by giving successful intermediaries access to an additional $1 million in s.b.a. funding, they will be able to serve more borrowers in high demand areas. the microloan program fills a critical gap in the market, helping underserved businesses that are too small for the banking sector yet too big to finance with a credit card or loans from friends and families. again, i would like to thank mr. moulton for introducing this bill. it will go a long way to increasing access to capital for our nation's small businesses. mr. speaker, i would like to point out the fact that 62% of microborrowers are women and minorities. and so this is fulfilling an important gap that exists for these groups to access capital,
access capital. i thank the gentleman for introducing this important piece of legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i would yield such time -- i yield say three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. curbelo, who is the chairman of the subcommittee on agriculture, energy and trade, of the subcommittee on small bills. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. . mr. dur bellow: i thank the -- mr. curbelo: i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to commend the gentleman from massachusetts mr. moulton, for his work on this important piece of legislation. today i rise in support of h.r. 2670rk the microloan modernization act of 2015. the microloan program is unique due to its focus on merging technical assistance with
access to capital. for several entrepreneurs, particularly those in underserved markets, this offers a way to get the small dollar loans a conventional bank would otherwise deny while learning important skills such as developing a business plan that will be critical as the company finds success and grows. last year alone, the microloan program was responsible for providing nearly $56 million in capital and aiding small businesses in creating or retaining 15,000 jobs. however, after listening to several entrepreneurs and microloan intermediaries, it became clear that for the microloan program to truly tap into its potential changes for necessary. h.r. 2670 strives to make those changes and better support entrepreneurs. currently the statute says microloan intermediaries may make short-term, fixed rate loans to small borrowers.
according to s.b.a. regulations, short-term means six years. while this may make sense for some when the loan is a lower amount, this one-size-fits-all approach is not beneficial to small businesses. six years for loans under $10,000 and 10 years for loans over $10,000. while this may seem like a minor change, we all know that allowing borrowers to get the best repayment terms possible is crucial for ensuring low default rates and increasing participation in the microloan program. mr. speaker, in summary, this is a commonsense, bipartisan reform that will increase act sebs to capital for those most challenged to receive our micro entrepreneurs. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of
this legislation and thank chairman chabot for bringing this bill to the floor. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2670 and remind them the reason we in the small business committee work so hard for these entrepreneurs, for these people that are making a difference is because they hire those in our society in our communities, that most need jobs. think of the college graduate, who is looking for a job. think of the immigrant who arrived in this country and is looking for a way forward. it's small businesses that oftentimes give these people their first shot at success. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: i recognize mr. moulton, the sponsor of the legislation, for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. moulton: thank you, ms.
velazquez. we often say small businesses are the engines of economic growth. and that's true. if you look at the data, new businesses those younger than five years lold, created nearly all the the economy's new jobs in the past tech kids. in order to create job creation, the federal government must increase access to capital so new entrepreneurs with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business. the small business administration's microloan program fills a critical gap in the capital markets. helping underserved businesses that are too small for the banking sector, yet too big to finance with a credit card or loans from friends and family. the program has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in financing and technical assistance to small businesses and entrepreneurs. but the program is in need of reform. that's why i introduced h.r. 2670, the microloan modernization act of 2015. which will make a number of
targeted improvements to the program so more borrowers can benefit from access to capital. first, the bill increases the loan limit cap for intermediary lenders. many successful intermediaries have hit the current $5 million cap and as a result deserving small businesses are denied capital through no fault of their open. second, the bill extends the loan repayment period for loans greater than $10,000. this small change will provide borrowers with the flexibility to better manage cash flow, improve operations and create more jobs. third, the bill permits lines of credit, which are currently prohibited by the s.b.a. not all businesses need a fixed rate term loan. sometimes, a more flexible line of credit is a better product for a small business that's has cyclic or uneven cash flow. fourth the bill creates a
waver for an overly rigid technical assistance program known as the 2575 rule to help intermediaries deploy technical assistance more efficiently. lastly, the bill commissions two studies to explore ways to incentivize intermediaries to participate in the microloan program and determine if mandatory savings accounts would benefit entrepreneurs. the microloan program supported nearly 4,000 small businesses just last year. and two of these successful businesses are located in lyn massachusetts, in my district. police. products, an industrial distributor, received a microloan from s.b.a. to purchase extra inventory. as a result of the loan, the owner was able to increase revenue and hire a sales professional with 15 years of experience. in 2013, local rhett rah tours shawn and nolan edmond fulfilled their lifelong dream
of opening a caribbean restaurant in lyn. it enabled them to purchase new kitchen equipment and make changes to the store front of wright's spice caribbean. we need more people like the ed mands and lisa fitzpatrick to take a risk and start a bezz and we need the microloan program to help them. that's why the microloan modernization act of 2015 is so critical. in closing, i'd like to thank my ranking member, nydia velazquez, for her work on this bill. my chairman steve chabot, an my colleagues, representatives curbelo, chu ta chi and rad we began -- takai and radwegan for their support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: we have no further people to testify on our side. if the gentlelady would like to close, we'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velez cause: thank you, mr. chairman. the -- ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. chairman. the microloan program provides money to help small businesses. many small business owners come from groups where money is hard to come by. it not only helps them with money but provides training to allow them to succeed. since the end of the recession, microlending is up 25% nationwide. by the way, for the last couple of years, the default rate in microloan is going down. in fact, s.b.a. requested an additional $10 million for next
year to hand demand. i can think of no better time to make changes to improve the program's efficiency and capital deployment. i want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for introducing the microloan modernization act of 2015. it will give borrowers new repayment flexible and choices, provide flexibility and inject additional capital in high demand area. i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance after i my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: as we work to get capital into the hands of entrepreneur well, need to keep s.b.a. programs relevant. we also must ensure that our lending partners have the flexibility to manage their loan pord foal yows --
portfolios in a way that makes the most sense for the borrowers. h.r. 2670 does that. i want to thank mr. moulton and mr. curbelo for their work on these reforms and i want to thank ms. velazquez for her leadership and cooperation in getting this to the floor today. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2670 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the howls suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2670. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2499 as amended this yvette rans entrepreneurship act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the
clerk will report the title of the bill. caller: union calendar number 139, h.r. 2499 a bill to amend the small business act to increase access to capital for swret ran entrepreneurs to help create jobs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, and the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and incrude extraneous material on the bills under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chabot: i yeeled myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: every day our armed forces are risking their lives. currently there are 21 million veterans all other the united states. when they return home they strive to transition
seamlessly, hopefully, into their civilian lives. veterans face challenges in that transition, one of those being employment. our most recent veterans who have served in active duty since september, 2001 have a higher unemployment rate than the average civilian. in par particular, ours recent female veterans have an unemployment rate over twice the national average. while finding employment upon transto civilian life is a challenge, many veterans find that skills learned during military service translate well into entrepreneurship. yet many veterans have found it difficult to obtain the funds needed to start the small business. in looking for ways to finance their new businesses, veterans may turn to the small business administration, the s.b.a., for loan assistance. in fiscal year 2014, veterans received over 2,000 7-a loans
totaling almost $600 million but i believe we can to more to get these loan into the hands of veterans. already the s.b.a. administrator is using her authority to waive certain fees charged to veterans. one way to increase veterans' access to capital is to make s.b.a. loans more affordable for veterans by permanently waiving the upfront fee charged by the s.b.a. to borrowers through the agency's 7-a express loan program. h.r. 2499 does just that. all at no cost to the taxpayer. h.r. 2499 strikes a delicate balance between providing a fee waiver to help american veterans, while safeguarding scarce taxpayer dollars by creating an exception to the fee waiver in any year where an appropriation is necessary to cover the cost of the overall 7-a loan program. this ensures that this fee
waiver will never give a cost to the taxpayer. i believe as many -- i believe, as many americans do, that we must support our veterans this legislation provides support to veteran entrepreneurs for years to come at no cost. it's a small, commonsense approach which had broad bipartisan support and passed out of our committee by a voice vote meaning basically everyone supported it on the committee. further this bill has support from major veterans' groups, who are well aware of the challenges that brave veterans face in transitioning to civilian life. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2499 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. velez -- ms. velazquez: thank you, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: veterans play a significant role in the u.s.
economy. they own 2.4 million businesses, employ 5.8 million people and have generated well over $1 trillion in receipts. like most small businesses, access to capital is smill hard to come by. yet -- is still hard to come by. yet vital to their experience, paving the way for growth and continued job creation. as the federal government's main provider of business assistance, the veterans -- the s.b.a. sprovidse loans to veterans. it provided over 2,000 veterans with low loans totaling $7.6 million. this is only 4% overall. in an effort to increase veteran lending volume s.b.a. waived borrower fees paid by veterans on small dollar and s.b.a. express loans.
in 2014rk the impact of the waiver was a mixed bag. while veterans saw a 23% increase in loans of $150,000 or less, the program ex-peernsed an 8% decrease in veteran's loans overall. initiative has had more success this year with veterans -- the initiative has had more success this year with veterans -- veterans' lending increasing 7%. to build on that trend, h.r. 2499 will make the fee waiver permanent for veterans seeking an s.b.a. express loan. it will reduce costs, spare more -- spur more veterans to borrow and in turn grow businesses and create jobs. i want to thank chairman chabot for introducing this bill to keep more dollars in veteran intrerp neuros' hands. we know every little bit counts when trying to start or grow a small business and i cannot think of a group that is more
deserving than our veterans. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. . mr. shat spock i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. knight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. knight: i rise in support of this act. it will expand opportunities for veterans who return home and want to apply their skills and discipline to starting businesses. we're allowing veterans to use their skills. our men and women are inclined
to help build businesses. veteran owned small businesses make up about 9% of all small firms and nearly four million businesses with average annual these are people who know how to succeed, these are people who know how to lead. this bill is just taking away some of the obstacles, making it a little bit easier for our leaders to come back into the entrepreneurialship of america and succeed. some of our vets are having a tough time getting access to the funds they need to put their skills into action. particularly female veterans who are dealing with outsized obstacles in transitioning to the private sector. the unemployment rate for women or fighters who have come home from iraq and afghanistan is 11.4%, more than twice that what our male veterans'
national average. is it's time we turned our attention to addressing the problems faced by our veteran entrepreneurs who have made such tremendous sacrifices and want to continue to pursue the american dream. this bill takes a prudent, responsible step to harnessing their skills and expertise, to add value to the economy and lowering barriers for these trained leaders to get their values off the ground. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. ms. velazquez: mr. speaker, i would like to inquire if -- no more speakers? mr. chabot: we have no more speakers at this time. we'll be closing next. ms. velazquez: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. value vat value the loan -- ms. velazquez: the loan program provides a critical source of capital for our veterans. this year s.b.a. lending to veteran-owned firms is on track to exceed $1 billion for the first time ever. today's bill will save veterans
millions of dollars every year and not cost -- at no cost to the taxpayers. that means that veteran-owned businesses can invest or reinvest this money into their businesses. our nation's veterans are some of the most prolific small business creators, establishing thousands of their ums every year. i would like to thank chairman chabot for taking steps to expand access to capital for these important groups of job creators. i look forward to working with him and our colleagues in the senate and moving forward this legislation. and i would like to take this opportunity to thank all the staff for the small business committee for their hard work, especially my staff on my side, justin. i urge a yes vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you mr. speaker. in closing, i would first of
all like to acknowledge that mr. knight, who just spoke, is a veteran himself. we certainly appreciate his service to our country. and i again want to stress that h.r. 2499 will provide greater assistance to our veterans, without imposing any additional costs on taxpayers. enactment of h.r. 2999 that represents only a small token of the appreciation that we can show to our veterans as they take their skills learned through service to create small businesses that will help create jobs, thus serving our country a second time. i would urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 2499 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2499 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. chabot: mr. speaker, on that i'd ask for a recorded
vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? chobchob we, do, mr. speaker -- mr. chabot: we do, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 387. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 128, h.r. 387, a bill to provide for certain land to be take noon trust for the benefit -- take noon trust for the benefit of a band of indians, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california mr. cook, and the gentleman from california, mr. ruiz, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. cook. mr. cook: i ask unanimous consent that all members may
have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cook: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cook: the band of mission indians tribal located 20 miles west of palm springs, california, along with the city of been aing and a private property -- banning and a private property own who are resides in california, they together have asked congress to enact h.r. 387 providing for the exchange of certain lands within or adjacent to the morongo reservation. the bill also directs the secretary of interior to grant an easement to the city of banning for the use of certain lands currently held in trust on behalf of the tribe. the easement will provide the
city with the ability to install electric sewer, water and related utility lines to accommodate commercial activity in the area. this bill will accomplish three goals. first, it will promote the consolidation of the tribe's reservation lands. second, it will resolve a land use dispute between a private lapped owner, the city -- landowner, the city and the tribe. and third and finally, it will facilitate commercial development on lands adjacent to the tribe's reservation that will be beneficial for the city of banning and the tribe as well as the private landowner. this bill truly represents a win-win-win agreement without any of the parties having to compromise their desired goals. i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california mr. cook reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. ruiz. mr. ruiz: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruiz: thank you, mr. speaker. i am proud to rise in support of my bill, h.r. 387 the economic development through tribal land exchange act. this noncontroversial, bipartisan bill passed unanimously out of the house natural resources committee and is supported by the department of the interior. the bill would aid economic development in the city of banning, california, through a land swap supported by all the parts involved. currently the band of mission indians and a private landowner, mr. lloyd fields, would like to exchange two parcels of land which are nearly identical in size and value, but are restrained from doing so because one of the parcels is currently held in trust by the united states on behalf of the tribe.
my bill facilitates an equitable land swap between the tribe and the landowner to provide more consolidated reservation land for the tribe and commercial development opportunities for the landowner the city of banning and riverside county. this bill serves as a model for how land use issues can be addressed by a community -- by communities coming together while upholding the sacred government to government relationship between the federal government and indian tribes. i would like to thank chairman robert martin of the band of mission indians and the city of banning for bringing this issue so my attention. my colleague, representative paul cook from california, for being an original co-sponsor, and senator boxer from california for introducing the bill in the senate. i would also like to thank chairman bishop and ranking member grijalva for expediting this bill through committee so that we could bring it to the floor today. mr. speaker, this is the type
of bill that we can all support for the simple reason that it benefits all parties involved and spurs economic development and job creation. we passed this bill unanimously on this floor last year, let's move it once again. i urge a yes vote on h.r. 387 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. ruiz reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. cook. mr. cook: yes in closing this just basically shows that you can get some things done at a local state and federal level. this battle has been going on for a long while. i used to represent the area when i was in the state house. and when you can finallyly get all parties together and work in a bipartisan fashion, good things happen. so with that i close and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. ruiz. mr. ruiz: mr. speaker, this is a clear example, as representative paul cook said, of two neighboring district different parties coming together for the benefit of economic development, for the betterment of our tribes, and for the betterment of our counties. at this point, mr. speaker i want to thank you and again i would like to thank my colleague, representative paul cook, for his support on this legislation and chairman bishop and grijalva for their work in bringing this noncontroversial bill to the floor before the end of the summer. and i would like to yield two
minutes to my friend and colleague from california who also sits on the indian and native affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. torres: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 387, which directs the secretary of interior to take certain land into trust for the benefit of morongo band of mission indians. this is a commonsense approach that will benefit the tribe, the city of banning and the larger local economy. . taking land into trust on behalf of it is one of the invisible and impactful actions that our government can undertake to uphold our trust obligations to the 567 sovereign tribal nations across the nation. indian lands are critical for the exercise of tribal self-governs, of self-determination and often represent great spiritual and
cultural significance to tribal nations. this bill represents an opportunity for them to consolidate their land by also resolving long-standing disputes that will clear the way for increased private economic development opportunities for the region. this legislation is a win-win for the tribe, the city and private enterprise. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back. does the gentleman from california, mr. ruiz, wish to close? mr. ruiz: i'd like to thank the representative of california, norma torres, for your remarks and support of the bill. i'd like to thank you mr. speaker and representative paul cook for his support of the legislation. i'd like to thank chairman smith and ranking member grijalva for bringing this noncontroversial bill to the floor before the end of the summer. i'd like to work on additional legislation to provide our
tribal nations for their ability to create their own economic opportunity through self-governance. i urge my colleagues to come together once again and pass this commonsense bill that will create jobs and spur economic development for the morongo band and the city. i -- and the city of banning. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 387. those in favor say aye. thopeds. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 2620, an act to amend the united states cotton futures act to exclude certain
annual spending bills for the entire federal government that would fund the financial services sector of the government. but last week when leaders had to pull in an interior department spending bill over an amendment that would ban the display of the confederate flag, they were afraid that democrats would try to offer more amendments related to the confederate flag and tie rbrps into nots again on that issue. so the house's annual process for funding the entire government is essentially stalled because of the confederate flag. host kwlverage how are they going to get out of this? guest: since they're not going
to be able to do any more of the individual spending bills before the august recess, that's really looking like the only option at this point. host: what else are we looking at? we talked about no child left behind. tell us where the senate is on that legislation right now. guest: this is the second week that the senate has been working on the no child left behind bill. the house passed their version last week very narrow 218-213 vote. and so senators are still plowing through amendments but they hope to finish by the end of the week. host: and the california drought is coming up in the house this week. what will the bill do? guest: it is endorsed by the entire california republican delegation including house majority leader kevin mccarthy. and it would aim to increase the amount of water available to californians by requiring the government to pump maximum amounts of water through the central valley project. even though there are concerns from environmentalists about how it would affect fish
populations. host: and one other point from your piece this morning in "the hill," hillary clinton has said to visit "the hill," we read it will be tomorrow. what's the agenda? guest: she'll be meeting with house and senate democrats tomorrow. she'll be making appearance at house democrats 9:00 a.m. weekly caucus meeting. she'll be speaking with them. she'll also be meeting with senate democrats at their weekly lunch. she'll be talking about her general policies and how she's going to work with democrats going forward, with the campaign. it could to lengthly be awkward with senate democrats because vermont independent senator bernie sanders is also a candidate for president and he's a member of the senate, they'll be in the same room when she's addressing same gament -- senate democrats. host: that will be fun to read about. thanks a lot for the update as we look ahead to another fairly busy week. appreciate it. guest: thanks for having me.
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> wisconsin governor scott walker today announced he's running for president. he'll have the official announcement at 6:15 p.m. eastern and you can see it live from waukesha, wisconsin, on our companion network c-span3. earlier today governor walker released an online video announcing his candidacy. >> for -- for too long they've said we have to compromise our principles to win. scott walker showed the path to victory is to run on our principles conservative, bold, decisive. he balanced budgets cut taxes beat the special interests improved education created jobs and showed how to fight and win. >> america needs new fresh leadership with big, bold ideas from outside of washington. actually get things done. wisconsin, we didn't nibble on
the edges, we enacted big, bold reforms to power out of the hands of the government special interests, gave it to the hardworking taxpayers. lives are better because of it. we fought and we won. republicans feel there are some good who are good fighters. they haven't won those battles. there are others who won elections but haven't consistently taken on the big fights. now i'm running for president to fight and win for the american people. without sacrificing our principles, we won three elections in four years in a blue state. we did it by leading. now we need to do the same thing for america. not too late. we can make our country great again. join our cause, help us fight and win for america. >> govern ever walker following up his campaign video with a speech to supporters live tonight on c-span3 at 6:15 p.m.
eastern time. >> this weekend on c-span's road to the white house, two major political events from iowa. and we're the only place you can watch our listen to these events in their entirety. friday night at 8:00 eastern, we'll be live in cedar rapids for the iowa democratic party hall of fame dinner. all five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage. and all day saturday, beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern, we'll be live in ames for the family leadership summit where nine leading republican presidential candidates are scheduled to speak. on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. c-span's road to the white house 2016, we take you there. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings
and news conferences bringing you events that shape public policy. and every morning "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers and journalists and your comments by phone, facebook and twitter. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> the house back at 6:30 p.m. eastern for votes on small business administration loan programs including loans for hurricane sandy relief and expanding the agency's microloan program. again, we'll have that live here on c-span at 6:30 eastern. first, though, a conversation from this morning's "washington journal" on the supreme court's ruling on gay marriage. host: joining us from cincinnati, ohio, can black well, a senior fellow at the family research council. he is the former mayor of cincinnati.
good morning. guest: good morning. good to be with you. host: wanted to get your take on the supreme court j.k. rowling cop -- the supreme court's ruling, legalizing same-sex marriage. guest: they turned on its head the institution that had been in place for thousands of years. the bodies of scientific knowledge showing when it comes to the rearing of children, that union is the preferred union and the most successful in creating responsible adults. i was taken by this attack on religious liberty, but more importantly, this judicial
activism, where we found change affected by judicial see it -- judicial fiat we engage in this issue in a very democratic fashion. what happened was a halt to the democratic process by five justices on the supreme court. host: what is the long-term effect of that ruling? guest: it is going to play out in our lives in many ways. overnight, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles, they have been converted to bigots. not only preachers, but
churchgoers have their religious liberty put at risk. it is very instructive when you put at the -- when you look at the writings and opinions of the four justices that dissented. they raise a question as to whether or not the balance had been done to the free exercise provision within the first amendment. this religious liberty has not been a matter of the freedom to worship within the four walls of a church or the freedom to give mellowing -- to give mouthing to the acceptance of religious belief. we have believed as a country
that individuals have a right to live out their religious convictions. this is all at risk. we will see it dealt with any number of ways. what is taught in our schools, how we interact in the marketplace, or what can be said and what can be conducted within our churches. host: ken blackwell is with the -- i want to put the phone numbers on the screen for you to comment about same-sex marriage religious freedom. democrats (202) 748-8000.
republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. one quote says it seems like the oppressor is taking on the mentality of the press, that the court ruling left many conservative christians steamed. others urge resistance against the new legal reality. what would your response be? what will you do moving forward on this issue? host:guest: for several decades, we have been engaged in the context -- a contest that has stretched across the country. on one side are those who believe in growing government
and on the other side, those of us who believe in protecting individual liberty. there are several ideas that have prevailed over the last 20 or 30 years. governments can manage our economy better than markets. the second is that governments can manage the affairs of our families better than our families themselves. the third is the old-fashioned work ethic has been turned on its head. we are now a culture where earning money does not entitle you to a, and the fourth wrongheaded idea is the added context to the struggle the
advance of moral relativism. it is not just a constitutional contest. it has to be looked at in the cultural context. frc and others will be engaging in about four arenas. we will take direct action. we will protest this where we think it is appropriate to protest. we will show our disagreement with the judicial fiat exercise by justices. second, we willing gauge in the legislative process. whether it be in congress or state legislatures across the country. there will be plenty of work for lawyers to engage in across the
country. folks will be challenged in their workplace, churches, and their schools. as a christian-based organization, we willing gauge folks in construct event positive dialogue. ultimately, to create a beloved community, you have to change the hearts of folks. you do that and not through judicial fiat or political hammering. you do it by dialogue. that is something frc, the watchman on the wall program the family policy council's a roster country, that is what we engage in. host: let's go to calls for 10 blackwell. jenny is from lakewood washington. caller: good morning.
i'm calling to say that i think that religious groups should get their own people to abide by the things that you are worried about. you have the highest divorce rates, 70% of women who get abortions claim religious affiliation. you can't keep your people within your churches to do what you are professing that you are trying to lead the country in doing. you are trying to get the government to do it for you. you are trying to get everybody to do it for you. if you would stay within your own religious realm, and get 70% of your people under control and your divorce rate under control -- i have been married
for 42 years, i'm a non-theist i do not need you in my life. guest: look, i think the caller might be surprised to find out that we at the family research council are concerned about divorce, about the accelerated divorce rate across the country. she is right in that it will take all of us engaged in protecting the institution of marriage, advancing our culture. it will take all of us to engage in making sure that the issues, or ideas, and ideals that we profess to believe in are in fact modeled in our individual and community behavior. let me take exception to her notion that it is we who want government to turn a definition of marriage on its head.
this is a definition, as i said before, that has been in play and in place for thousands of years. our founders framed our constitution with the declaration of independence. in that decoration of independence in the second paragraph, one of the points that was established is our fundamental rights are not grants from government, they are gifts from god. the framers of our constitution believe in the laws of nature and nature's god. this notion that it is profamily organizations, pro-national marriage organizations are somehow try to use the force the government, that is totally untrue. what we are saying is let's go
with the constitution, if in fact there is a change to be made in the cultural understanding of marriage, let it be a decision of the people, not the decision of five judges, where they have created a definition of marriage and consistent with 2500 years of definition. inconsistent of scholarly knowledge of what is in the vestiges of children and our communities across the country. host: that being said, let me get your response to what the governor of kansas said, recently issuing an executive order on religious liberty, in response to the same-sex marriage ruling. what do you think of that action? might we see more of this? guest: i think we will see more of it.
people understand that while there are those who would like to concentrate power in the executive branch inside the beltway, or scede more power to the courts, at the end of the day, this is a union that is different because it is "we, the people," who are empowered to set the course of our cultural advancement. not an imperial president or five justices through judicial fiat. you will see folks understand that states need to speak up, local communities need to speak up, we need to make sure we amplify the voice of the people. if you take a look at how this
was going when the people spoke, only a handful of states -- three or four states -- actually where the people spoke said that marriage was something other than a union between one man and one woman. it was through judicial fiat, or legislators, and i will grant you that legislators are the representatives of the people, but if you even couple those states with the states that didn't directly by a vote of the people, you're talking about 17 states. you have had over 30 states who have said it is the union between one man and one woman. with the courts, through the course of this debate, and with the stroke of a pen the courts have now said that the voice of those people in those states can be trampled upon and rendered them meaningless. that is something that people
will not let stand, just as they did not let the dred scott decision by the supreme court stand, they will not let this stand without chamita's push back -- tremendous pushback. we are a government by the people for the people. we the people, have a voice, and we will not surrender our birthright as americans to wrongheaded decisions. host: we are moving on to don in ohio. caller: good morning. good morning, ken blackwell, i voted for you. a former dollars -- dallas cowboys. i thought i would call in for my former republicans. i'm for traditional marriage.
jesus is listening and the holy spirit. i say, let's get ready for revival in america. what's more, give us a change of heart, and that lifestyle will disappear. god bless you and god speed. if you ever run for governor again, i will vote for you again because you played pro football. god bless you. host: already. guest: thank you, sir. let me say, i dig it is important -- i think it is important that we take us a step back. some of the questions as to why there would be resistance to a court decision can be answered, or at least looked at within the context. we have, for instance, laws around our borders. we have laws that direct are our
immigration process, but we have cities that step on those laws ignore those laws, and create sanctuary cities. we had to decision by the supreme court that said that the obama administration should put a halt to some of its so-called global warming regulations, but we had the director of the epa say, the way i interpret this legislation, we have wiggle room and will continue to go forward. i do not want to put bible believing christians and jews, and folks of other faiths who believe in national marriage between one man and woman in this category of being resistant to the orders of the court. that sort of resistance, that difference of interpretation costs a whole host of issues
that we should be concerned about. there are those of us that are struggling with this issue on marriage, but we are also struggling on other fronts to make sure we do not give up what has made us an exceptional nation. that is we have put a harness on our constitution, a harness on the reach and scope of government, because we know there is a direct correlation between limiting gover government's power and optimizing liberty. host: our guest is senior fellow at the family research council ken blackwell is in cincinnati. we will take a call now from florida, joseph. caller: good morning. i just wanted to echo the
gentelman, i think he was from dallas. i would like to throw out there to folks who listen, we have a lot of folks in this country who are not followers of christ. i came to christ three or four years ago, actually four years ago in six months. it was an awesome expense for me. i want folks to know that just because i follow christ, because i read the bible, does not mean that i am challenge every day by the world. this lady talked about divorce. we are faced by this every day. we try to live up to something that we know we will not live up to. mr. blackwell, i also want to comment on some of this is these businesses. they are not churches. at the mom-and-pop photographers, or whoever, who do not want to participate in
same-sex marriages. i think their rights need to be upheld. again, those who do not follow christ, should be saying, wait a minute, that person has the freedom to say no. if i wanted to go out there and say, i am only making things for gay weddings, i should have the right to do that. i would like your comments and to know what your organization is doing to help those businesses. guest: thank you sir. let me start with something in the news today. a municipal judge in toledo ohio basically was approached he was on the bench and asked to conduct a same-sex marriage. two lesbians wanted to marry. he conveyed to to them that he did not believe in same-sex
marriage, that there were other folks who could conduct their wedding, and if in fact they were willing to wait a few minutes or a couple of hours they would be accommodated. the couple was married. now, there is a chamita's push -- there is a tremendous push to get him impeached from the bench. there is was again a free exercise provision in terms of religious liberty that is being challenged by folks who want to hammer folks into disbelief and disassociation from their religious beliefs. i believe that we are going to see this played out, not only in the courtrooms, and not only in
bakeries and businesses photographers, but we will see it played out in the classroom where you will have public school teachers saying that they are not going to teach that johnny has two mothers or mary has two fathers. we are going to see a fight for control of curriculum at the local level. this will be played out -- frc has gone 24,000 petitions for judge mcconnell. we have been standing side-by-side with the clients. there are any number of public and just campaigns that specialize in religious liberty issues. i am on the becket fund for religious liberty board. we have the alliance defending
freedom. these are public sector -- public interest law firms that specialize in religious liberty. they will have plenty of work to do because again americans and christian believers, and jewish believers, and muslim believers folks who believe as articles of faith that religion is the union between one man and one woman will not just abandon their religion. we know that the american experience, an american exceptionalism grew out of folks in search of religious liberty. it is our first human right. host: i was going to ask, will the family research council be endorsing in 2016, and really,
which candidate do you think a next best with the social conservatives these days? guest: there are a number of candidates. our position is that this is a pretty good field. there are differences among the candidates in the field. i believe that giving them an opportunity to speak to the issues to showcase their experience, to give them an opportunity to go into the homes via tv and grassroots organizations to american families across the country is a healthy thing. it is way too early. we are excited that not only do we have the all-star game cincinnati on tuesday, in cleveland, ohio on august 6, we
will have the first debate among the republicans -- the republican candidates. we are going to stand ready to advance the notion of religious liberty. fic, through its 501(c) four and its pac can engage. frc is a public policy organization that advances ideas and public policies. we are a leading inside the belly organization to events religious liberty with ties to organizations in all of our 50 states outside of the beltway. host: let's move on to matt in concord, new hampshire. caller: hello and good morning.
it is great to be an american. in six days, i'm getting married . i live in new hampshire. i'm getting married in new york. i decided to get married on the side of the lake in a beautiful vineyard. when i was planning my wedding which took quite some time, i contacted 37 pastors, reverence priests, when everyone to call them. everything one of them told me no, i'm not a member of the church. i wanted to get married in a beautiful area. they all told me no. i took the answer. i'm going to get married by a judge. i contacted 45 photographers and none of them -- i am married a woman, by the way -- but none of them asked me if i was marrying a man. it did not even come up. the person making our cake, no questions.
the photographers didn't question it, the judge did not question it. we are america. there many to religions, many different beliefs. i wish we could all let everybody do what they want. if somebody tells me to do what did take pictures at my wedding, i move on to the next one. it is so easy to settle this way. everyone has the right to believe. we are christians, we wanted to get married by a pastor, but they have the reasons. and the whole reason they said no was because i was not a member of their church. i live for it or 50 miles away it is obvious, i'm not a member of the church. i just wish -- why are we battling over this. i'm a contractor. i build houses. i never asked my customers if they're lesbians, or homosexuals, or heterosexuals. (202) 748-8000host: thanks for calling,
let's hear from ken blackwell. guest: first, the reason we are going to engage in the battle is because frc, and many of americans and american organizations believe that religious liberties are the first among our human rights. it reflects the fact that we are not just mere economic or political animals, we in fact our folks of conscious. religious liberty reflects our right to live our lives in accordance with our believes. the gentelman is right to the extent that we were engaged in a democratic process where the people were in discussions and
debates, full tour voting -- folks were voting up and down on same-sex marriage. it was going along just fine. that is why i was shocked that five justices circumvented the democratic process to create a new right. where is their right to redefine marriage in the constitution? it is just not there. justice kennedy has opened the door. if in fact he is saying that everybody has a right to be happy, then, he knows, and he knew full well that that would open the door to two men and one woman to say, we profess our
love to one another no again tonight, therefore, we should be allowed to be married. before people say that is a stretch, and the united nations, i served as the u.s. investor to the human rights commission for three years. two years under bush 41, and most of the year under bill clinton. i was working on projects in bosnia. in the united nations, there are some 45 countries that allow for polygamy, and only a handful that allow -- now with the united states the number has increased -- but about one third of the country's that allow for polygamy, only about one third of them allow for same-sex marriage. what makes people think that we will not have to entertain this in our courts.
what will be the fallback? we have basically said that not our interest of the nation, or states, or communities. not in the interest of the context in which we rear are kids. as a consequence, it will not be long before polygamy will be allowed, if we follow the courts and the logic of the five justices that created a right to redefine marriage. they have opened the door. people will think that we all have a right to redefine marriage and if we can profess love, we can move from the union between two people to a union between three people. it is plain as day, it is
coming, and there are already folks lined up to go to court. host: more from justice kennedy on religious freedom. host: we have time for a few more calls for ken blackwell who is in cincinnati. he is senior fellow for family empowerment with the family research council. it is coming from chicago now. caller: first of all, let me get this on the record. marriage is between a man and a woman, not two women and two men. mr. k blackwell, you keep
blaming the judges. i guess what? let's tell the truth about it. you say when you cannot go your way by votes, let's take it to the courts. this is something that you are asked for. be careful what you wish for. the judges did not come in and take these cases on their own. you took it to the judges. now that the judges did not act in your benefit, now the judges are the worst thing since president obama. the same thing with obamacare. you could not take no for an answer, see took it to the court. quit blaming the judges. blame your party for wanting to eat cake too. now they do not have cake, you will cause 50 states to be under this ungodly long.
-- law. host: your response? guest: i would agree with the car that the courts have gotten out of hand, and the courts have gotten out of hand with justices that have been appointed by republicans, as well as democrats. our fingerprints are on that. that does not change the fact that the courts have gotten out of hand, and whether it is obamacare, the courts have gotten out of hand. in the obamacare case, we had the chief justice, justice roberts, legislating from the bench. he got out of his lane into the lane of the legislator, and turned the balance of power in the government on its head. i think we have a real problem with this extraconstitutional
reach of various units of government. whether it is the executive branch with the theory, or the legislative -- with the epa or the legislative branch. i will give you an example. we have patent legislation, we are now under the guise of patent reform watching this congress creep into attacking individual entrepreneurs, and the entire innovation field. so much so that if you turn to "the washington post," or "the washington times," you will see an ad where they are challenging, saying enough is enough.
no more. frank, no more obamacare, no more washington fixes. we are saying no to a point that i said earlier, and that is that government, in this case federal government can manage our economy better than free market. we are speaking out as republicans, is concerned americans, as defenders of the constitution, as believers in judeo christian efforts. we are speaking out. we are engaging them across, as well as republicans, who want to make sure that we do not just trash what has made us an exceptional nation. that is that we have empowered citizens. we are not subjects, we are citizens. we in fact have put a check on the judiciary, legislative, and
executive. our call as the family research council is a party lines. that is why we are helping judge mcconnell, who is a democrat, in his fight for religious liberty. host: barry from houston, texas thank you for waiting. barry is an independent. caller: good morning, how are you sir? how are you doing this morning? host: we are doing great. guest: just fine. caller: the reason i called it is because i feel -- i first want to preface this by saying that i do believe marriage is between a man and woman, but that is my personal beliefs. i think this boils down to -- are we going to legislate morality or freedom? i think that is what the founding fathers put the cross in the constitution about the separation of church and state.
we're doing this under the guise of religious liberty, but we have to ask ourselves, are we a democracy or are we a theocracy masquerading as a democracy? people wanted to vote on gay marriage in 2012, and i think the conservative party got a shock when they lost this in the supreme court. you said earlier, this is a government for the people and by the people. i may disagree with it, but in a true democracy, it is supposed to be majority rules. why was is not put on the ballot? people want to integrate this decision, by do i did not hear this great outcry when citizens united pastsed. as far as the free market goes and forest -- florists who do not want to cater to gay
weddings, the free market will dictate. for every one business that does not want to favor same-sex couple, this is america. there will probably be 10 other businesses that will be more than willing host: thank you. ken blackwell. guest: good point. the color and i would agree that we should not destroy the free market context of our economy with the empowerment of a big federal government or a government at any level. we need to let the buyers and sellers in markets sort a lot of things out. not the courts or the legislatures. but let's be real about something. the democratic process was playing out. i'm not talking about polls. this gentleman stated that 50%
of folks are for marriage. that is through a poll. the only polls that really count are the ones taken at the ballot box. as voters across this country in their jurisdictions voted on this, the overwhelming majority of voters said that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. so he should be on my side. the caller should be on my side saying, why did the courts short-circuit the democratic process? and that was because of folks who are supporters of same-sex marriage new that they would not win it state-by-state in the democratic process. they weren't winning it and they would not win it. so the caller and i could agree about the power of free markets and i asked him to join the
coalition of the club for growth and american conservative union. and their push to stop this assault on innovation and innovators and entrepreneurs is being conducted under the guise of patent reform. but most importantly he needs to get on the bandwagon and defend religious liberty because once you destroy religious liberty, you infect destroy what has made us a unique and exceptional nation. host: we have one more call. barry n houston, texas. independent. good morning. -- barry in houston, texas. independent. good morning. caller: you came back to me by mistake.
mr. blackwell, what you are saying about the free market. we see eye to eye there. the point you are missing is -- there's a lot of things in this country that are illegal. legal. gambling is legal in the form of lottery. in a democracy, you don't always get your way. i think conservatives have gotten so accustomed because they are so agenda driven to going their way that when the democratic process does not work out in their favor, then it seems like they throw tantrums like these. guest: that is a great point. but you are stepping on the facts. the fact is that i embrace the democratic process. state-by-state. let's take ohio for example. when this was voted on by the people it won with over 60% of
the ballot. people can tell me that things are changing in terms of polls but the way you undo that is take it back to the ballot. you don't have judicial fiat. there is doublespeak with the caller. he says he is for the democratic process but now he is saying it's ok to trample the democratic process when it doesn't give you the result you want. this is the beauty of our country. and this is what i think the supreme court missed. through a bear majority, five judges short-circuited the democratic process. this was being played out neighbor to neighbor. within our 50 states. that is the beauty of we the people and the democratic process that was believed in and
structured by the framers of our constitution. it empowered the people, not the courts and not the executive branch. and we are watching this played out in other arenas. sanctuary cities, and epa director who says she's going to just ignore the courts. it is a pleasure to be able to engage in the sort of dialogue that washington journal affords both lawmakers and ordinary citizens. host: our guest has been 10 blackwell, former mayor of cincinnati, ohio. he is currently senior fellow for family empowerment at
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> later in the week legislation on the drought in california and financial regulations. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings and news conferences bringing you events that shape public policy. and every morning, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers and journalists and your comments by phone facebook and twitter. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> wisconsin governor scott walker today announced he's running for president. he'll have the official announcement at 6:15 p.m. eastern and you can see it live
from waukesha, wisconsin on our companion network c-span3. earlier today, governor walker released an online video announcing his candidacy. >> for too long they've said we have to compromise our principles to win. scott walker showed the path to victory is to run on our principles conservative, bold, decisive. he balanced budgets cut taxes, beat the special interests improved education created jobs and showed how to fight and win. >> america needs new fresh leadership, big bold ideas from outside of washington. actually get things done. wisconsin, we didn't nibble around the edges, we enacted big, bold reforms, took power out of the hands of the big government special interests, gave it to the hardworking
taxpayers. lives are better because of it. we fought and we won. a republican field, there are some who are good fighters, they haven't won those battles. there are others who have won elections but haven't consistently taken on the big fights. we showed you can do both. now i'm running for president to fight and win for the american people. without sacrificing our principles we won three elections in four years in a blue state. we did it by leading. now we need to do the same thing for america. not too late, we can make our country great again. join our cause help us fight and win for america. >> governor walker following up his campaign video with a speech to supporters live tonight on c-span3 at 6:15 p.m. eastern time. >> this weekend on c-span's road to the white house two major political events from
iowa. and we're the only place you can watch or listen to these events in their entirety. friday night at 8:00 eastern, we'll be live in cedar rapids for the iowa democratic party hall of fame dinner. it will mark the first time that all five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage. and all day saturday beginning at 11:a.m. eastern, we'll be live in ames for the family leadership summit where nine leading republican candidates can scheduled to speak. on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. c-span's road to the white house, 2016, we take threw. >> the house in recess until 6:30 p.m. eastern time, when members return to vote on some of the bill dess baited today. most of today's legislation deals with small business administration loan programs. including loans to businesses affected by hurricane sandy. expanding the small business administration's microloan programs, and another bill waiving fees under a loan program for veterans. later in the week, legislation
on the drought in california and financial regulations. >> joining us up in new york city this morning is cat 2k l, editor and publisher of the nation magazine. thank you for joining us. katrina vanden heuvel: good morning. paul orgel: bernie sanders speaks. you did a little bit of a q&a with the candidate. they call it his most revealing interview. the socialist presidential candidate sets out his vision for america. here is a look at the piece. they write here that in the beginning there were plenty of doubters, but two months into the campaign, everything about the sanders candidacy, the crowds, the poll numbers, the buzz is bigger than expected. it says something about the prospects for progressive politics. what does it say? katrina vanden heuvel: this is a economic populist moment.
the economic populist wing of the credit party is ascendant. someone was going to fill that space in 2016 and bernie sanders is filling it. it might have been elizabeth warren. but bernie sanders has staked out his ground. he is someone the nation has been covering since he entered congress in 1990. millions of people are meeting him for the first time. he announced only two months ago. the crowds just grow. part of it is the mainstream corporate media in this country has for a long time sort of police the parameters of the possible i would argue and led to a kind of downsize politics of excluded alternatives. the views bernie sanders holds about a more fair country and how to get there, tax increases on the very wealthy, the belief
that this country belongs to its citizens and not to billionaires -- debt-free education safe and secure retirement, expanded social security. what does it mean to be a socialist? it is essentially being a social democrat. he would be centerleft in many european countries. it is a modern new deal. i think bernie sanders and his issues are very much in sync. according to many polls with many american views. the mainstream media has said that he is french or his views are french. -- he is fringe or his views are fringe. he was a guest on meet the press for his first time in his 24 years in congress. where is john mccain is the most frequent guest on meet the press. that does not make sense. there should be a full breath of
dth of views. the nation is not endorsing anybody right now, but we want robust debate. and an airing of new ideas. that lift up at a moment when many people pay attention to a political system and other times they don't. in 2016, a lot more people will be paying attention than they might have. paul orgel: politico has a piece that says sanders's senate colleagues are stunned by his assent. -- ascent. is it the message or the messenger that is catching on? katrina vanden heuvel: very good question. you have a cohort in the senate. people like elizabeth warren, senator jeff merkley, tammy baldwin. these people share his views. but i think the media in this country too often does the horse
race to the detriment of giving people the issues. bernie sanders is running a serious campaign with serious ideas and solutions for the problems he sees in this country at a very serious time. in fact a crisis moment for democracy and our economy. i think he has caught the wave. is he more surprised about how it is all catching on? perhaps. but he himself has been a very sharp critic of a media which hasn't permitted the full range of views. he says he goes on and talks with reporters. at the end of those interviews people say what do you think of hillary clinton, instead of pushing him on his issues. he is not there to criticize hillary clinton or raise millions of dollars to create warped opposition ads. he is there to have a serious debate. is our country ready for such a campaign? i think we are seeing elements of such readiness.
but we haven't seen it. the other excitement, the day after he announced he raised $1.5 million. do i like to measure viability of candidates by their fundraising prowess? hell no. but he raised $1.5 million in 24 hours. he raised more than rand paul or ted cruz. i think there is an element of running as a small donor insurgent with real ideas campaign that people may be more ready for than many people have understood. paul orgel: phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for katrina vanden heuvel of the nation. the nation is celebrating its 150th anniversary. what does it mean to be 150 and what is new in store for readers these days? katrina vanden heuvel: i find it
astonishing. i find it astonishing to survive. think of the longevity. we were there for the launch of the telegraph. we were there for the launch of twitter. we just launched an extraordinary new website. it is very nimble and innovative. we are here largely i think because, though we cover politics and believe in movements which make fundamental transformational change, we are here because we believe in the power of telling truth to people, of challenging the conventional wisdom, of pushing the consensus and raising issues which at one time might seem heretical that at another time seem common sense. we were at the forefront of opposition to the iraq war in 2003. many liberals were not. we were accused of being anti-american, which is always what happens when you oppose government in wartime. 10 years later, the opposition
to the iraq war, the view that it was a catastrophe for this countriesy's security, the can common sense. martin luther king jr. was our civil rights correspondent for six years. james boldin wrote a report from occupied territory -- james baldwin wrote about policing abuses. toni morrison has an extraordinary essay in our special issue on the role of writers in the time of fear. we launched chris hayes who i hired at 28. he now has his own show. melissa harris perry, naomi klein, who was just speaking at the vatican. we have a slew of writers. we have tried to do investigative writing that makes change. we believe in journalism that
rights wrongs. the nation, 150 years old, i don't think many other places are going to make it that long. we plan to survive. katrina vanden heuvel:paul orgel: we will talk more about hillary clinton, coming up. let's get some calls in. carol is calling from florida. independent. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning katrina. i understand bernie sanders was promising $50 million for jobs and i would like to know who will pay for the jobs. what his idea is for paying the deficit down. and the government doesn't create jobs. so what jobs is he talking about exactly? katrina vanden heuvel: i have not seen that exact framing. , good caller.
i have seen that he has called for major infrastructure investment, which hillary clinton i believe today in her first major address on the economy will also second. i believe bernie sanders has put forward budgets. which i would argue are the most sensible common sense budgets floating around this country. because they call for beginning to pay down the debt but at the same time making investments in this country's future. there is a lot of money that sloshes around in terms of tax breaks for oil and gas companies, military companies, pharmaceuticals. these tax breaks aren't doing a lot except enriching companies which already are very rich. i think you can find ways to create a budget. by the way a budget is a moral statement, a values principle statement. you can find a way to do a
budget that is very responsible and beginning to pay down the deficit and at the same time making investments if you reallocate the money. there is a very interesting idea out there. it is not new. bernie sanders is one of the proponents. called a robin hood tax or wall street tax. tax wall street to invest in main street. i think you can really take on some of the companies which have reaped huge, huge riches to find ways without stopping them, but to just reframe and restrain them and bring that money back to reinvest in the country. what is the ultimate security? a healthy, literate, secure, country. with a rising middle class. bernie sanders talks a lot about the disappearing, beleaguered middle class. i think that is where budgets should be focused on. rebuilding a middle-class and true security at home.
paul orgel: to the hillary clinton speech today that you mention, we will have a live today at 10:00 on c-span. the wall street journal says that clinton will tilt toward the left in his economic plan. she will focus on her differences with republican rivals and accuse them of seeking growth without regard to whether the middle class thrives and say that raising incomes for all americans is the defining economic challenge of our time. the speech will also draw implicit contrasts with bernie sanders. he is focusing heavily on inequality. arguing that the economic pie should be divided more fairly and calling for taxes on the wealthy to pay for initiatives to aid the middle class. more on the battle here? katrina vanden heuvel: i hate to do this because i don't think bernie sanders's candidacy should be viewed as a foil to hillary clinton.
you see that too often in the coverage. i think his campaign and issues should stand on their own terms. we will see moving hillary clinton to speak more urgently to the defining issue of our time, which is how do you rebuild the middle class? she will not be as straight -- what she is talking about, first of all, in my mind, is it left wing to argue that people who work 40 hours a week should not live in poverty? that to me is humane. that to me is a politics the pope could support. by the way, the pope traveling around latin america talking about unfettered capitalism makes bernie sanders look like a centrist. but that is a different issue. hillary clinton is going to talk about the bottom-up wage stagnation what can be done to rebuild the middle class. she is going to talk about empowering workers. she is not simply going to focus
as so we democrats have for too long on the role of technology and globalization. she will make the point that we have this inequality, is not immaculate conceptions. politics and policy play a role to rebuild an economy that works for everyone. bernie sanders however gets more to the nub of the problem and it is a position poll that majorities of americans support which is increasing taxes on the very rich. i don't think you can really begin to address the defining crisis of our time which is inequality without taking that up. i know it is heretical, but the nation at 150 years old cover this years ago. president dwight eisenhower had a 90% marginal tax rate on the wealthiest in his presidency. no one is calling for that now because we have essentially moved into an era where we are trying to recalibrate after the erosion of the safety net over
40-60 years of largely republican assault. so i think hillary clinton's address will have interesting ideas, but i don't think she is going to talk as friendly as bernie sanders does about the importance of taking on banks too big to fail, ensuring they are responsible to the real economy, that they are not defrauding bilking and criminalizing the economy in which they have been so blessed to work in. paul orgel: we will go to michelle in wisconsin, a democrat. you are on with katrina vanden heuvel. caller: good morning. i was calling because i do like bernie sanders. he is straight and upfront. he wants to take on wall street and the big banks that tend to put failure in our economy. i believe that for our economy
to get a boost and go in the right direction we need to tax the wealthiest people. they seem to get around on these tax breaks and everything. and yet the republicans will say, oh, that is just a tax break and the poor middle-class are getting handouts. well if the big corporations that are million dollar profits and billion dollar profits should be able to pay their taxes on those things, and i am thankful that bernie sanders is going to be straight and take on wall street because a lot of our failures in our economy is because of them controlling so much stuff. that we just -- the poor in the middle class just don't have a chance anymore. i don't understand it. paul orgel: thanks for calling. katrina vanden heuvel: i talked
earlier about the ascendancy of a kind of populist wing and i mean that in the best sense of the term. because there is also a right-wing populism that roams the world. a kind of economic progressive populism -- that there is far more attention being paid now to the middle class low income workers. low income people. and we forget, our contributing editors of many years, the great essayist gorbye vidal, one of his favorite expressions was "the united states of amnesia." the hyper financial is a should of ourization of our economy -- these weapons of mass destruction blew up our economy. the reckless casino capitalism that is so much a part of wall street. these exotic instruments which bankers sometimes don't even know about. i think we need to rein that in
so there is more connection between the real economy and this wall street economy. there are simple things that are just matters of raw fairness. why is it as warren buffett, a billionaire, says that he pays fewer taxes than his secretary? there are so many tax breaks because the very richest have something that i would call the income defense industry. they have the best lawyers the best accountants, the best investment advisors. there is no reason that private equity firms should have something called this carried interest tax break where they get off paying far lower taxes on investments capital gains tax -- let me put it simply. wealth should be taxed at a higher rate than work. and i think it is very unfair in this country that wealth is taxed often at lower rates than work. and so people get shafted. and in that shafting, people
like bernie sanders find an anchor and a passionger and a passion among millions who want to write the right the wrongs. it is not revenge or vengeance. it is fairness. it is a fair deal that we are trying to get back. paul orgel: let's go to a republican in illinois. john, you are on with the editor and publisher of the nation. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. paul orgel: what would you like to say? caller: more people should read the federalist papers that was written in 1787. uhh. about energy, in politics. and uh. what is happening today. it is in the book. uh.
exactly detail. articleed. article number nine is exactly about what happened with the recent lag flag issue. article number 11 is about commerce in the navy. and uh number 64 is about treaties. everything that is happening today is in the book. business should be taxed as commerce. the business should be taxed but not the wealthiest person. that is more like an income tax. and, uh katrina vanden heuvel: but good caller what's going on with the corporations is massive tax evasion. listen, i am not antibusiness. i think there is a role for business. honest, strong business which helps create jobs.
that helpedtoo often these corporations are truly unpatriotic. they shut down factories in communities. they take their money out of the country. so that they don't get taxed. they don't contribute to the revenue base of this country. i think in that lack of patriotism, we need to say let's strike a new deal. and that term new deal i am not using lightly. we need a new deal. a new social contract. and that is something that is very much pro-democracy and very much it seems to me coming back to the federalist papers, at the heart of the best role in this country is a social contract that honors the rights of workers, the contributions of workers, communities, and gives business the right to do well. but this maximization of short-term profit, which will request is going to talk about the failure to invest long-term
in communities the ripping off of profits in order to benefit a few shareholders or to take money and reinvested in profits. all of this is not part of what i think founding fathers really thought about when they thought about the role of commerce and business. in this good country. paul orgel: what do you make of this so-called trust gap concerning hillary clinton? is it real in your view? what has caused it in your view? what can be done about it? katrina vanden heuvel: on some level, i try to avoid the personality scrum coverage of campaigns. i want to see where she moves on the issues. but i do think that -- it is an extraordinary situation. i have never accepted that the clintons are a dynasty. the bushes are a dynasty. rand paul and ron paul are a
dynasty. the clintons are a political marriage. hillary clinton has had an extraordinary career. i do think in her handling of the e-mails for example, i think it is not at all clear that any laws were violated. but there was athere was trimming here and there. and the danger, as she, in her first interview last week, she was reading lawyers notes, as opposed to speaking from the heart, it confirms the narrative that has floated around the clintons for a wild. they play by their own rules. it compounds that narrative. it is a problem. i think she has a companion -- a campaign. there hasn't even been a first debate. i think the debates should be moved up and there should be
more of them. i think she has the ability to address that. i think policy, how people will lead a country, a staggering difference between the republicans and democrats on the economic issue. the republicans have tried to roll back health care, cut medicare, lower taxes for the richest. those are the fundamental issues. hillary clinton has a chance to speak to the issues more honestly. we hope to get an interview with hillary clinton. we would like to interview all of the candidates and post sharp questions. host: we move on to an independent collar. good morning. caller: good morning.
katrina, you talk about these corporations like they are a democratic system. they're are not, they are owned by shareholders. you called it unpatriotic. they are not in a democracy. there is the dividing line. what is the progressive nature of our country, our national debt is $18 trillion. where does that end? where does any sort of trust happen for the average american citizen when it comes to -- we can't protect our borders, we don't have a country if we can't defend the borders. what are we supposed to say to our kids? we are going to be $25 trillion in debt. the biggest national security risk is our national debt. guest: i disagree with that. i think one takes the debt seriously, but there is a fetish about the debt. we have the ability to live
within our means irresponsible pay down the debt, but do so in a way that is in sync with the values of our country. the fetish with the debt, we have the ability to control our own currency. to revisit policies and regulations that, by the way the corporations didn't see the short-term maximization of profits as part of the corporate charter, but that is what has happened. corporations have to operate in a national environment. they don't want to, they want to be free of all politics. but that would lead to anarchy. that would be a true -- world, if corporations just ran roughshod over sovereignty. they operate by their own rules
because they have the money to lubricate systems. they can buy their representatives, to have seven lobbyists for every representative. you can't say that corporations are unto themselves. they are chartered by states. they have to abide by certain rules and regulations. in terms of the border? i don't think this discussion is totally off base. the wrong questions are being asked. why are people coming here? we need to examine the root causes in the country from which immigrants are coming. they can come into this country in many ways, they have contributed in many ways. i think donald trump is a bully and a big it. he is jumpstarting a conversation that the republican party is trying to avert its eyes from. in so many ways, he is threaded through what the republican
party has become with its strategy, in light of the racist funders and policies and politics and people in the party. they have a lot of soul-searching to do. it is a suicidal politics for the republican party. it is an ugly, odious politics. talking about right-wing populist, you hear that donald trump in europe, he is similar to the neofascists running around france or eastern european countries. it is a danger sign. i am torn between people -- media giving him more coverage. coverage is often a disinfectant, one hopes. he will hopefully falls to -- if you want to talk debt, he has built his empire on a ponzi
scheme. the time -- he became a folk hero. the folk heroes go down. host: david in florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning katrina how are you this morning? young lady, i respect your clarity and how you speak. i think america is quite intrigued with how you deal with things. i like to ask you a question and i would like you to give me an answer of whether i'm right or wrong in the way i thinking. the last segment was on lgbt community and what the supreme court did. as far as i'm concerned, underneath the constitution under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we have a
government that is charged with not only taken care of the majority, but also taking care of the minority. when i look at what the supreme court did with the decision for the lgbt, i don't see it in a religious way. religions are not losing any of their rights. i see it as the supreme court holding up the rights of the minority, which you are charged to do in the constitution of the united states. do you agree or disagree? guest: i agree. i don't see any religious liberties being infringed. i see an expansion of freedom. if i might add to what you said, so often, court decisions, after a long. of social movement, social transformation.
the court ratifies what has already been going on in communities in various movements , in free association of people. talking about the constitution. i think court decisions do protect the rights of minorities, to expand freedom and in that, i agree with you. host: what do you make of the debate over the confederate flag? guest: i think it has been healthy for this country. i come back to the united states of amnesia. the nation, don't forget, it was founded by abolitionists committed to ending slavery in the aftermath of the civil war. the great historian of reconstruction, abraham lincoln
on the unending battle to secure the rights which we are given. but that battle goes on. the confederate flag, i see racism and oppression. i suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2499 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: union calendar number 139. h.r. 2499 a bill to amend the small business act to extend small business capital to help create jobs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] 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.] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the craze are 410, the nays are one. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on natural resources be authorized to file a supplemental report on h.r. 2898. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the additional motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and
nays are ordered and on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any recorded vote on the postponed question will be taken later. the house will come to order. will all members please clear the well and take their conversations outside. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 179 a bill to designate the facility of the u.s. postal service located at 14 3 thrd avenue northwest in chisholm minnesota, as the james l. oberstar memorial post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 179. an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 14 3
railroad avenue northwest in chisholm, minnesota, as the james l. oberstar memorial post office building. the speaker pro tempore: will the house please come to order. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan and the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. duncan: i rise today in support of s. 179 a bill to name the post office in chisholm minnesota, after a disting westerned a very distinguished former member of this body, congressman james oberstar. the bill was introduced by senator amy klobuchar and our
colleague, mr. nolan introduced a house version. i think it is appropriate to monitor his legacy by naming a post office in his hometown of chisholm. he was born in chisholm minnesota, on september 10, 1934, and graduated from the high school there in 1952. . he later earned a master's degree from the college of europe in brussels belgium. he of course, as a lot of people knew he was very fluent in french and liked to express himself on many trips in french. before running for congress himself, he served on the staff of -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: members, please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from tennessee
will continue. mr. duncan: thank you mr. speaker. before running for congress himself, congressman oberstar served on the staff for congressman john blatt knick of minnesota from 1963 to 1974. in that capacity he worked with congressman blatt knick on all of the legislation from the public works and transportation committee and congressman oberstar the last three years became the chief of staff for that committee. congressman oberstar was first elected to represent the people of minnesota's eighth district in 1974. among many notable achievements, he served as chairman of the committee on transportation and infrastructure in the 110th and 111th congresses. in total he served in 18 congresses. sadly, mr. oberstar passed away on may 3, 2014 in maryland. he certainly was a devoted public servant who left a remarkable legacy of service to
the citizens of minnesota and the united states. once earlier in this congress there was another tribute for congressman oberstar. at that time i said this. it is an astounding figure to think that a man worked on this one committee for 47 years of his life but he's done so, he did so with great honor and distinction. in fact, i think almost everybody knew that there was no one in the congress and probably never has been anyone in the history of the congress who has known transportation issues and understood them and worked on them longer and harder and with more effectiveness than jim oberstar did. at one point he was chairman of the aviation subcommittee. in 1994, after the election, the republicans took control and i had the honor of becoming the chairman of the aviation subcommittee and served for six years in that position, which was the maximum allowable on our side. when i took over as chairman of the aviation subcommittee i
frequently heard jim oberstar referred to as mr. aviation. so i went to him and asked for his help and he helped me and guided me and gave me advice that to think this day i appreciate very much and he did so in a very kind and humble way. then of course he reached the pinnacle and became the chairman of that committee, a committee that he loved, he was a great chairman, he worked across the aisle in a very bipartisan way and i think he tried to help everyone on both sides of the aisle and others in any way that he possibly could. so i just wanted to join in this opportunity to pay tribute to a man who was a great member a great american and a great member of this body, congressman james oaker star, and i -- oberstar, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i certainly associate myself with the remarks of mr. duncan and i yield myself such time as
i may consume. i'm asking my colleagues to join me in supporting s. 179 that is the bill that would designate a united states postal service located at 14 3rd avenue northwest in jim oberstar's hometown, chisholm, minnesota and it would be called the james l. oberstar memorial post office. mr. speaker, i am speaking today for a memorial for jim oberstar, not only because of my position on the committee, but for me this is an act of love and respect. i'm speaking for a man known in this house as one of singular
intellect and personal qualities. jim was a native of chisholm. he graduated and nobody who knew jim will be surprised at this, assumea consume laudy from the college of st. thomas in st. paul, minnesota. then he got a master's degree in belgium. by the way, that may be where he picked up his french, which he playfully used on us at every opportunity. he was not -- jim was not long out of college, then he began working here in this house and working here in this house was to determine his destiny for the rest of his life. he first served as clerk of the subcommittee on rivers, then as
-- as it was then called, rivers and harbors. he became administrator of the committee on public works now called transportation and infrastructure when representative john blatnick became chairman in 1970. four years later jim himself ran for congress succeeding mr. blatnick who retired from minnesota's eighth district of congress. then jim served 36 extraordinary years in this house, became the longest serving member from minnesota in the house of representatives . during that period, jim oberstar became the leading expert on transportation and infrastructure in the nation.
mr. chairman for example, he served as chairman of the subcommittee on aviation when it passed legislation increasing our investment in airports and air security, which we are still benefiting from. later he became ranking member of the full committee. there he worked tirelessly for something we're trying to get in this house now, for that user fee which used to be bipartisan ands was often raised and -- and was often raised and helped jim and those who served with him improve and make our system with its reliable transportation and infrastructure that we so often celebrate today. and i mean all of it. roads and bridges and transit alike.
i think we were very fortunate when in 2007 jim oberstar was elected chairman of the committee on transportation and infrastructure, because it was during his chairmanship that the economy went down and you really needed an expert on transportation and infrastructure, since investment in transportation and infrastructure is the best investment for the dollar during a recession and that of course was the deepest recession since the great depression. his work during that time is still blossoming in the states. he held 300 hearings and passed almost 300 bills and resolutions out of committee and through the house.
nearly 200 of those pieces of legislation were approved by both houses, including the water resources development act , the bill that authorized the maintenance and construction of america's harbors, as well as funding for important wildlife habitat projects. mr. speaker, jim was a cyclist. he took transportation seriously, he cycled on the trails that so he loved. his knowledge of our work was so encyclopedic that democrats and republicans alike, when jim spoke listened hard because they knew they were getting a once in a lifetime d lesson -- once in a lifetime lesson in the complexities associated with transportation and infrastructure in our country. he was a particular leader on intermodalism which we all know
as the transportation wave of the future. it's with enormous sadness that we learned that jim oberstar passed away on may 2 2014. he was 79 years old. jim will long be remembered for his dedication to public service and for leaving his mark on transportation in our country. it's a mark that will never be erased. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia yields back. ms. norton: i don't yield back the remainder of my time, i yield back the remainder only of my time, not of all the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. ms. norton: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker i am pleased to represent the
sponsor of the house companion of s. 179, a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, and the gentleman who represents the very same district that jim oberstar represented, mr. nolan of minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. nolan: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank representative duncan and representative norton for the fine tributes to a fine member and a real credit to this institution. this bill honors our friend and our colleague in an important way. the late jim oberstar, by naming the united states post office in his hometown of chisholm minnesota, the james l. oberstar memorial post office. i'll never forget the first day that jim walked -- walked into the chamber through one of the side doors over here as a former member of the congress. and as he walked in and
proceeded down the aisle members recognized him and they started spontaneously, democrats and republicans alike, to applaud jim oberstar. and by the time he got to the well, the whole house was engaged in this spontaneous bipartisan genuine and loving and appreciation applause for jim oberstar. i've never seen anything like it and i hope to see a lot more things like it in the days to come. but what a remarkable moment that was. it was a real genuine spirit of affection for someone who worked really hard knew his material as good or about the he -- or better than anyone and was such a good nonpartisan when it came to what's good for america. never quite seen anything like
it. jim received more honors than he could count in life. and quite frankly he received even more in his passing. but i think it's safe to say that no honor would please him more than being recognized by his colleagues in the hometown of chisholm where jim grew up. chisholm, on minnesota's iron range, is where he learned the values of ideas as a star on his high school debate team they say he was a pretty good football player too, but he liked to recall that the editor of his hometown said to him, on a couple of occasions, jim, you're a really good debater, you really know how to argue. you might want to keep working at that. and how fitting that he would end up in the congress of the united states. it's also in chisholm where he learned about public service with his first working job for that editor, peddling papers
and -- to the minors and the -- minors and nining -- mining families and learning about the politics of the community. it's also where he learned hard work from his parents. jim's dad worked in the mines his entire life and hardly ever missed a day's work. chisholm is also the place where jim learned those old-fashioned values that brought him to the house of representatives. he believed that a good idea was a good idea and it didn't matter if it was a republican idea or a democratic idea. all that mattered was that someone had offered the idea and he had such enormous respect for the process and for his colleagues that he gave every good idea an open and an honest and a fair hearing. and if it turned out to be something good for the nation, why it was good enough for jim. regardless of the origin.
so in urging my colleagues to honor jim by passing this bill, i'd like to ask that we honor him by rededicating ourselves to that spirit of bipartisanship, that spirit of working together, that spirit of getting things done that enabled jim oberstar to accomplish the many things that he did that were cited by my colleagues here just a few moments ago. that was the spirit that epitomized jim oberstar and that's how so he was successful in getting things done. mr. speaker, i strongly urge my colleagues to pass this legislation. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i yield two minutes to another member from minnesota, ms. mccollum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the
ranking member for the time. i rise to honor the late jim oberstar. the congressman from minnesota's eighth district. for 36 years, jim oberstar proudly served the residents of minnesota's eighth congressional district. during his decades of service on the house transportation infrastructure committee representative oberstar made investing in the future prosperity of this country a top priority. his commitment to laying the foundation for 20% -- for 1st century transportation infrastructure to help make travel safer and keep millions of americans working on the job and strengthen our economy. he work and accomplished all of that. on august 1, 2007, the interstate 35w bridge collapsed in minneapolis. 13 people lost their lives including some of my constituents and many more were injured. chairman oberstar moved with
incredible speed to draft legislation to respond to the tragedy and within 48 hours, he had passed a bill on the floor. on august 6 less than one week after the disaster, funding for construction of the new bridge was signed into law but he didn't stop there. chairman oberstar works to call attention to the epidemic of weak bridges all across our country. he fought to make bridge repair and replacement the focus of the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. because of his commitment, thousands of bridges were thoroughly inspected, repaired or in fact replaced. not that this was jim's -- not that jim's response was anything out of the ordinary. throughout his career, jim remained committed to fighting for the people he served and the causes he believed. in it's fitting that the post office in chisholm, minnesota, will be named the james l. oberstar memorial post office because we know the success of a post office, after all, is
interconnectedly linked with interstate highways, runways, docks and roads. because that's how the mail gets delivered and that's how we're connected throughout this world. the imprint left by congressman jim oberstar in every mode of transportation twout our -- throughout our country cannot be overstated. and on a personal note, jim both professionally and personally helped give the new congress wam from minnesota a lot of things. i want to just say again that the post office in his hometown, chisholm, minnesota, be known as the james l. oberstar memorial post office building, a testament to his life's work. jim, we thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized.
ms. norton: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields three minutes to the gentleman from illinois. mr. lipinski: i rise in support of s. 179, honor the memory of jim oberstar a colleague, mentor, and friend to me and to many more. from his time serving as a staff member to his tenure as chairman of the house committee on transportation and train structure, jim spent every day of his 47 years on capitol hill working to improve our nation's infrastructure and in turn the lives of americans across the country. i was proud to serve with jim on the t&i committee for years and to work on thing it's a help ensure our quality of life is high and economy is strong. jim's thoughtful, forward-thinking approach to our jation's -- nation's infrastructure needs was built from years experience and
careful deliberation and it earned him the well-deserved nickname mr. transportation. during his time as chairman committee members knew they were going to learn something when they arrived at the committee room and they're going to leave on a mission. jim was truly a visionary when it came to our nation's infrastructure system but he didn't just talk about what needed to be done. whether it was mornedizing our nation's aerospace improving rail safety, moving freight on time, rehabilitating transit systems or advancing cycling, jim got things done. that's because jim had a tireless work ethic and was a great leader and friend as he was a policy expert. jim treated people well and it didn't matter whether you were a republican or democrat. he was willing to work with you and help your district and constituents. my ad-- the time i spent
cycling with jim i learned more than i expected to be able to learn on a bike ride. jim was known for his love of the french language and spoke it flawlessly. what fewer people know is he perfected his french in a program -- a volunteer program that predated the peace corps. he was teaching french to creole people in haiti. it was all an outgrowth of his strong catholic faith. mr. speaker, congress and the nation are better because of jim oberstar and those of us who worked closely with him are better public servants colleagues, and people because of him. s. 179 is a fitting tribute to jim oberstar and i urge its passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized.
mr. duncan: i have no other speakers if ms. norton is ready to close for the minority, i'll close for our side. ms. norton: we have one more speaker. mr. duncan: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to ms. jackson lee of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the ranking member and the manager of this legislation. i've had the privilege of being here during the mighty leadership of jim oberstar and i would really call him america's congress penn and he would be an eloquent spokesperson today for not isolating his advocacy for his own reor state. but he was he would rise up on the floor of the house to speak eloquently about the needs for the refurbishing, the rebuild, the restoration of america's infrastructure.
transportation infrastructure from highways and bridges and dams to airports and train stations and tracks. mr. speaker, i just came in today from philadelphia on amtrak and as you know, on train, we engage with our fellow travelers. i guess we're called passengers but we're fellow travelers. it was interesting to engage with these constituents of america who were using this mode of transportation, they made a very valuable point. they said it is not the equipment of amtrak or whether the train can move faster than any other train, it is the infrastructure on which the train travels. it is the train tracks. it is the investment in that infrastructure to make amtrak what it needs to be. congressman oberstar certainly did not live in this part of the country. but he could see the general land kaip of -- landscape of
what america needed. i was very interested in hearing my colleague from minnesota speak of that time when the bridge collapsed, what a tragic incident, all of us were appalled and sad bd and it was amazing how general oberstar if you will new york quotes, took the -- if you will, in quotes, took the leadership role in that legislation. i want to thank him and his family for sharing jim oberstar, the frenchman he would like to say. and may i say, her see boe cue to -- mercy boe cue to you -- merci beaucoup to you, mr. observe star. mr. duncan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington.
ms. norton: jim oberstar nurtured us with his warmth and kindness. that's why you've heard members speak so eloquently about him today. i'm pleased that with this bill he will leave his own mark in his own hometown with a memorial post office named for him. i urge members of this house to vote for this bill. i yield back at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: i'm grate to feel mr. oberstar he helped me obtain many things for my district his last year in congress, august of that year he came to my district to dedicate a new transit system which the city of knoxville was kind enough to name for me. i was grateful to him spending
that day with me in knoxville. i can tell you that, i'm now in my 27th year in congress 25 of those were spent working with mr. oberstar and this nation is a better place today because o -- because of the work of congressman jim oberstar. i urge all my colleagues to support passage of this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 179. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ross let salesmen -- ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that i may address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ross let men: earlier today, the supreme leader's righthand man tweeted about what he called the victory of diplomacy before a nuclear deal between the p-5 plus one and iran was sealed. this is the same rejume that calls for death to america and our ally the democratic jewish state of israel and the same best -- despots who support terror across the globe aimed at u.s. interests. now we hear we may ka pitch rate and -- capitulate and end the arms emgarr -- embargo on iran and that the u.s. will lift all sanctions on day one.
and for what, mr. speaker? so that iran can keep in place every major piece of its nuclear infrastructure and iran can claim victory over the great satan and the little satan. this will be more than just a defeat for diplomacy. it will be a disaster that will set in motion a nuclear and conventional arms race in the world's most volatile region and who knows what dangers that will bring. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize the vocational guidance services program and the ability one program and mr. tubbs who visited my office a few weeks ago.
v.g.s. provides employment services designed to promote economic self-sufficiency for people with disability in the state of ohio and has maintained a strong presence in my district, ohio's third congressional district. mrs. beatty: the ability one program harnesses the purchasing power of the federal government to buy products and services from participating community based nonprofit agencies that are dedicated to training and employing individuals with disabilities. since 2004 nearly 900 area residents received employment opportunities through the vocational guidance services program. in fact last year alone v.g.s. provided employment for over 100 columbus-area people with disabilities. i commend v.g.s. and the abilities one program team for their dedication and commitment to helping individuals who are blind or have significant
disabilities to find employment in highway. i yield back. -- in ohio. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek reck fligs? -- seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the nuclear weapons agreement with iran is near it. will lift crude oil export sanctions on iran. this will be a billion-dollar boom to the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. meanwhile, here in america, the administration bans exporting our own crude oil. we can't even export texas light crude to our closest neighbor, mexico. the administration has it within its power to lift the crude oil export ban. the ban hurts the u.s. economy, thousands of oil industry workers have been laid off, half the drilling rigs in texas have been shut down. this administration seems to be more worried about making iran happy and wealthy than helping
the u.s. economy by creating energy jobs. why can't america get the same deal that iran is getting? while the administration lists the sanction -- lifts the sanctionson iran an exports, it should lift the oil exports on america. texas will even agree not to enrich uranium or develop nuclear weapons if the sanctions are lifted. and that's just the way it is. i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you mr. speaker. we're closing in on yet another deadline and yet another needlessly manufactured crisis at the end of this month. the re-authorization of the highway trust fund. two months ago this body passed a short-term extension of the highway trust fund at the very last minute, as is standard procedure nowadays here in the house. temporarily protecting 660000 jobs and extending 6,000
critical construction projects. republican house leadership has had more than a year to craft a bill that would repair our crumbling infrastructure, provide certainty to states and protect thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs, good paying jobs, hanging in the balance. enough of this brinksmanship. enough of this manufactured crisis. enough of the short-term patches that waste time and money on problems that we create for ourselves. it's time to pass a commonsense ambitious and long-term extension of the highway trust fund that rebuilds, renews and puts america to work. we just heard memorialized on this floor, former chair, the late jim oberstar, who headed the transportation and infrastructure committee. he knew this was sound investment in america. let's go forward. with that i thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this morning on the hallowed ground of the hill in dallas county, iowa a hero was laid to rest at the iowa veterans cemetery. this hero and patriot was adam james lambert. adam was 24 years old. he was a marine. he was an honorable young men who -- man who put others before himself so we could be safe and free. he was a depnledble and encouraging brother in arms to his fellow marines. long before adam was u.s.a. marine, he was just a boy -- was a u.s. marine, he was just brought joy and laster to his mother and father. he was a -- laughter to his mother and father. he loved his family so much and they loved him. over the weekend i attended a celebration of life service honoring adam. indeed all who attended were moved and touched in a beautiful way. mr. young: he will be missed so much but he will be remembered. i remember adam, i remember when i first met him.
he walked up to me with a wide grin and a firm handshake. he encouraged me, he spoke to me with kindness, he made me laugh and smifmente adam leaves a smile on -- smile. adam leaves a smile on all our faces. he will not be forgotten. may god bless his memory and his family and the days ahead -- in the days ahead. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? wrex, -- without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: we may be hours away from a deal with iran. the question before us is not is it a good deal or is it a bad deal or what should the executive branch of government do. the question before us is, what should congress do if we have a president who has signed the deal?
we don't know precisely what is in the deal, but we do know that it has advantages and disadvantages in the first year. because it causes the vast majority of iranian stockpiled and enriched uranium and the majority of their sent funals to be taken off the table. the disadvantage is it provides the iranian government with access to $120 billion-plus of its own money. we do know that in the next decade, the deal will be unacceptable. because next decade iran will be able to have massive enrichment facilities. so the question before congress is first, how do we prevent this deal from being morally binding on the american people next decade with that administration and that congress? and then the tougher issue is whether we want to forfeit the advantages, knowing there are disadvantages, of what the deal
does in its first year. it is this kind of analysis, not partisan screaming about is it a good deal, is it a bad deal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you mr. speaker. last week u.s. secretary of commerce and vice president and federal counselor signed a joint declaration that will provide a framework for cooperation between our two countries in areas such as work-based training, pathways to career development and the expansion of existing programs into new industry sectors. this notable agreement comes just one month after a similar signing with germany that was largely focused on apprenticeships and vocational education and training. as co-chair of the career congress -- congressional career and education caucus, i applaud these international partnerships and recognize
their role in helping us close our nation's skills gap. the skilled trade rts hardest jobs to fill in the united states, with recent data citing 550,000 jobs open in trade in transportation sectors. 246,000 jobs open in manufacturing. working with our allies to address this issue, will undoubtedly benefit our economy and allow us to remain globally competitive. i'm confident in our ability to make continued progress in the area of work force development and am grateful for the assistance of our international partners. thank you, mr. speaker, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there any other requests for one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. clyburn of south carolina for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the
gentlewoman from illinois ms. kelly, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that all members be given five days to revise and extend their remarks. i also scr -- i also have a written statement from congresswoman johnson to enter into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kelly: thank you. mr. speaker, we're here tonight to have an important conversation, a conversation that is long overdue, a conversation that is crucial to healing america's deep racial wounds. our topic being the confederate battle flag and why racial symbols matter. the charleston nine killings focused many of our attention on the significance, appropriateness and bigoted history of this flag. in 2015 why do so many still revere a flag that tolerated the shackling of people because of their skin? a flag that allowed human beings to be counted as 3/5 of a person, flag that was flown
during lynchings, the holding of children and one that symbolized a movement to deny education and equal treatment under our laws? 50 years since selma, we think of the freedom riders marchers, boycotters protesters and policymakers who pointed our nation in a more positive direction. they knew it was time to reject the traditions of the past. the civil rights movement symbolized the quest of equality and a change in mood for america. thousands from all backgrounds have the courage to join in peaceful protests, lunch counter sit-ins and boycotts at the expense of being jailed, beaten or killed. they did this for one nation and one flag. and in the way of these americans stood those who believed in the perseverance of inequality, who believed in an america white and colored, an america of two flags, and the
confederate battle flag represented their america. jim crow america saw states that seceded from the union reactioning -- reacting to the growth of the civil rights movement with the use of the confederate battle flag as the representation of their resistance movement. in 1956 the state of georgia incorporated the battle flag into its official state flag design. the movement continued into the 1960's where it met renewed and intensified opposition. opposition that waved the confederate battle flag in the name of continued racial oppression. in 1961, just two months after the sentencing of nine students arrested for a lunch counter sit-in in rock hill, south carolina, the confederate battle flag was raised over south carolina's state house during the centennial celebration of the civil war's opening. that same year in the neighboring georgia, shar lean hunter and hamilton jones are
the first two of a african-american students to be admitted to the university of georgia. their admission only came after a court order sent from the federal court. 11 days after arriving on campus, hunter and jones were attacked by a mob of white rioters who threw rocks and bottles at them while waving the rebel flag. the attacks sorp fierce that the dean of students suspended both hunter and hamilton for their own safety. now even with me highlighting this violence, we're told that the stars and bars are about heritage. that heritage, mr. speaker is not so subtle reminder to african-americans that they are less than. maybe not 3/5 of a person, but still not equal. this is a reminder that there are two classes of citizens and despite our declaration of independence, clearly -- independence clearly stating that all men are created equal this is the reminder that there's a lesser class and we'll never be equal.
but why are we-ering the heritage and flag of the hooded night riders of the clan at our says houses and in this congress instead of the flag of the freedom riders who died for a single, fair and equal america? two years after martin luther king jr. delivered his i have a dream speech before civil rights marchers, including our friend and colleague, congressman john lewis, a different group of civil rights heroes were greeted by police officers in selma, alabama, proudly displaying the confederate flag on the side of their helmets. these officers brutally beat the marchers and their actions were a remind that are dr. king's speech had not yet resonated in the hearts of those who needed to hear it most. but it was the undeterred resilience of the protesters who refused to back down and refused to resort to violence that persevered. it was the love, the respect and mutual understanding that displayed what was a stronger symbol of strength, honor and
heritage than the confederate battle flag. mr. speaker we have come a long way since 1965. but we still have a ways to go. we must move forward the needed progress, however, will not come if the federal government continues to provide american citizens with reminders of our hateful and oppressive past and a manner that legitimatizes such hate. i am glad to host this important special order hour with my colleagues, mr. payne from new jersey, to talk about where we go from here and why we continue to give energy to symbols of hate and division. and with that i yield to the kind gentleman from newark new jersey congressman dond payne. -- donald payne. mr. payne: mr. speaker, let me thank the gentlelady from illinois. a very timely topic, as we've seen what has transpired in our nation over the past several weeks.
it is incredible to me how fast this issue has moved over the past month. but it always seems that it takes a horrific act in this country for us to wake up and realize that may be something isn't right -- maybe something isn't right. nine people at church study on a wednesday night, not knowing their fate gunned down in cold blood by someone who actually said, you know they were so nice to me i almost didn't do it. but i had to.
last week in south carolina there was a monumental step in removing the confederate flag for its -- from the state capitol where it had shamefully flown for 54 years. but here in our nation's capitol last week republicans tried to go back to the future. house republicans had to pull a vote on a spending bill because some of their members opposed a measure that would ban confederate flags from national cemeteries. . when the democratic leader nancy pe he see, presented an opportunity for republicans to do the right thing and immediately remove the confederate flag from the capitol grounds, they punted. south carolina the birth place of the confederacy, had the courage to do what the house
republicans did not. remove that dreaded symbol. it is a symbol of incomprehensible hate. a hate that manifested itself in the massacre. since that unfortunate day one month ago, we as nation have been forced to look inwards at who we are and who we want to be. out of this immense grief of that dark day in charleston came a resounding call throughout our nation's -- throughout our nation to remove the confederate flag and other symbols of racism and racial supremacy. for many the removal of these symbols is a bodily injury call -- is a logical step in the trajectory of our nation, a necessary action on the path toward a more perfect union.
for others, calls to remove these symbols of hate are seen as attacks on the southern identity heritage, and culture. but arguing that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern pride celebrates a single homogenerals you culture. it means listening -- homogenous culture. it means listening to some voices at the expense of others. it means egg foreing the african-american experience throughout our nation's history, from the dark period of slavery to the civil rights movement to the present day. according to a report by the equal justice initiative 3000 -- 3,959 african-americans in 12 states were killed by the terror of lynching between 1877
and 1950. 3,959 americans. lynched. if we are going to refer to the past and debate over the confederate flag, certainly we needs to take all of this into account. the confederate flag has always stood for racial supremacy and bigotry. if we are to realize our nation's promise of justice and full equality we cannot embrace this symbol. eradicating symbols of hatred, violence, cruel oppression steeped in the racism is a critical step to confronting prejudice in our society. now we have all heard complaints that this debate does not matter that removing confederate flags and other symbols of hatred is a discontraction from the larger problem facing our nation such
as rampant gun violence. i agree that significantly more must be done to address racism and persistent inequality in our nation. i agree that we need meaningful gun reform. from ex-panting background checks to reducing online ammunition purchase, we need to create jobs, reduce wealth disparities and raise educational opportunities. but symbols matter. symbol legitimize public opinion and in doing so entrench attitudes and beliefs. at the same time they create meaning, shape actions a connect us to one another. and just as a symbol can connect us, they can tear us apart. mr. speaker, as i go to my
seat as i was talking to my staff the other day about this, and how much we were happy to see that flag lowered, the symbol is gone, but e-- but the sentiment remains. with that mr. speaker i yield back. >> thank you for those words. now it's -- ms. kelly: thank you for those words. now it's my honor to introduce the chairman of the congressional black caucus, mr. butterfield. mr. butterfield: i -- each of
you have spoken eloquently. for the past few weeks the nation has been focused on the confederate battle flags most fair-minded americans have asked the question, why is this flag continuing to fly on state grounds and federal lands and why are policymakers refusing to squarely address this issue? the confederate battle flag mr. speaker represents an era of american history that ended, or at least should have ended 150 years ago. this flag represents the years following president lincoln's election. those years starting in december of 1860, when we saw -- when they saw 11 southern states leave the union. the fancy name for their -- for their leaving the union, mr. speaker was secession but the reality was that these southern state were rebeling. they were in rebellion against the union. they organized a so-called
goth called the confederate states of america. they took up arms and fought against the union before -- for four long years until they surrendered. they then returned to the union. the confederate flag represents that era where southern states were resisting freedom for four million slaves. their continues to be elements today in our society who subscribe to separation of the races. how unfortunate. that thereto -- there continues to be elements in our society who believe in white supremacy. the question now, mr. speaker is do we constructively address the question of hate groups in america? do we continue to insist that other states remove symbols of white supremacy as south carolina has done? or do we continue to simply ignore racism. other states continue to display confederate flags and even in this capitol even in
this capitol you'll find eight statues of confederate soldiers who fought against the stars and spripes. so mr. speaker, i call on every american to bury, for good, the dark history of slavery and bigotry. we are a great nation. and we will be even greater when we can judge our neighbor on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin. let's remove these symbols from our view. thank you, mr. speaker, i thank each young of -- each one of the floor managers and i yield become. ms. kelly: thank you, congressman butterfold, for those fine wrds. many questions, why are -- those fine words. many questions, why are they still holding on? is it just tradition or something nor more? at this time i'd like to swro deuce the gentlelady from the district of columbia.
ms. norton: i want to thank my friend from illinois about the wonderful job they're doing here. i want to speak about why symbols matter and why this symbol must not stop with the flag but must also go to what you do, not only about the flag, but about the guns. that took down the charleston nine. to be sure, symbols matter, mr. speaker. to take two of the most powerful symbols in our country, the cross and the star of david. we know exactly that symbols can sometimes mean everything. we also know that the confederate flag is a symbol of a different and lower order. but the symbol stands for more than itself.
the symbol tells a story. the religious symbols evoke tears they evoke joy. they evoke their own set of stories. the confederate flag when it led to this extraordinary tragedy of the charleston nine, will always, should always make us think of the gun that was responsible for the charleston nine. not just the symbol. the story behind the symbol. in the 19th century, the symbol signaled the importance of slavery. in the 20th century, it had a different meeting. robert e. lee told his soldiers to put down the flag, he was
the counterpart to abraham lincoln trying to draw us together. after he had lost that war. but in the 20th century the flag was revived. it was revived by southern democrats. dixiecrats. as they called themselves. and it has been in the 20th century and now the 21st century a symbol of discrimination and racism and no matter what it stood for, in the 19th century of our heritage, it lost that meaning when in the 20th century george wallace raised it and said segregation now and seggeags forever and nobody who now speaks of heritage said, wait a minute, governor
wallace, don't take away our heritage. only when african-americans have the nerve to raise the notion, after we -- after we lost nine good people in charleston, does it somehow now become a symbol of heritage. i'll give mitch mcconnel credit he wants to remove the statue of jefferson davis from the kentucky state capitol. but when asked about removing the statue out of the united states capitol, mr. mcconnel grew silence. we've got to come to grips with what this flag meant to this boy who used a gun. i am not going to forget those who died and what we owe -- and what we owe those who died.
the dixiecrats bolted from harry s. truman when harry s. truman refused to embrace their racism. these were southern democrats and we owe them the 21st century meaning of the confederate flag. but why are we talking about this symbol and not another symbol? the other symbol is the gun in america. the grace of the people of charleston, many were simply grateful that instead of bursting toward with rage, they showed their extraordinary christian heritage the
heritage they understand doubtedly shared with the gunman. and we were so grateful, all of us and so proud that we have not talked about what took the lives of these nine good people. i want to talk about it because the confederate flag for me now will always represent those nine people and the gun that took their lives. that 21-year-old kid didn't know anything about them except their christian love when they invited him into their sanctuary but he knew about what that flag stood for. and he raised that flag before he went into that sanctuary. we must not forget, not only the flag we cannot live by
symbols alone. we must not forget the gun that took down the charleston nine. now i i read that the senators are interested in reviving their gun safety legislation. there are several bills in the house that do that in one form or another. we know what happened. there was a breakdown in the background check system, which is why this young man was even able to get a gun. he would have been denied a gun if those who oppose any bill who hadn't assured a bill that they would have a sthree-day time
period, if you couldn't find something on somebody, you couldn't get a gun. that is how he got his gun. there are some of us who know full well that the confederate flag has done more than put the flag back on the agenda, on the nation's agenda. it has put gun safety once again on the agenda. i must say, i don't believe we who celebrate the extraordinary grace of the charleston nine, owe them only our speeches about the flag. they probably, once they saw it come down, have moved on and now they only have their loved
ones to think about. if i were one of them i would wonder if i were one of those celebrating the flag coming down and making sure that never again will people like our loved ones have to suffer because of gunfire. it is the assembly in raising our consciousness if all we have is our memory of the symbol and why that symbol became important that we will leave on the table a real memorial to the charleston nine. i appreciate the time and i yield back. ms. kelly: thank you. and i'm so glad that you brought up the issues of the guns and i look at charleston as when racism and hate found the guns.
i would like to introduce the gentlelady from ohio, our former head of the congressional black caucus, congresswoman fudge. ms. fudge: i thank commarn payne and congresswoman kelly. if you have not noticed, the people of this country are fed up and so am i. we are at a point in our nation's history when we can no longer give lip service to equality to succeed. we must show we mean what we say. otherwise, it is nothing more than empty rhetoric. you see, mr. chairman, if that were -- i'm sorry the confederate flag is more than a piece of fabric.
it is more than just a visual representation of the confederacy or part of the storied history of the south. if that were true, we wouldn't be having that conversation today. nine murdered because of the kwlor of their skin. let's be honest about the history of the confederate battle flag. while the majority of the house may ignore the fact and rewrite history, we will not be ignored. the confederate battle flag is a painful reminder of torture and murder of all of us. it is hatred and injustice that tells black and brown people in this country, your lives don't matter.
it is an embarrassment to all americans that the majority of this house introduced a spending amendment which include an amendment that allowed the battle flag on federal property and they would use procedure to openly zpwuss a. how can the members of the majority of this house continue to say that they represent all americans when they refuse to have a real discussion about what is really happening in our country? have we learned nothing what has happened in the past few weeks. in a june gallup poll, african-americans said race lellingses is the most important issue. while taking the confederate flag change the perspective?
absolutely not. mr. speaker, it is time we do away with lip service and time to listen to our constituents and heal the racial wounds and it is time we move forward. the flag must come down. i yield back. ms. kelly: thank you for your eloquent words a the truth of what happened in congress. i would like to introduce the gentlelady from houston, texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the managers of this special order and my words to this house. i want you to take note in which these members have come if our constituents are seeing us and watching us, no one has come with anger and a cry of hysteria. they have come with a reasoned
request and pro mounsment of the wrongness of the precision in this house. lit me say it was in 1864 that the states were given the call to send forward a two-statute to come to represent their states in the united states congress. in addition, we know that the united states congress hasal number of flags representing thears states. and so this was to be the peoples' house and the peoples' house would reflect the people of the united states of america. and history should be something that grows with the nation reflebts the goodness of the nation.
yes, there is history that should be taught, such as the ugliness and violence of the slave history, but it is not to be honored. i join my colleagues today to be able to call for the taking down of signs of confederacy in the united states capitol, in particular, as i'm in the house of representatives, in the peoples' house. let me give you a credible basis upon which to do so. why this supreme court decision has been so ignored. let me cite it for my colleagues. walker, the third, versus sons of con federal rate veterans, issued on june 13, 2015, the day after the martyrdom of nine wonderful african-americans practicing their christian faith. in this particular decision indicates that the state of texas was to be supported. this was a case that engaged
many of our constituents in texas. we organ galvanize. i thank dr. clark, the president of the state baptist convention, as we argued this case. we were convincing the texas motor vehicle board agreed that a confederate license plate issued would be offensive and would be considered, in essence a public action of public speech. for those who want to raise the question of the first amendment, this pride that we as members of the congressional black caucus is making is legitimate. we are talking about flags that are flown on state property or federal property. this caucus should be congratulated. it is detailed in its argument and no first amendment
opposition can be raised. because the supreme court of the united states has said that we deny utilizing the confederate flag that may be considered federal land and our colleagues that keem jeffries and others understood that when they acted last week. the krt thing to have been been, the interior bill to have been voted on, they argued the point that this was state or federal action. now we come again to try and clarify for our colleagues that these flags should come down. and the privileged resolutions have gone on last week, they made the point very clear that it was an insult to the dignity
of the house. i introduced h.res. 34 that i hope will complement and talks about the enhancement of unity in america and in particular makes it very clear that divisive symbols, license plates, replicas and symbols on state or federal action state, public speech, that is a speech of the of of those who represent, should not be allowed. how divisive is that point of view? it is not. the divisiveness of those who stand on a false sense of history and yet want to offend those who likewise have great leadership. let me make this point about the battle flag this confederate flag. might i ask the question.
have southerners not fought in the war of 1812, in world war i in world war ii in the korean war, in vietnam and shed their blood under this flag. when confederate soldiers died, they were honored, appropriately in graves. where those who were honored. we did not run to the funeral of those fallen soldiers and cast upon them and cursed them and denied them. they were allowed to be honored appropriately and go into the history. when you under stood what their general stood on, such as jefferson davis, who called the
individuals who were slaves as unprofitable savages, that is what one germ who has been honored has called them, unprofitable savages. is that the hifert we should be honoring? is that we should be lifting up. is that what should be placed in the united states congress? is that engaged in the uplifting of the dignity of the house or is it insulating the dignity of the house. i stand with you today to join in trying to create an understanding of the rightness of the work of our colleagues on the work of the interior bill, on the rightness of the congressional black caucus and my good friend from new jersey said it is symbols and we need to bridge the gap of the inequity and wealth, we need
education and jobs. let me be very clear. the congressional black caucus are fighting for jobs -- should be. fighting for education. we are not languishing long the hey of life rnings we are maintaining the borkbork. we are not ignoring the desires of our constituents. let me close it. and congresswoman kelly has been a leader congresswoman kell ki let's rise again, and that is the horror of gun violence. let me say to the f.b.i. director, but let me make very clear. we suffered this loophole because of the opposition to the
sensibleness of the brady anti--gun violence legislation. and so in embedded in it was this nonsensical point that if i don't is hear from you, i'm going to sell it i have no opposition to our fellow citizens who provide for their families for selling guns, i have opposition to the evil and vial perpetrator that killed illegally with a gun that he should not have had. and he did so because the three-daytime had expired because there was a time where the ncis had closed that the f.b.i. relied upon and it was closed and the three days expired and the owner said i'm going to sell the gun. this week i will be introducing a single piece of legislation and i ask my colleagues to join
me and i know there are other bills, to eliminate the three-day period of discretion that no discretion will exist. they either answer the question. he or she is eligible or it is denied. and so on the graves of these wonderful martyrs i stand in honor of them, i mourn them, i mourn for their families, and i say to them, we will never forget. bring the flag down. remove these items in this police of honor that have denigrated and considered one race of people vile and unequal once and for all. i yield back. ms. kelly: thank you, congresswoman jackson lee. always detailed and insightful.
thank you for all your work on the judiciary committee. it is very much appreciated and hailed. at this time i would like to introduce the gentleman from new york who took center stage last week as we discussed and worked toward the removal of the flag, congressman hakim jeffries. mr. jeffries: i i -- i want to thank my good friend from illinois, ms. kelly, for once again presiding over this c.b.c. special order hour as well as her co-anchor, the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, right across the hudson river, and so ably serves the community of newark and beyond. this evening we've heard from so many distinguished members of the congressional black caucus, most recently, the gentlelady from texas who i serve with on the jew deshyear committee about the importance of the moment in time we find
ourselveses in right now related to not just a confederate battle flag but perhaps more importantly what is the legacy we want to have as americans, as members of congress in dealing with the complicated issue of race. it's an honor and privilege to once again come to the house floor to have this conversation. this is a most distinguished venue to speak to the american people and an appropriate one i would add given the house's constitutional relationship to the people of america. this of course being the only institution that was envisioned by the founding fathers as one where the people serving in the institution would be directly elected by the people. the senate, of course, in its original constitutional version
its members were elected by the state legislature and of course the presidency to this day is a vehicle through which the individual is selected by the electoral college. this is the people's house the institution most intimately connected to the people of america and the place where we should be able to speak truth to power. we witnessed that last week as we were forced, unfortunately, discuss the issue of the con federal battle flag at a moment when people of all races democrats and republicans, blacks, whites, extraordinary leadership from the governor of south carolina and the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, jim clyburn, came together. at a moment when the confederate battle flag was coming down in south carolina, there were members of this house trying to lift it up.
quite unfortunate that we needed to detour from this moment that we were having in america led in south carolina to address the battle flag issue on this house floor. but i'm hopeful that as we move forward now in a more productive way we can begin to confront some of the public policy challenges that we face in america that supporters of the confederate battle flag have fought against. as others have detailed during the presentation here today the battle flag, which met its initial defeat in 1865 at the end of the civil war remained largely dormant in american history until 1954 and the
supreme court's decision in brown v. board of education. that decided that this facade of separate and equal was constitutionally suspect and that african-americans were being denied the opportunity of being educated in quality public schools in the deep south and in other places in america. really, it was in the mid 1950's and early 1960's when the confederate battle flag was resurrected as a symbol of the segregationists fighting to uphold jim crow. it was a symbol of those who were fighting to stop the efforts of courageous individuals like congressman john lewis, who in 1965 was the co-chair of the student nonviolent coordinating committee. it was a symbol of those trying to fight efforts by john lewis and others to make sure that the franchise, the right to vote was color blind in nature, that the 15th amendment
could actually be brought to life all throughout america and in the deep south where they were trying to prevent african-americans from being able to vote. so the battle flag wasres. elect -- resurrected in the 19's and 1980's to stop certain things from happening. -- in the 1950's and 1960's to stop certain things from happening. so it seems to me that no reasonable person can take the position that it should have a place of honor. it's extraordinarily -- extraordinary to me that we had to take to the house floor last week and that we had to come to the house floor to continue to address this issue but hopefully reason will prevail over the next couple of days even prior to the august recess and we can move beyond the confederate battle flag issue and address some important, substantive issues that many would argue remain as part of
the legacy of the confederacy. we don't want to see the ghost of the confederacy invading the united states congress from a policy perspective. those nine souls god-fear, church-going, african-americans who were killed simply because of the color of their skin died because of someone who charged into that church with the intention of sparking a race war inspired in part by the confederate battle flag. and one of the things that has happened as a result of that tragedy is the battle flag has come down. but that's just the beginning of the work that we need to do. in response to that tragedy. and the conditions that so many people find themselves in all across america, as has been mentioned. we've got to confront the gun violence issue that we've got
in the united states. how can it be that we have 5% of the world's population but 50% of the world's guns? it's estimated that we have more than 285 million guns in circulation, nobody can give you an exact estimate because a choke hold has been placed around the federal agencies charged with preventing gun violence and dealing with gun safety in america. incredible act of legislate i malpractice but it's estimated that we've got over -- legislative malpractice but it's estimated we've got other 25 5 million gun -- 255 million guns in america. isn't it reasonable in the aftermath of this crime that we find a way to prevent those
guns from falling into the hands of those who would do us harm? it seems to me to be a reasonable thing we can do as americans. also seems important that we would find a way 50 years after the passage of the 1965 voting rights act to stop trying to prevent americans from exercising their sacred franchise and participating in american democracy. but something happened in the aftermath of 2008, real interesting moment in november of that year, seemed to have shocked a whole lot of people across this country and as a result, two years later, when there was a mid-term election and subsequent to that there was an outbreak with this concern of voter fraud.
fabricated because nobody can point to any evidence of an epidemic of voter fraud not a scintilla of evidence has been presented anywhere in this country that we've got a problem that needs to be addressed. but we've had all these voter suppression laws enacted, consistent with the ghost of the confederacy. and what those folks who were waving the confederate battle flag in opposition to the changes of the 19's and 1960's stood for. and what shocks me is that even the supreme court has got b into the act. by decimating section 5 preclearance through claiming that section 4 is outdated. and this house refuses to act on six -- on fixing the voting rights act.
i would argue that again, consistent with our democracy and the spirit of coming together, that perhaps that's one of the things we can address so that we can take down on the one hand, this divisive symbol of hatred, the confederate battle flag here in this capitol, in whatever form it hangs, and all across america, but we can lift up policies that make americans safer, that are consistent with our values, that everyone white black, latino, asian, democrats, republicans, should be able to rally around. i'm thankful for the leadership of congresswoman kelly and congressman payne this wonderful tandem, r. kelly and d. payne tremendous advocates here in the congress for giving me the opportunity to share these thoughts and i now yield back.
ms. kelly: thank you, congressman jeffries. thank you for reminding us about the voting rights act and again thank you for everything you did last week in this congress. it was so commendable. at this time i would leek to introduce the gentleman from texas, congressman al green, who gave a passionate speech on the floor last week about the flag. mr. green: thank you very much. i'm honored to be with you tonight, the team of kelly and payne, payne and kelly. you do outstanding work. and you also provide an opportunity for other members to have an opportunity to call to the attention of our constituents some of the concerns that we have to address in congress. i will always be grateful for the wonderful work that you do in congress. i'm also very grateful and thankful to the many persons who worked to bring down the
confederate battle flag in south carolina. it was not easy, there are many who said they never thought they would see it happen, but it did. and it happened because of a willingness to forgive and and -- and an understanding that we had an opportunity to do something meaningful for a good many people across the length and breadth of this country who saw the confederate battle flag as a symbol of segregation symbol of racism and big tri, a symbol of slave -- and bigotry a symbol of slavery. not all did, but it was painful far good many who did see it this way. many who suffered the indignation and humiliation of
segregation. who suffered knowing that their blood line had suffered slavery. and so i'm here tonight to thank those who worked so hard to get this done. it was not easy and i want to thank you for what -- for what you did. but i also know that there are a good many they are ready to get back to the normal things that we have in our country of ours, the richest country of the world. for them, normal is a very pleasant thing. normal meanings more homes, normal means more greater opportunity. let's talk about normal. normal is not always the same for everyone. normal for the month of june
2015 unemployment. normal for whites, 4.6%, that's the unemployment rate. that's normal for whites. normal for latinos was 6.6%. and normal for blacks was 9.5%. i heard the arguments about how president obama out to resolve this. this is his fault. not so, my friends. if you look through time you will find that unemployment for african-americans is usually about twice the unemployment rate for white americans. this isn't something new to president obama or something that started in 2008 when he was elected or sworn in in 2009. this is not something that is
new to us, those of us who know and see the pain and suffering that results from a lack of employment. we understand that the flag coming down was a great moment for us symbolically. it was symbolism. now the substance is what we have to deal with. and the substance is the normal life that people lead under conditions that are abnormal for many others in this country. let's look at normal as it relates to lending for businesses. minority-business owners in 2012 this is the latest information i have from the federal reserve, paid interest rates that are 3 % higher than what whites paid. 2% higher.
that's normal. some people don't want to go back to this normal state of affairs. they see the flag coming down as an indifficult occasion. mortgage lending is an important area. normal for african-americans meant in 2013, 13 moin 4% were made to blacks. and they come priced. normal for latinos in 201, 7.3% of the loans made were made to latinos when they make up 17.115% of the total population. that's normal. normal in 2013 meant the denial rate was, and this is according to cnn 10.4% for whites, 10.3%
for asian. 29% for asia shan and there are a good many people who don't limb normal lives in this normal climate that we want to get back to we, in a generic sense. i, not in the personal pro noun. i want to move on. i appreciate what was appreciate in bringing down the flag. i celebrate its brage down. in areas where we can integrate the money. i'm an sbregationist. we ought to integrate every society. let's talk about normal.
normal means that black applicants are 2.1 times to be denied than none-hispanic whites. for a hispanic 1.7 times to be denied. for asians, 2.7 to be denied. and so, i'm saying to us that we have to create a new normal. those of us who sit on committees on jurisdiction to use our influence on these kis of jurisdiction to bring about the substantive change that lowering the flag and putting in its proper place where it should be lowering that confederate flag but that means we must do that but do it in a such a way there is more work to be done.
so, given that i serve on the financial services committee, i will be calling for the need to investigate the mortgage lending culture in banks. we need to understand why is it that african-americans and latinos, who are equally qualified as whites, can go into a bank and go scomboo a bank. and i know there are many people that are uncomfortable. but that's the language we have to use to communicate clearly a message of what is taking place. in my committee, i'm going to push for an investigation of banks. we need to know why banks consistently do this. not all banks, but why those who
do it and test, send people who are equally qualified and acquire the evidence and every instance, in a general sense, we find that blacks and browns, who are equally qualified as whites do not receive their loans. yous your committees of jurisdiction to create a new state of normalcy of those who have been suffering. i yield back. ms. kelly: thank you for your words passion and your call to action. i thank all of my colleagues for participating tonight. symbols of cond federal rassy have been an haunting part of life. they are work on t-shirts and pickup trucks.
many argue this is tradition and honor. i would argue against this. what are we looking upon. the confederate flag represents full of pain, suffering a loss. why do we allow the terrorist groups to 4r50eu lie on the government grounds. and in modern society, people made the decision to he h araid indicate. the value of inclusion and the value of none-inclusion and it can be con of hope. the institution of slavery, historic slavery, formed bonds. that is what the confederacy sought to preserve when the
seceded. every time a confederate flag flies that is what is being celebrated. mr. speaker, we need to take down the flag and we need to have a serious conversation about gun vialens. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time is expired. does the gentlewoman wish to make a motion? ms. kelly: i move to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. the house is
amendment that would ban the display of the confederate flag, they were afraid democrats to try to offer more amendments in tribe republicans on the issue. the annual process for funding the entire government is essentially stalled because of the confederate flag. host: how will they get out of this? guest: they will already likely have to turn to a short-term continuing resolution because of a disagreement over sequestration, but they won't be able to do more of the individual spending bills and that is really looking like the only option. host: what else are we looking at? why are you tell us where the senators on the no child left behind legislation. guest: this is the second week that the senate has an working on the no child left behind bill. the house passed their version very narrow.
senators are still going through amendments they hope to finish by the end of the week. host: the california drought is coming up in the house this week -- what will the bill do? guest: it is endorsed by the entire california delegation and it would increase the amount of water for californians by allowing them to pump water through the central valley, despite concerns from environmentalists. host: one other point from your piece this morning -- hillary clinton is said to visit the hell. we read that will be tomorrow -- who is she going to be within what is the agenda? guest: she will be meeting with house and senate democrats tomorrow 9:00 a.m. weekly caucus meeting. she will also be meeting with senate democrats at their weekly lunch, about her general
policies and how she is going to work with democrats going forward with the campaign. it could potentially be a little awkward with senate democrats, because for mont senator -- because vermont senator bernie sanders is also running for president and he is a member of the senate in the same room. host: that will be fun to read about. christina marcos, thanks a lot for the report as we look ahead. appreciate it. >> it is a net politics on c-span. we will watch scott walker join the republican yield of 2016 presidential candidates, then hillary clinton talks about her plan for the economy of she is elected. 10 rick santorum tells a group of reporters that the american family structure will be among the issues he'll address in his presidential campaign. then former maryland governor martin o'malley discusses election issues concerning latino voters have
the raza. the white house said today that the iran nuclear negotiations are expected to continue into tomorrow past the midnight deadline. that will be the fourth missed deadline in less than two weeks. today, josh earnest outlined what would happen if an agreement is not reached. mr. ernest: good afternoon, everybody. happy monday. i do not have any announcements so we can go directly to questions. >> we are approaching yet another deadline on the around talks -- on the iran talks. what is your expectation of what will happen? mr. ernest: what we expect is
that the plan of action will remain in place. the reason for that is that this is the interim agreement that has been in place for over a year and a half that has frozen iran's nuclear program and rolled it back in some areas. obviously, if we can reach a final agreement then that would supersede the interim agreement. but the talks continue in vienna. the thing i can tell you is that they have made genuine progress in this conversation, and i think even over the last week or so there is progress, important progress that has been made. there has been some key issues in the negotiations that have been closed, and that is a good sign. that said, they are continuing to be sticking points that remain unresolved. as i have been saying for the better part of a couple weeks the president directed his team
to remain engaged and participate in conversations as long as they were useful. given the progress that has been made and the success they've had in closing out key issues, it is an indication that the talks are useful. the president has also been clear that there is a bottom line that must be met, and that is making sure that any final agreement lives up to the parameters that were established. there will not be a final agreement agreed to by the united states and by our partners until a final agreement reflects that. >> what you are saying is that the president is willing to let john kerry state passed today because the talks continue to be directed? mr. ernest: if it is necessary for them to continue the conversation, the negotiating team will remain in vienna. >> you can seal the white house briefing anytime at c-span.org.
and as we mentioned, wisconsin governor scott walker entered the 2016 presidential race today. there is what "the new york times" says -- "scott walker who developed a national following, announced he is running as a washington outsider whose taste for big fights would lead to a smaller federal government." the story mentions unions and richard trumka, the president of the afl-cio who offers six words in response, "scott walker is a national disgrace." "politico" says their "isn't much love to lose between walker and unions." he has repeatedly called attention to his record of
fighting unions in his state and his support for right to work legislation. earlier this evening in waukesha wisconsin, wisconsin governor scott walker made the announcement. we will show to you now, here on c-span. ♪ >> i'm so proud of those two -- are they doing a great job tonight? [cheering] and thank you all for being here so that i can present my husband, scott walker, to this great country. [cheering] last time we were here, when we
were at the expo center, we had just won the recall election. i am so proud of scott for winning three elections in four years, so when he told me he was thinking about a fourth election i said "what the heck why not?" scott and i wouldn't be standing here today with all the support that we have in this room. you have not been sibley bystanders -- you have made the phone calls, you knocked on the doors, and most importantly you pray for us, and we felt those prayers, and we cannot thank you enough. [cheering] most of you here already know scott and have formed an impression. many more people will form their impressions of the days in the months to come. my first impression of the man i fell in love with and married was scott walker is a guy who
goes after what he wants. [applause] we met at the same karaoke night 23 years ago. we didn't know each other -- we didn't talk to each other that night -- on his way out he slipped me inept and, and he wrote a little note. i thought it was garbage at first so thank god i didn't throw it away. he wrote, "forgive me for being rude, but i have to get up early tomorrow morning for work." he left his name and his number and asked me out to dinner. typical scott -- a light and to the point. -- polite and to the point. we talked about the fact that i called him a week later -- he says i called him two days later. in fact, he told my roommate on the second date that he was going to marry me. she and i had a really good laugh about that. [laughter] by august, he proposed to me at the same restaurant by handing me another napkin.
this time it said, "forgive me for being rude, but will you marry me?" you come right -- cute right? after our wedding night we stopped and he wrote me a note -- "thank goodness that place has a lot of napkins." [laughter] scott is so sweet and has never forgotten our anniversary february 6. it just so happens to be president ronald reagan's birthday. [cheering] so i'm sure that even if it wasn't reagan's birthday, he would remember our anniversary. we have two amazing sons, and you have heard from them today. [cheering] from the moment scott became a dad, he put our sons first taught us the values of faith, hard work, and honesty. our sons mean the world to us and our family is excited to
start this new adventure. over the last four and a half years, the people of wisconsin have formed their impressions of scott -- in fact, with three elections in four years, they have a second and third impression, too. ultimately, our fellow wisconsinites voted him to continue leading our great state. [cheering] three elections in four years had taken its toll on our family and well there had been some tough times, when you have a strong, supportive faith-based husband and father likely to, it makes the journey a little easier. [applause] it was a difficult time, but no matter how personal the attacks became, i'm so proud of the way
scott handled it. he never took it personally -- instead he worked tirelessly with the state legislature to reform a broken system and to gether, a1. scott and i told our sons, if you are under fire you can survive and get through anything. when scott took on the unions, our family became the target of vicious and personal attacks. threats of violence were common. as a mother and a wife, i spent many sleepless nights worrying about my family. during the recall elections, on any given day, there were thousands of people protesting in front of the state capital. protesting in front of our personal home in wauwatosa. [booing] but scott stood up for his
beliefs and his track record has proven that he wins. he took on the unions and won. taxes have gone down. school districts can keep the best and the brightest teachers in the classrooms, and multiple governments have more power. isn't that the way we want things to be? [applause] it was never easy, but it was worth it, and wisconsin wins with walker. [cheering] we here in wisconsin are better off today than we were four years ago. families and taxpayers and hard-working wisconsin men and women win with walker. [cheering] our concern now turns to all of america's sons and daughters. our children and our grandchildren deserve in america
as great as what we've experienced, or even better. today, we face challenges at home and abroad. meeting those challenges will require conservative leadership and a person with a proven record of winning. someone who will not be intimidated by anyone. starting today, you and the american people will begin to learn more about my husband, his achievements, his service, and his story. i hope that you will know him as a loving husband, thoughtful father, and fearless leader that i know and love. i have been honored to support my husband's conservative work to build a better wisconsin, and i have no doubt he will build a better america. [cheering]
gov. walker: thank you, thank you. [chanting] gov. walker: thank you. thank you, thank you. [cheering] gov. walker: i love america. [cheering] gov. walker: you know, as kids my brother david and i used to love to go over and visit one of our neighbors. he was a bit of a legend in our small town. he had served our country in world war i and world war ii. [cheering] gov. walker: then, like so many other veterans, he came back and served his community. over the years, we used to love
to see him at the concession stand. he helped out in our church and he was the leader of my boy scout troop. i remember over the years, before memorial day, he would organize me and all the others out to go through and put up flags on the graves of the fallen. [cheering] gov. walker: it was impossible to be around him and not share his love for god and country. i think back 30 years ago -- he helped me attend a program, and it was there that i learned about state and local government. along the way, it was interesting -- i got the chance to be selected to represent wisconsin in the program and washington, d.c. there, i met another veteran from georgia by the name of bob turner. bob and all the other veterans that ran that program not only taught us about the federal government, the national elections, they share their love for our country, and they inspired within me the importance of public service
when it comes to defending our liberties. veterans like that remind me that what makes america great is the fact that america is a new kind of country. unfortunately we have a government in washington that can't quite seem to get the job done. washington, or 68 square miles surrounded by reality, the good news is it is not too late. we can turn things around. [cheering] gov. walker: to do that, we need new, fresh leadership. leadership with big, bold ideas from outside washington, the kind of leadership that knows how to get things done like we have done here in wisconsin.