tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN November 30, 2015 12:00pm-7:01pm EST
while the police officers started to search the house. >> in 1957, the cleveland police went to a home where they andeved to be a bomber demanded entry. she refused them access, demanding a war later, returning with a document that they claimed was a warrant, they theed their way into premises. she sued and her case made it all the way to the supreme court. we'll explore the matter of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures and how this and other landmark cases and that's coming up on the next "landmark cases" live on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio and for background, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book.
it's available for $8.95 plus shipping at -span.org/landmarkcases. >> mr. bach worked for microsoft for 25 years including four years of its entertainment division and as chief xbox officer, guiding its creation and development. he also discusses technology, tech competition and microsoft and the importance of civics in american life. >> to me civic engineering is the work any of us can do and all of us should and must do to make our communities operate more efficiently and effectively and serve our citizens in a better way. it's old school civics and it's superimportant. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2.
>> on our current pace -- and live now to senator lankford who is on capitol hill releasing a report on federal government waste and solutions. he's holding a press conference to talk about it. senator lankford: to balance budget in 10 years. let's just hypothetically say the 11th year we had a $50 billion surplus, it would be a pretty good surplus for us. if we had a $50 billion surplus in the 11th year, if we do that, we'd have to continue to do that for the next 460 years to pay off our debt. if we had a $50 billion surplus it would take 460 years to pay off our debt if we finish out this window. now, let's just say we balance it next year, if we balance it next year, then it's only a measly 380 years we have to have a $50 billion surplus. i think we're losing track of how difficult this is going to be ling term.
every state has a requirement they have to balance their budget. they have a balance, they live by their budget and they function it except the federal government. how much do we have, the federal government asks, what do we want to do and they just put it into practice. so there are process issues that need to be resolved. so what we're trying to do with this is we're trying to approach and say here are a set of solutions we have. this is not an exhaustive list. this is not everything that's out there. this is just a list of ideas that we have and we're throwing those out there. obviously dr. tom coburn made government waste his primary focus. he was excellent in articulating those issues. this is not an attempt to try to carry on his legacies. there aren't two dr. coburns in the world. there is only one. he should say there is 535 wastebooks out there. every office should focus on this and look at it and this is our attempt to say we are going to put this out there and we're also going to find other
offices that are also focusing on this and find areas of common ground and try to get started on it. the fumble book that we have isn't just waste. it's areas where the federal government has violated its government responsibilities, programs that are ripe with fraud, duplication and inefficiency, overregulating that rise raises the cost of goods and services for the consumers and deceives taxpayers and adds to the family's debt spoiblet. with each of the issues we also lay out a solution so this is not a matter of here's a problem but there are no answers, we try to lay out specific answers with that as well. we also highlight some examples where we think the government is addressing some of these issues. this is not just a matter of all complaints and no solutions. there are some things that are happening correctly. for instance, some of the duplication reports that the g.a.o. has put out for several years, we have made some answers. and the conferencing budget was cut by 2/3 and they are to be
commended by that. there are instances where different parts of the government are taking this on, but it's incredibly difficult to find both the waste and the things that are turning around. one of the things we proposed at the very beginning of it is a bill that we have that we passed in the house before that we passed in committee already and want to be able to bring forward called the taxpayers' right to know. every single individual in this room and across the united states should be able to pull up any government program, they will look at that program, see if there's duplication in other areas, see the cost of that program, the number of employees for that program, how that program is evaluated, if it's evaluated at all and what can be done to be able to combine it. that's not done right now. that will help every outside group, every think tank, every member of the press to be able to identify how the government spends its money so we're pushing forward to say this would be much easier for every american to be able to identify this and help determine some of those solutions in the days ahead. so this is our to-do list.
this is what our office plans to work on in the days ahead. this is not just us and what we're trying to do. we're trying to encourage every office to take this on as well. it's find your own list and look for the common gruned try to get some of this on. if you don't have a copy it .senate.gov. nkford it's heavily footnoted and all the background research that's into it and i have an incredible staff that's worked very, very hard to be able to get this information out. let me highlight a couple of them and some of these are obvious issues we faced for a long time like the earned income tax credit. it continues to be the largest area of fraud in the federal government year after year. it's almost $18 billion in fraud just for this year. that year after year is on the something we need to be able to obtain.
senator tom carper has laid out a bill saying why can't the social security administration be able to share this information with other entities? we have millions of social security numbers that are hanging out there that those social security numbers are vulnerable for fraud, into waste, individuals voting on those, individuals getting jobs on those, individuals filing false tax reports on those. that can be resolved and needs to be resolved but we're losing billions of dollars in the process. the national park service did a study on what do bugs do when you turn on the light in a dark rural place. every person in rural oklahoma can tell you what bugs do when you turn on the light in a dark place. some of these are commonsense things we need to be able to evaluate. why are we doing this? for the regulations we focused on serviceable things. we focused on what the federal government should do and not do. this is not an anti-regulation piece but some of these regulations do have real effects on americans. the waters of the united states rule, the courts have already stopped it. the corps of engineers have
already said they don't want to implement this rule. it will be an issue that will cost americans billions of dollars. what's happening with community banks right now and what's called the qualified mortgage piece coming out of dodd-frank has real effect in rural america. is very difficult to get a home loan. in urban areas there are multiple different banks and enter thates can do home loans. in rural america there's usually one or two and if you make it hard you make it very hard for individuals in rural make to get that. things like that don't maybe mmon sense to the american people. it's no secret i had a frustration with the champs. the crime victims fund has been used year after year as an offset and year after year it's a washington budget game that needs to be addressed and needs to be removed entirely from the budget process. the same thing with the corporate payment shifts. it just assumes if you move that corporate payment a couple months or one month then
suddenly you're back in balance at that point but if you add 10 years plus one month it's no savings at all. that's just a washington budget game. those don't help us get back to balance. those don't help american families. that kind of game needs to end and how we actually do business here. so there are ways to do this. we just need to have the seriousness to be able to take this on. what would you like to talk about? yes. >> i think your own office spending and what you said 535 people should have their own list. i mean, are you comfortable with your own office spending, that there's nothing wasteful that you do in your own office? will the chief of staff thing -- senator lankford: you mentioned that before. you don't like i have a chief of staff. it's oklahoma-based than washington, d.c.-based. >> it's not whether i like it or not. what i point out is it costs
thousands of dollars to fly him back and forth all the time and put him up in hotels. senator lankford: if you have a washington, d.c.-based chief of staff, then you fly them back to the state and they have hotel bills and that's a decision that you make. our office returned about $250,000 last year that we came in under budget in a first-year freshman office which is incredibly expensive to do, to be able to set up the office at the beginning. >> are you comfortable there's no waste in your office? senator lankford: i'm comfortable someone doing oversight in my office. that is entirely reasonable to do. these are taxpayer dollars and we reinforce that over and over again. our salaries, our issues that we face in our office are very, very careful to make sure we're taking care of people in an appropriate way regarding taxpayer dollars. i would say oversight is always a good thing. >> another question. one of your items was about publicly funded stummeds or -- stadiums and i believe
chesapeake arena was -- public funds. senator lankford: the municipal tax credit or bonding -- or not the tax credit but the bonding that comes in for the federal tax subsidy. what i said is, why are the people of oklahoma paying for a stadium somewhere else or helping offset that cost and why are the people in other states helping fund something that's in oklahoma? that is a local thing, it's a local priority with a sports team and with a local region that they need to be able to pay for. yes, sir. >> senator, what about clawing back some of this money? is there any way to retrieve some of it? is there a way to hold some of these people accountable? senator lankford: it's hard to hold people to account. government employees are not able to hold account. if a contract went back bad, right now the group that's held to account on that is the taxpayer. not the contractor, not the government employee on this.
now this is not just a head hunting for every government employee. there are lots of great people that serve our federal government and work very hard in very difficult situations. i get that. but when a major mistake is made, people should be able to be held account for it. we should say, here's a grant maybe we should not have done. that's a good thing if they want to pay for that locally. they can certainly pay for that locally, but why should someone in another state pay for that particular grant? say, how do we fix this long term, not do this thing but then also what processes can we put in place and quite frankly what can congress put in place to put those requirements down. >> one thing that senator coburn used to kind of tout about, his wastebook, the next time we need to take a federal program or spending, we can go to the wastebook and find examples. do you see things in there that can be used to pay for the next piece of government spending
there -- that republicans and democrats can agree on? senator lankford: the budget deal that passed through a few weeks ago that i voted against and one of the reasons i voted against it was the social security disability. the reform that was put in place is not real reform. it's extending a couple pieces that are some demonstration projects but it doesn't really reform. it takes on some things that are simple but not some of the things that are hard. even when there's bipartisan support. the president has even stated that he doesn't believe someone should get social security disability at the same time they're getting unemployment insurance. by definition if you're receiving unemployment insurance you can be employed. by definition, if you are receiving social security disability you can't work anywhere but they can get it simultaneous. that's billions in the books. there are several issues. the goal is not pay for more spending at the end of it. the goal is to find a way to get back to balance and live within our means and start paying down our debt. yes, sir.
>> senator, often the case for spending is made in moral basis. what's the moral basis for cut something senator lankford: the moral basis for cutting, i would say the moral base is really for being efficient. i don't find a lot of people say, what i really want from my federal government is to be more inefficient. people want their government to be efficient and that's a reasonable thing to do. this is not a matter of cutting. this is identifying things that are not federal priorities or should be done better by a state or things that will be done wastefully. if we have billions of dollars that are out there, that's a problem. if we have individuals that are filing their taxes with the i.r.s. here in a few months when they file their taxes they actually find out that someone else has already filed under their social security number and now their identity has been stolen and it's hard for them to file their own taxes, plus, there are billions of dollars lost in the system, that needs to be corrected. that's a year after year issue. that directly affects taxpayers. that's not a matter of cutting but a matter of fixing a broken
problem. yes, sir. >> i want to talk about the om bus funding bill that's -- omnibus funding bill that's due december 11. insisting there's no funding for planned parenthood in that bill and whether the republicans are prepared to shut down the government related that issue and with regard to the shooting over the weekend in colorado, does it make it more politically difficult or does it change the dynamics at all as it relates to the funding over plained? senator lankford: i think it should be an ongoing issue. this is not new. is has been an ongoing issue how much funding should be going to plained? there is a significant group of people across the country that has a real problem with that and that has to be addressed and it should take years to get done and there will be ongoing riders. as far as what -- no, i don't thinkes that been an issue on
shutting down but i think this needs to be addressed because there are many individuals that have a real problem. myself included. with large amounts of federal dollars going towards entities to the single largest provider of abortions in the country. as far as what happened this past weekend in colorado is heartwrenching. no one who stands up for life says the way you protest is to go kill people. it makes no rational sense. now, we don't know all the motivations for this individual but i can assure you an individual that goes and randomly shoots and kills adults is not also standing up for children it at the same time. it doesn't make moral sense. it doesn't make rational sense between the two. we'll find out more about the shooter in the days ahead. clearly that person is not standing up for the pro-life movement when you're taking life. >> what about this idea maybe we don't know planned parenthood provisions will be in the reconciliation package or not and if that changes this issue -- and obviously someone like yourself who is pro-life, that could be used as a full
courtroom as to whether or not they could move reconciliation or another. senator lankford: obviously reconciliation is one of those. appropriation bills are another. this will be an ongoing issue for a very long time. i don't have the perception that suddenly we're going to solve the issue of life in a few votes. because the issue is really not planned parenthood. the issue is what are we going to do to protect children in america? that's the bigger issue. planned parenthood in some ways ends up being the shiny object that everyone is focused on currently but the real issue is what are we doing to protect the life of children? >> do you think it matters on moving the overall reconciliation package? senator lankford: i'd prefer it to be in everything. but that's just a different reference. >> all right. thank you, everyone. senator lankford: thanks, y'all. [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]
>> president obama's in france today for a united nations climate change conference near paris. and reuters reports in this tweet that president obama met with russian president putin on the sidelines of the meetings to talk about syria and ukraine. white house officials also say that he told president putin that syrian president bashar al assad must leave power to end syrian civil war. and congress is back today for the first time since their thanksgiving break at 2:00 psm eastern. you'll see the house gavel in to consider nine bills, including one dealing with cybercrime. as people step up their holiday shopping online today on this cybermonday. also on the agenda, a bill to continue e.p.a. technical assistance to small public water systems. we'll have that debate here on c-span. again, gets under way at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate also in today. they gavel in at 3:00. they'll consider the nomination to head the u.s. ability for international development. you'll be able to watch that vote at 5:00 p.m. eastern on ur companion network, c-span2.
>> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states admonish and give their attention. >> coming up on c-span's landmark cases -- > showed a piece of paper. and mrs. mann demanded to see the paper and read what it was which they refused to do so she grabbed it out of his hand and a scuffle started and she put this piece of paper into her bosom. and very readily the police officer put his hands into her bosom and removed the paper. nd thereafter -- thereafter, handcuffed her while the police officers started to search the house. >> in 1957, the cleveland
police went to her home who believed to be harboring a bomber. she refused them access without a warrant. they forced themselves into a home and searched the premises. not finding their suspect, police instead confiscated a trunk containing obscene pictures in mann's basement. e was arrested and sentenced to seven years. we'll explore the matter of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures and how this and other supreme court rulings transformed police practices nationwide. that's coming up on the next landmark cases live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. and for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of thelandmark cases "companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling.
you can go to c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> and a look now at the 2016 election and gun policy. representatives from the firearms coalition, the citizens committee for the right to keep and bear arms and other groups acessed the 30th annual gun rights policy conference in phoenix this is bout 40 minutes. >> well, the 2016 elections will be here before we know it and we need to be engaged now. let me start off by saying we all owe hillary clinton a very big thank you. why? her anti-gun rights rhetoric and record are going to ensure the result is going to be a record turnout of gone owners in the 2016 elections. -- turnout of gun owners in the 2016 elections. [applause] she's already decided to double down on barack obama's anti-gun assault on our rights to get her party's nomination.
and energized gun owners who turn out in record numbers are going to impact not just the presidential race but every race on the ballot down ballot from the u.s. senate all the way down to dog catcher. it will impact every democrat on the ballot and like it or not, democrats have made gun control an extremely partisan issue. while not all democrats are anti-gun and not all republicans are pro-gun rights. the party that controls congress or a state legislature controls that flow of legislation and it's important to our whole battle for the struggle to right and keep and bear arms. the importance of the presidential election, of course, cannot be limited at all. for us, judicial appointments are critical to our continued success in the courts. and believe me, our opponents would love to shut that courthouse door in our face. only a few cases reached the
supreme court of the united states. judicial nominations to lower courts are very important and always fly below the radar. we have seen the damage the second amendment rights that many of obama's nominees have done to us in courtrooms for massachusetts to california. i can only think of two lower courts judges appointed by democrats that have voted to overturn anti-gun rights laws and of course the united states supreme court where no democratic appointee voted for gun rights. believe me, if hillary clinton is nominated to president, all those nominations will be worse. we can't forget the importance of the u.s. senate election. the senate confirms those nominees to the courts. so let's a look at the playing field of what we're doing in this 2016 election. the key to senate control to 2016 presidential election will
be down to two states. state by state but we'll look at this. if the g.o.p. president ticket wins even by a hair, it will take -- exceptionally difficult for democrats to take back the u.s. senate. on the other hand, if the democrats captures the senate, the victory may be by a couple percentage points and will do the trick against us. most analysts acknowledge that democrats have a plausible chance of taking a minimal ictory in the u.s. senate. the democrats need to gain four seats to control the senate if a democratic president gets elected. otherwise they need five. five might be a little of a heavy lift to capture the senate on the election map. there's only a certain number of states that are in play. those states are florida,
illinois, new hampshire, north carolina, ohio, pennsylvania and wisconsin. if you're from those states that's the battleground in this election. moreover, democrats have to hold shaky senate seats in colorado and nevada. other than illinois, these are states that should be competitive for the race for the white house which will make the presidential coat tails all that more important. because the radical democratic majority is difficult, the republicans are still more likely to keep the majority than the democrats are to grab it. at least a gain for the g.o.p. is expected, though. not losing any net seats require a republican nominee to not only win the presidency but to capture more than 300 electoral votes, something no republican has done since george bush sr. in 1988.
the importance to the u.s. house of representatives are also extremely important to us. it's our firewall. it continues that no anti-gun legislation can get to a president's desk. the u.s. house is where we're able to stop the whole obama agenda and with hillary clinton it's going to be -- if she's elected it will be twice as important. obama took office in 2009 with 60 democrats in the u.s. senate. counting two independents that caucus with this party and he had 257 seats in the house of representatives. today, there are only 46 members of the senate in the democratic caucus. the worst showing since the first year after the ronald reagan landslide. across the capitol in the house, there were 188 democrats. now, the republicans have more seats when herbert hoover took office in 1929.
this is however the tip of the iceberg. when you look at the states, the collapse of the anti-gun rights democrats for turns are ven worse. 39 blicans hold governorships. maine, massachusetts, new jersey, maryland, wisconsin, michigan, illinois, new mexico, nevada, ohio. the last mid term elections only one endangered republican vern orks tom core burn, was replaced by a democrat. every other endangered republican was returned to office. now, turn to the state egislatures.
in 2009 the democrats were in full control of 29 state legislatures. republicans had full power in only 14. now the g.o.p. is in full control of 30 state legislatures. the democrats hold power in just 11. [applause] in 24 states, republicans controlled of both houses, giving total control over the political process. that increased power at the state level and has already led to serious consequences for both democrats and anti-gun lobby. for their political future and for their goals have been put in jeopardy. the gun rights movement has identified more than 16 million gun owners who are registered to vote. voter registration and turnout projects are on schedule to double that number by election day 2016.
[applause] most of the work done in battleground states in contested congressional districts. this data vault, so to speak, s important to test blurring's measures like maine, -- bloomberg's measures like aine, and with bloomberg's track record in 2014 election, he is planning on spending millions of dollars out of his own pocket targeting certain pro-gun members of the congress to make an example out of somebody who supports gun rights that he can say he can take down. so our work is cut out for us. the latest polling data should give our opponents heartburn. the latest cnn poll asked, in your view, do existing gun laws make it too easy for people to buy guns, too difficult, or
ust right? half the respondents, 49%, thought the laws were just about right. certainly this is god news for pro-gun candidates but it's -- this news should give hillary clinton, barack obama, michael bloomberg, and every town group a migraine headache. 10% who responded that buying a gun is too difficult. when you add the 10% to the 49%, it gives us 59% supporting laws the way they are with no changes, no more gun control, no new bills passed. so that's good news for us and for our candidates. but of course what the other side tries to do is rebrand it. they do not trying to sell it as gun control in the elections. you won't see it like that. you will see to try to be sold as commonsense proposals, things under -- mental health
issues, under various preventive causes, and -- anything. domestic violence. they will not talk about gun control. they know that is a losing proposition except hillary clinton who has doubled down on it. that's why we owe her a big thank-you. that is good news for us. next year's gun rights policy conference is in tampa, florida, a key battleground state. the odds are that state will determine the future of our gun rights in this 2016 elections. and with your help, we will turn out the gun vote like never before. for all of us in the 2016 election, again, starts today. in 2016, we must fight to win. thank you. plauseplaws -- [applause]
>> does anybody know what i am about to say? good morning, gun lobby. [applause] jeff knox: has made that greeting from the g.r.c. microphone for almost every year for the past 30 years and i'm proud to do it again this year but this year i want to change it up just a little bit. ood morning, gun voters. [applause] jeff knox: you know, when we talk about lobbying, we are talking about legislation. we are talking about influencing those that we have elected to do what we want them to do, what we hired them to do. when we talk about gun voters,
we're talking about getting those guys in, and we cannot separate the two. we can, often we do, but we should not. lobbying and political action on the election front are both critical to long-term survival and winning. and unlike the rumors that the naysayers say, allen and i, n.r.a., g.o.a., we're not in this business to drag it out and make money. we are in the business because we believe in it and it is what we do. i would much rather have a real job where i go to real regular ours, come home to my family, go out shooting every now than to spend 14 hours a day with a laptop computer in my map, looking away,
researching and writing, and trying to get the message out to those who did not understand what it is so critical that we defend our rights. in the coming election, 2016, it's racing up on us. we have a crowded field on the republican side. i just want to comment. esterday for the second time that i have been in attendance to a g.r.p. meeting, we had a presidential candidate in the room. he spoke with us, endorsed our positions. yesterday, when governor jim gilmore was in this room, i would be willing to bet that there were at least 200 armed people around him at all times. [applause] jeff knox: i do not think governor gilmore was worried about it, do you? you're not a threat.
ou're the good guys. >> it's the safest room in the state. jeff knox: that is right. it is the safest room in the state, as bob said. there is a lot of information out there, and information is the power of politics. if you want to win elections, you have to have information, and part of the critical information you need is information about the candidates. where they stand, what they stand for, do they really mean what they say, have they proven that they mean what they say, what have they said a couple years ago, what are they saying now, was it different? there is a lot of research up there. the nssf has their gun project online, good information, good resources. the n.r.a., gun owners of america, citizens' committee for the right to keep and bear arms, the various state
organizations, the arizona citizens defense league -- [cheers and applause] jeff knox: of which i am a proud new life member. they offered me a deal. they said, we can add up all the years you have been a member, and here's how much it'll cost you to go life. so i did that yesterday, and i'm glad to have done it. but all of these information sites, digging around out there. we came up something a couple years ago. each election cycle we build it back again and then it dies off. it is called gunvoter.org. gunvoter.org. gunvoter.org. how many of you play out on the internet? you get out there, you surf. forums -- anybody addicted to
forums? gunvoter doirk -- gunvoter.org is a forum site. the objective is to get information into the your ebsite and tell everybody else where this candidate stands, what he is saying about the issues, what he's done about the issues, what she wants to do about the issues, and most importantly, the voter records. votes, votes, votes are your best indicator of where somebody stands, and that is why it right now my critical issue, along with getting you to come to gunvoter.org to participate in that conversation, my critical issue is representative rob bishop's bill to delete the sporting purpose language from the gun control act.
[applause] jeff knox: i do not know about you, but i have never found the words "sporting purpose" in the constitution. i don't find it in the second amendment. and it's been the law that some bureaucrat is deciding what you are or i can import or possess or purchase based on his determination, her determination of what meets some sporting purpose criteria. that's absolutely wrong. one of the issues that's been discussed is some division amongst gun groups and rights advocates. rhyme' a firm supporter of national reciprocity. but there is some division in the house regarding national reciprocity. and whether it's a wise move to push. when it comes to removing the sporting purpose language, i do
not think there's anybody this this room or in the rights movement who disagree that needs to happen and that's a vehicle for getting votes. we need to be pushing the house and the senate today to push this bill to get the votes so that we have the ammunition that we need. we know who's on our side and who's not on our side, and we know who to vote for come 2016. that's the objective and that's what we want to do with gunvoter.org and bring that in. now, a lot of you know that i'm not a specialist. i don't focus in one area. i'm kind of eclectic. i get around. i do a lot of things. i'm interested in a lot of things. as i listen to the panels here, one after the other, there's
always something that i want to comment on, something i want to add. as we talk about the emotion, i want to bring up a story. a few years ago, i was testifying before the d.c. city council. and marion barry, councilmember marion barry, former mayor of d.c., gave an emotional plea talking about all of the funerals that he had attended due to gun violence. and i got my opportunity at the microphone and i gave my little spiel and i said, before i go, i want to say something to mayor barry about those funerals, because i want to tell you about the funerals that i haven't attended. i didn't attend a funeral for my great grandmother before i was born. i didn't -- my family didn't have to attend her funeral when she was alone with her four
siblings in a farmhouse in louisiana and a disgruntled former employee was kicking on the door, declaring how he was going to murder all of them, and she stood alone in the front room with a shotgun and defended her family and survived. [applause] i did not have to attend the funeral of my grandmother and my aunt when they were in a remote location in new mexico and were assaulted by a man with a large knife. and my grandmother pulled her pistol from her purse and said, you get back, and they survived. [applause] i didn't have to attend the funeral of either of my sisters on two separate occasions, one
when a man came into our home and my little sister was home alone and met him at the top of the stairs with a gun and she survived. [applause] when my other sister, my older sister, stopped in at a rest stop on the highway to take care of a little bit of business on a long trip, and someone assaulted her in the stall in the bathroom. and she had a gun, and she survived. [applause] as allen has told us, guns save lives. uns are what separate good guys from the bad guys and gives us the ability to defend against those willing to do evil against us. and so let's never forget that if it saves one life, the life
it saves just might be yours. anyway -- [applause] to wrap things up, i want to say thank you for being here. i am looking forward to the leadership institute's program across the way this afternoon. if you can attend, it is always worthwhile. morton's programs are spectacular. allen, this has been a great, great conference and we're glad that all of you guys could come out. votes, your vote, every vote matters, but right now the votes that matter the most are the votes in congress to let us know where these folks really stand. so i urge you to urge or politicians, your elected servants, the guys who are supposed to be working for you, to vote on the bishop bill, to vote on national reciprocity, and give us the
ammunition we need to move forward on gunvoter.org and other sites that are mobilizing the right -- rights movement to get the right people elected to defend our rights. i am jeff knox with the firearms coalition. thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> thank you, jeff. and thank you, allen. we finished a little early, so we have more time for questions. if you have a question, i would like you to line up over here o my left. and be prepared to state your name and location and ask a question. ome of our panelists from this morning had to fly the coop, so they may not be here, but we will do our best. if other morning panelists are
available, they do not have to come all the way up on the stage, but if they want to hang out over there or down -- or come up on the stage, we will do our best to answer all the questions. but like alextory beck, i will say -- alex tribeck, i will say, please, in the form of a question. if you have statements to make later, that is what the hallway is for. if you want to engage in an extended dialogue with one of our panelists, again, i'm sure they'd be happy to see you out in the hall. we are going to get started. again, if you would state your name and state and your question. if you want to direct it specifically to a panelist, give us that. -- that panelist's name. yes. >> >> hang on.
>> try it again. >> one, two, one, two. >> is the switch on that mic or is there a switch? i like it better with a switch. works better when you turn it on. >> go ahead, sir. >> just get closer? ok. my name is steve, i'm a county commissioner from anderson county, tennessee, longtime number of s.a.f., n.r.a., you name it. i have one fairly broad question, i could go to a lot of people, but some people might have some answers. why is it not a federal civil rights crime for michael bloomberg and his kind to rganize and fund a conspiracy to deprive the united states citizens of fundamental constitutional rights?
[applause] >> not working. >> all mikes are on. >> yes, i believe we're speaking from the podium so television cameras are focused on the podium and you're not there. the problem is the courts historically have ruled that people have first amendment rights to do these kinds of things. and the only way -- only recourse is to either use your irst amendment right to combat that or use your voting rights to beat them and remove them from public office. and so while we can argue it is because they are depriving their rights and should be put in jail, it is just not going to happen. >> i will take a crack at that. f i could move over --
i have a very quick answer. i think our billionaires fight gainst their billionaires. my only question there is, where are they? where are our billionaires, because i really want to meet them. >> donald trump. jeff knox: i am not sure he's ours. >> he has a second amendment -- jeff knox: who's our next question? hi, bob. >> i'm not a supporter of donald trump. my candidate in 2016 is nobody, to vote for nobody, no candidate, but i would say donald trump has a second amendment statement on his webpage second to none. >> hi, bob. >> thank you. my name is bob. i'm a semi-retired engineer, living in wyoming. i escaped from maryland. in the form of the question, as you say, the question is to the folks who are talking about the
n.f.a. regulations and the $200 tax that got imposed. i'm going to reiterate, why was that tax imposed? now, the person that answered that question for me out in the hall actually, i kind of answered it for him, is because under the second amendment, they cannot regulate those firearms. they had to find a dodge. that was a tax. that same thing is going to be applied for ammo and everything else we hear about today. so just remember that. they realize they can't do some things under the second amendment from, but they find ways around it. >> right, absolutely right, bob. >> yes, sir. >> there was a questioner? peggy: well, we're grading on the curve. >> hey. i'm ed. i'm a local activist in phoenix, arizona. i had a wonderful time this weekend. i have heard "infringed" and "infringement" several times.
my question is, why is it that i never hear "necessary for the security of a free state"? thank you. >> you want me to take a stab at it? >> there is no doubt that as part of the second amendment. and there is no doubt the second amendment was written to keep us secure as a free state. and that one of the problems the founding fathers saw was the federal government running away from people's rights. and basically like it or not, to rebel. but in today's context, in the modern world, we're pretty much an ing at it fighting as individual right's battles, and not rejecting free states.
we are relying on two key cases, the heller case and the mcdonald case, that talked about you having the right to hold a firearm to protect yourself. it didn't talk very much about protecting your free state. when we look at attacking gun laws that are put in place that are screwing up our gun rights, they are all basically aimed at us as individuals. you do not hear a lot about it because in the context of the modern debate in the current battle, it is not the front line, i guess. peggy: go ahead, alan. alan: i'll make a general comment about that. the founders noted if we did not have moral people in government, then the constitution and the whole concept of self-governance would not work. we do not have strongly moral people in government. i think we recognized that on both sides of the aisle. so the 10th amendment, for example, which says that all
power is not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the people in the states, respectively. so we have the government regulating all sorts of things they are not empowered to do. there is no legitimate delegated authority to control education, energy, drugs, all these things that the federal government has taken upon itself. it has no legitimate delegated authority to do. if you find it regulating in the second amendment or gun rights or medical care or energy policy or education at the state level, we have people who are not moral, who are not following the constitution from top to bottom, and that's creating problems with our nation across the board. it seems to me last time the government actually looked at the constitution to see if we had power to do the things there are' doing was in the implementation of the federal highway system where they call it the federal defense highway
system and said we need this so that we can defend the nation adequately and move troops in times of emergency and justified it on that basis. and when bob spoke about the n.f.a., they said we can't regulate the guns because of the second amendment but perhaps we can tax them and that would be ok and they applied a $200 tax which at the time was a year's salary, so that would regulate them almost totally ithout infringing on the second amendment. it was a relevant way to do it with a figurative to get away with it. now government just does what it wants regardless of the 10th amendment that says you cannot and they just do it and there is no reality controlling them, and founders are right. no moral people in government or very few, and government has run amok, and we find ourselves in a dastardly state of affairs. peggy: we're going to take two more questions.
i don't know why you people are so shy and you don't line up when i tell you to line up. we have one question here, and the next question here, and then we will allow c-span to take down their cameras, and then we will go into resolutions. yes, sir. >> thank you. i'm byron baker from arizona. i have a question and am looking for comments and some advice on future activities that we might participate in as carriers. there is that arena of intimidation and a yet unnamed army that is developing against all carriers throughout the nation, a practice called swatting where any citizen can yell gun like fire in a theater and there's a moral imperative on the part of law enforcement to come immediately to the area where gun has been cited in a shopping mall, a theater, on the sidewalks, getting out of your car at a grocery store, nd i guess to condense it, my
question is going to be, what would be my legal response in case i am swatted by somebody who is hysterical or who is now a member of this unnamed army that feels like in hitlerian germany, you are supposed to cheat or betray your neighbor if they were housing somebody, for example? i do not want to be swatted, but i feel like if i am i need some kind of legal recourse and i wonder what the organizations might do to inform the public about their obligation and responsibility have in case on victimhood is created and talked about yesterday. >> the first thing is survive the situation. number one is to survive it. and that means absolute compliance with the police when they show up because they have been told there is a man with a gun, and they're possibly jittery. but after surviving it -- and
actually, it's the violence policy coalition that has been pushing this concept of swatting on your facebook and twitter feeds, and it is vile. it is illegal for someone to give a false report. and if they exaggerate that report -- we had a guy killed at a costco in las vegas because the reports were exaggerated. he walked out the door, and the police shot him. it was a horrible thing. but as far as legal consequences or backing up, i think that the organizations that we have would try and back you up and try and support you if we could find an angle for it but it's a very difficult situation. it really is. it is dangerous. >> we have accomplished a great deal by making us aware that it could happen. peggy: and charles heller from his perch over there.
>> yeah, sir, the arizona -- sir, the arizona citizens defense league is looking at that for this legislative session. we had an incident of exactly that happen in flagstaff last week with a retired peace officer who is also disabled. the store there that used to be -- i can't think of the name of the store -- a chain that was recently acquired, the store called police and accused him of waving a gun around, and he got swatted. he has agreed to come and testify if we run a bill from citizens defense league, and we're looking at doing that. you should all look at our website for updates on that. i don't know if the president is here. i know frank, the treasurer, is here. and tom woodrow, who is up here with me, is also on the board. you can talk to us afterwards. and who is in the back? and drake is back there, who's also on the board, he's in the room and you can talk to him
about it. azcdl.org, and look for updates and legislation. >> i am going to basically use my skills as a writer to suggest a strategy. if somebody yells gun and you're the person carrying the gun, yell, police. because that has two meanings. one is that it implies that you are a police but also implies that you are calling for the police. it might defuse the situation and save lives. [applause] peggy: and our last question, yes, sir. san m dr. johnny dean from antonio, texas. my question is in regard to gun-free zones. what strategy can we have to uphold the owners accountable when they disarm us and then something bad happens? how do we put teeth into it,
especially corporate entities that disarm us and feel there is absolutely no negative side to it? >> we have to create negative sides to it and the best way is legislatively, putting teeth into law. if you do that you become liable to the person that becomes the victim and you have the liability now and the victim can sue you and the way the statute gets written, it puts the burden of proof back on the businesses who said you could not defend yourself, and empowers victims to be able to sue. attorneys from all the big corporations who want to take riff n say, there's nor for us than not have a gun-free zone. i think the legislation empowers personal lawsuits but making the laws more in favor of the plaintiff. >> here in arizona, twice we have introduced the gun-free
zone liability act, says if a place with a make-believe gun free zone, a sign on the wall, and you are harmed by that, they bear liability for that if you are harmed. we haven't gotten it enacted yet but we introduced it twice. we modified the bill to improve it and you bring up a very good point. rye to bear arms is a specific right, that's what it was called in the heller case. the idea they can deny you civil rights is prohibited. if you deny a person's civil rights under color of law, that's a federal felony. they think they can do this with impunity. conflict between private property rights and your right to keep and bare arms. in your home you can deny a fat
person, a woman, a gay and lesbian person, a gun owner, you can deny almost anybody to come into your home, but in a store, if you run a candy store, you can no longer deny any person access, but they believe they can deny you access if you exercise your civil right to arms. and this is an untested area of law but we intend to test it. and we intend to introduce this bill again over and over around the country, it's been introduced elsewhere, the gun free zone liability act, where if you deny a person their right to keep and bare arms and they are harmed by that, you incur liability. the classic case is the massacre in texas, where susanna left her gun in the car, a madman came in, killed 23 people, she had a clear shot at him, and because of law she couldn't shoot him. and both her parents were killed by the madman and she was denied her right to have a firearm which is a fundamental civil and
human right. so this has to stop. and the public has to start becoming aware at these make believe gun-free zones, these pretend gun-free zones do nothing but protect the criminal and we have that now in federal law. there was a military bill introduced, one of these on the army bills where the legislation says that the military recognizes that these make believe gun-free zones are dangerous because we had military people shot by jihaddies, a jihaddy in a place where they were not able to be armed and they want to see an end. the civilians want to see it end as well. with little luck we'll get this done in due course. [applause] >> thank you, alan. now we are going to take about a five-minute break while our c-span cameras come down. we want to thank c-span for
covering it and they will -- yes, round of applause for c-span. [applause] >> congress is back today for the first time since their thanksgiving break. at 2:00 p.m. eastern you'll see the house gavel in to consider nine bills. including one dealing with cybercrime as people are online today doing holiday shopping. this is cybermonday today. also is a bill to continue e.p.a. technical assistance, a small public water systems. you'll see that debate live here on c-span as the house gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern today. the senate gaveling in at 3:00 eastern and they'll consider the nomination of the -- nominee to u.s. agency for international development today. you can see that debate and vote coming up at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> tonight on the communicators, author robby bok joins us from new york to talk about his book, x box revisitted. he worked for microsoft for 22 years.
including four years as president of its entertainment division and as chief exbox officer. guiding its creation and development. he also discusses technology, tech competition, and microsoft, and the importance of civics in american life. >> today civic engineering is the work any of us can do and all should and must do to make our communities operate more efficiently and effectively. to make our communities serve citizens in a better way. it's old school civics. it's superimportant. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states admonish to draw near and give their attention. >> coming up on c-span's landmark cases -- > and shows a piece of paper and this man demanded to see the
paper and to read it, see what it was. which they refused to do so she grabbed it out of his hands to look at it. and then a scuffle started and she put this piece of paper into her bosom. police readily the officer put his hands into her bosom and removed the paper. and thereafter, thereafter handcuffed her while the police officers started to search the house. >> in 1957, the cleveland police went to a home who they believed to be harboring a suspected bomber and demanded entry. she refused them access without warrant. later returning with a document they claimed was a warrant, they forced themselves into the home and searched the premises. not finding their suspect, police instead confiscated a trunk containing obscene pictures in the basement. she was arrested and sentenced
to seven years for the contraband. she sued and her case made it all the way to the supreme court. we'll examine the case of mapp v. ohio, explor the matter of evidence obtained through ill kneel searches and seizures and how this and other supreme court rulings transform police practices nationwide. that's coming up on the next "landmark cases" live tonight on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio, for background order your copy of the book, available for 8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. it >> up next, gun control advocates discuss gun violence, mass shootings, and public health. this was hosted by the commonwealth club of california in san francisco.
>> good evening, welcome to tonight's meeting of the commonwealth club of california. the place where you're in the know. you can find the commonwealth club online at commonwealthclub.org. i'm mark follman, national affairs editor for mother jones and moderator for tnt's program, gun violence and public health, underwritten by the california wellness foundation. the data on gun violence in the united states is sobering. according to the centers for disease control and spreengs, each year more than 33,000 americans are killed by--- by guns and 80,000 are treated in hospitals for nonfatal gunshot wounds. more than 20,000 of the gun
deaths per year are suicides. hundreds of kids die annually in homicides and each week seems to bring news of another child accidentally shooting himself or a sibling with an unsecured firearm. while violent crime overall has declined steadily in recent years, rates of gun related injury and death have climbed since 2011, and public mass shootings have become more frequent. among 15 to 24-year-olds, gun fatalities are about to surpass car dents as the leading cause of death. in the last several years, u.s. surgeon general, and organizations such as the american bar association, the american public health association, the american academy of pediatrics have all urged that gun violence should be regarded as a serious public health issues. it what are the realities of gun violence in our country? what kinds of innovative
solutions are being put forth to reduce the carnage? tonight, our panel is here to discuss how gun related injuries and deaths impact the health of americans and their communities. and what can be done to help solve the problem. joining us are dr. ricky choi, who serves on the board of directors for the national physicians alliance. margaux hirsch, president of the snath check balances foundation. pastor michael mcbride, lead pastor at the way christian center in berkeley, california, and director of urban strategies at peko national network. and robin thomas, executive director of the law center to prevent gun violence. please join me in welcoming our panelists to the commonwealth club. [applause] i'd like to begin with a basic
question about gun violence as a public health issue. why should it be considered a public health issue and why doesn't the general public tend to see it as a major public health issue? maybe we can start with you, dr. choi. . choi: public health is promoting and protecting the health of people and communities where they live, work, go to school, and play. public health is about promoting healthy behaviors, reducing injury and harm, and gun violence as a direct threat to these aims. physicians are on the frontlines every day dealing with this in our hospitals and clinics. except for situations where victims end up in the morgue, all of these victims end up in our clinics. and we feel very strongly the national physician alliance and other if iian organizations there is consensus that gun violence is a public health issue. that we as health care providers need to take very seriously as a
primary care physician, for me to talk to my patients about guns in the home, review safety measures if they do. mark: robin? robin: i think that traditionally people think about public health issues in terms of things like diseases. the kinds of problems that confront our society that we don't have that same level of agency and control over sometimes. and with gun violence, i think the perception, similar to cars, i think that's a good analogy, that there isn't a way to address it because of the agency, the intervention of human agency that's involved in the problem. but if you take a step back from that and you look at public health as a situation where communities are in danger of being harmed and there are both preventive ways to address the problem, you can make guns safer the way we did with cars. you can affect people's behaviors, the way that they treat and store and deal with guns. the guns themselves can be made safer. so i think when it comes to public health people hear the
word public health and think of chicken pox. they don't think of cars and guns as being public health crises. yet if you look at the number of people being harmed by all kinds of diseases that very readily we take steps to prevent and to deal with these problems and keep them from harming people, it's so jobous -- obvious i when you look at the 100,000 people getting shot every year that it's a epidemic. it should be viewed that way. there are so many things that can be done that would have an impact on those numbers. mark: one of the countervailing arguments to epidemic is that on a percentage basis or as a relative portion of the population that the gun violence problem is very small. but i'm curious what your thoughts are on how this is seen at the local level in communities and medical facilities. what are people not seeing about gun violence that goes beyond just what we see in the daily of news which, frankly,
i think a lot of people are desensitized to at this point? pastor mcbride? certainly de: i think that the reality around the daily impacts and effects of gun violence, at least in the way i imagine and experience it, is not always very quan at this final through news reports. the level certainly think that of trauma that families and communities are consequence transly having to process and address whether they themselves are victimized by gun violence. whether folks in their immediate family have been victimize -- victimized by gun violence or whether it's a larger communal impact related to trauma. of course when we see the way these issues are covered in the news, in media, which i think is the kind of largely kind of pipeline of how we get and process information, it's largely solely demonstrated as
an act of violence. a very abrasive violation. you but rarely is it narrated in a way where people are constantly having to live in many of our communities in this country in war zones that are actually assaulting the psychology, the emotion, and the spirit of young people and families far beyond the physical toll. i think the daily impact at least how we understand it, particularly here in the bay area, very much around trauma. we just really quickly, 600 shootings have happened in the bay area, averaged, other the last 20 years. killings orand, 120 so averaged. you can imagine the concentric circles of trauma, of families that have had to deal with gun related homicides, not even speaking about suesides. i think trauma is something we
have to continue to -- mark: as you're suggesting it's not the victims or their families, the impact of this goes far beyond that. i'm sure you see that in the day-to-day in hospitals, too, dr. choi. dr. choi: it's a really sad thing in the bay area when we know when it's going to be a hot summer we'll be seeing more gun victims in our wards. there's this anecdotal relationship. warm summers, more gunshot victims. we did a survey, it was informal survey of our members, 20,000 physicians, asking of them what is your number? when you reflect on medical school, residency, in your practice, personal lives, how many gun violence victims have you had interaction with? the average number was 40. that's an incredible number. and i think that, again, reminds
us that we are -- health care and medicine, it's really important intersection where we are trying to care for the violence, but also have opportunity to take one step -- move one step ahead and try to take steps for prevention as well. mark: margo hirsch, as someone who is working in the realm of solutions, we are talking about the bay area and problems here which in some ways are reflected in every major cosmopolitan area in the contry, but the bay area is the epicenter of technological innovation, we often in america have produced -- we are producing world changing technology and specifically here, what technologies are available to us now to address this problem? margo: the primary technologies we are seeing today through the challenge that the smart tech foundation started in january,
2014, are primarily biometric technologies. so fingerprint reading. an r.f.i.d., radio frequentcy. those are the two standouts right now. they are effective in different use cases. a biometric fingerprint reading, reader would be extremely personal in a protection home environment or gun range where there is no water, no blood. whereas for hunters who might have dirty hands or wear gloves an rfid solution might be more effective. also for leerment -- law a orcement, an rfid might be potential better solution because it requires you to wear a ring or bracelet in order to fire the trigger of a firearm. alternatively you could put a small chip into your hand because for law enforcement you actually have to be able to fire out of both hands. and the concern is if the gun
was taken away or if you injured yourself, you would have to be able to use someone else's gun or fire out of your other hand. so that technology could be very effective. we are also seeing things like smart ammunition, which is unusual. another approach. we are also seeing a variety of technologies that can be retrofitted to existing firearms because there are 300 million firearms in this country today. so not only do you have to think about the new firearms, which are 10 million that come into the market every year, but you have all those existing firearms out there that you'd want to make safer as well. so we are seeing retrofit chnologies, extern at -- external locking technologies, as well as a few actually integrated into the gun itself. mark: it sounds like promising technologies, yet i think few people have heard of them even.
why have they not taken better hold? margo: very good point. i think one of the big issues is that there is no market demand for these technologies because people aren't aware of them. there's been no incentive in the past to get involved in this ype of project because the n.r.a. has not been extremely supportive of bringing these types of technologies to market. received 90, we funding to develop smart guns, they were boycotted. and in 2000 through the clinton administration received funding for smith and wesson, they, too, went out of business. the gun manufacturers have no desire to jump into this space. for people, new innovators, there is a lack of capital
available for them because when you go to raise money, a venture capitalist is going to say what's the market opportunity? how big is the market demand? and there isn't a market demand because the technologies don't exist. it's a real catch-22. but at the foundation we are trying to deal with and hopefully overcome. mark: technology certainly seems like one promising avenue, but of course what's done at the community level is a much more complicated picture and varies widely depending where you are in the country. pastor mcbride, what do you think are the most crucial things that local community leaders are doing on this issue or perhaps should be doing? pastor mcbride: i think that the first thing we all have to do is change our assumption that this problem is unsolvable. i think there's a certain attractibility as relates to at people believe is
inevitable. particularly as it relates to gun violence in urban communities. for the last 10 years or so, we have been engaging in a number of strategies that are popularly known as cease-fire to help reduce the number of firearm offenders and offenses in our community communities across the country. and we have amazing results. since 2007 in the bay area, we have seen a 60% or 70% decline in gun related homicides in the city of richmond. city of oakland we have seen almost a 30%-40% reduction in homicide. the reason is many of the firearm offenders, or people chenoweth-hage naged in gun violence, it's a very small number of individuals. if you have gun related shootings or gun related homicides in a city, it's not because you have 100 individual firearm offenders or shooters, you have a smaller number who are engaging in volume activities. our work has been to actually
interact and engage with those individuals and interrupt their engagement. the analogy i use is many of these young people are caught on a dryer -- how many of you have seen a dryer, you know what driers are? it's twirling, twirling. if you open the dryer, clothes start flying out, right? because it's been on a cycle for so long. many of us have never opened the door. of the psych ms. i have found when you open doors, the pathways for individuals to actually choose different kinds of choices, many of them, the overwhelming majority of them, stop shooting with no incentive because many of them want to live. they just have not had those kind of cycles interrupted with love, structure, and with the pathway out. those strategies are strategies we are trying to bring to scale across the country. even more so here in the bay area. but we do find that that allows us to engage in public safety
measures. i do not criminalize whole communities and more of our black and brown young people to jail and prison and keep our communities intact. we are finding great promise, we need more political support. a lot of more constitutional policing to help us have legitimacy in the community. and certainly a lot more resources. hopefully all those things will continue to come together. it mark: you mentioned policing. policing in the united states is an officer involved shootings, in particular, have become a major issue in the last year. how do you think that might be affecting perceptions of the gun violence problem in our country? pastor mcbride: it's a big perception. -- perception problem because since the war on drugs -- let me say this. in 1939, a prominent clergy mentor of mine was born in the south and his mom registered him as a lifelong member of the
naacp. the number one issue of the naacp in 1939 was police brutality. long before the war on drugs. long before the black panther party. long before the civil rights movement. long before integration. police brutality. there has not been one day that black folk have been in the united states and not had their lives subject to arbitrary violence by the state or by its law enforcement apparatus. it's important to show history because i think it helps us to appreciate what we are seeing around the tipping point around police reform is a long time coming. our strategies that depend on us working with law enforcement, to be able to do constitutional policing in communities, require us to have policing services that are constitutional, that are not dominated by rogue lethal force policing, and even here in the city, earlier today, was at a rally for mr. lopez,
another young latino brother, many cases where law enforcement are actively engaging in violent and even lethal acts, that erodes community trust that is necessary to actually create a kind of public safety partnership. these things are linked. when people say what about black on black crime? i say what about constitutional policing, because we can't have one without the other. i think for me that is the tie in. we work on both sides of the issue. i hope people will begin to see the connections or else we won't have the public safety results, particularly around gun violence we say we want and need. mark: another aspect that's come up with the policing issue in people i have spoken with in the world of law enforcement and robin thomas, maybe you can comment on this, a lot of police go out into their daily work with the expectation that everybody's armed and dangerous. and there's a lot of discussion
about the kind of warrior mental 80 that people -- mentality that police are trained to have. nd pastor mcbride is cause --causing serious problems. gun violence as a highly charged political issue and the legal landscape, what are your thoughts about that? the way that's now come to the forefront with policing? robin: i think when you think about and you talk about gun violence, you need to look at it as a holistic problem. it's not a problem you can solve purely through community approaches, even though i think that's absolutely crucial in some communities. it's certainly not a problem even though we really work on the policy side that's going to be solved through policy solutions. it has to be approached holistically. pastor mcbride and i often talk about the supply side problem and demand side problem in a lot of communities. i mean there is a demand side problem that needs to be met through innovative, thoughtful,
integrated community mechanisms. but we have to deal with the flow of firearms into these communities which is so prolific and so unchecked. that's creating another piece of the puzzle. i think looking at those two things hand in hand in the way they fit together is really important. one of our -- the policies that we have always cared about is assault weapons and large capacity ammunition, partly that's because you see a mass shooting and that's the kind of weaponry that's being utilized. it's also because there is this sort of arms war that happens in inner cities where not as badly in california because the laws are stronger, but certainly happens here and even far worse in other cities where law enforcement demands stronger and stronger weapons to contend with the types of weapons that they are encountering. whether that's true or not is irrelevant because if that's the perception, you look at what happened in ferguson, that kind of military force being brought into a community is crazy. and part of the argument behind that was, we have to be able to
take on these assault weapons that are now proliferating everywhere. there is millions of them, legally and illegally. so i think that that sort of arms war problem that we have in this country with so many guns i think that the ready availability of the assault weapons that have become the choice weapons in a lot of illegal enterprises, as well as horrific tragedies, should spur action. unfortunately, what hasn't been mentioned that much yet on this panel is the n.r.a. and force that lobbying brings to the equation and how that inhibits us from being able to approach things holistically and with a real clear eye for solutions. we have the research. dr. choi and i have talked at length about the types of research that exists as to what policies are out there that work. what evidence do we have of what works? and the problem is even when we know what works, we can't get it in place because we have this
really interesting special interest group that inhibits us from really tackling this problem with intelligence, with solutions that we know are available. mark: what do you see as the top of the list of those policies we know work yet can't be put in place. robin: universal background checks. not even a pause. we have to have background checks on every single sale and transfer of weapons in this country. because guns unlike something like drugs are actually manufactured legitimately and have to be imported and tracked, if you just put in place universal background checks for every sale, you can begin to assess where they are coming from, who is getting them, how, in a way that's impossible now because you don't need a background check in a private sale. there is no system in place that helps us even understand the flow of 300 million guns in this contry. that's step one. i think it's absolutely crucial. mark: what you're describing is from the perception of the american public not a radical
idea. robin: 9 it% of the american people when polled supported universal background checks on all sales after newtown, that's in wyoming, everywhere. our senate only mustered 54 votes to put that in place. unfortunately, even though americans want it, our leaders don't represent the will of what the american people want and need to address this problem. pastor mcbride: i think we have to ask the question why, and i think what the n.r.a. has done a wonderful job along with gun manufacturers is peddling fear. many of us were in the senate during dianne feinstein's hearing several weeks after the newtown tradgedirks and we heard lindsey graham from south arolina just go on this long diatribe about how the police would not be able to come and protect us in our homes when the looters come and when -- all
these -- the natural disasters come. you're going to need your guns. and lindsey graham should know better. he's not someone who i think believes that in his heart, but it's politics of fear. and the fear of the other. the ways in which people feel like they need to have a gun in order to protect themselves and all the research says if you own a gun you're more likely to be harmed by that gun or a member of your family be harmed by that gun. it's a cruel joke, cruel irony that's being played on the american people. and until we are able to overcome our fears with more hope and love for one another, i think n.r.a. and these manufacturers will actually continue to provide cover for elected officials to keep doing things that they know aren't reating public safety. mark: one of the things we are
getting at here, too, is the politics of guns has a way of obscuring important things about thish shoo -- the issue. we tend to focus on mass shootings, homicide, but according to c.d.c. data, more deaths 00 gun related each year are suesides. more than 80% of suicide attempts using a gun are successful. as a country we tend to think homicides as the biggest part of the problem. why is that? dr. choi? dr. choi: if we look at adolescents, for example, two of the top three causes of deaths we would typically think of as a healthy population are homicides and suesides. th of which -- siouxsides -- suicides, both of-having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide and unintentional injury. we know that providing advice, telling families that if you lock up your gun, keep it unloaded, keep the ammunition separate from the gun, that not
only do patients listen, but it actually does reduce the risk of injury and harm. this is of particular concern when it comes to children. there have been studies that show that while parents think their kids don't know where their guns are, the kids do. and anyone who has any recent experience with an inquisitive child knows that they find those things. i think that recognizing this data requires us to then take that next step and follow up with an intervention. while we have some of this data, i think one of the frustrations in the medical community is that we don't have enough data. in the mid 1990's, the gun lobby blocked funding for gun research, and in fact explicitly stated the c.d.c. could not pursue research around gun violence. we don't know is still hurting us. recently that has changed and
there is a presidential order that allows the c. deprks c. to pursue -- c.d.c. to pursue research, but there isn't funding. there is this big problem we know is there. we think we know some things, we don't know enough. to continue to build the strong case of things that we already know is true is is challenging in this context. they have tied this up when we talk about public health and research and a couple of different ways. mark: another issue that comes up with lot in the context of mass shootings, which tend to get the most attention in the national media, is mental health. can you talk a little bit about the connection between mental health and gun violence, what people understand and don't understand about that? dr. choi: i think when -- these mass shootings and the first question becomes what's wrong with the shooter? do they have a mental illness? we start to straddle a very challenging political line. we need to spend more money on mental health.
yes. yes, we do. do we need to spend more money on reducing gun violence, reducing guns, background checks, and other policy issues? yes, we dofment but they are pitted against each other. unfortunately that doesn't help either of these important needs. it's true that those with the history of it juvenile crime in the past, those with a history of substance abuse, those with history of mental health issues re at a higher risk of gun violence. but turn it upside-down, certainly isn't true. everyone who is a substance user, everyone who is -- has a mental illness is not necessarily a threat. to the general public and to themselves. it's a very challenging thing to try to nail down, identify that person who is having a variety of personal issues, whether or not they are really truly a threat to themselves and people. it's a challenge that physicians and other health care providers are dealing with every single
day. but the importance is to narrow in on that particular group of people. and not to have this broad swath of saying, yeah, everyone who is committed homicide must have a mental health issue. all people with mental health issues are necessarily threats to themselves and the community. robin: i would add to that if you look at other countries, it provides a really interesting comparison because we don't have higher rates of mental illness in this country than other countries. we don't have more violent video games in this country than anywhere else. yet our rates of gun death are so far surpassed any other industrialized nation on earth. in fact, there are even industrialized countries with a lot of guns, like canada, who also have rates of mental illness like ours, violent video games, who don't have the gun death rate that we do. you have to ask yourself, yes, do we have mental health issues
that need better funding and better address particularly veterans, 22 suicides a day every day in this country with guns are veterans, 22 veteran suicides every single day. that is astounding to me. maybe a separate conversation. i think a really important piece of information. is mental illness a problem? yes, but that's not the gun problem. because you can see if you take a step back that that's not what's causing it. it's the easy access that you have. when you have any kind of issue, whether it's depression, whether it's frustration that the gun is right there. 75% of the suicides of people under the age of 19 are not the person's gun. it's somebody else's gun. so it's an impulsive act. when guns are so easily available, not locked up, and so easy to find in that moment, you see drastic consequences. margo: you have 1.7 million
unlocked and loaded guns in homes today. so one in three homes today have a gun. over 55% have a gun that's unlocked. not in a gun safe. that's primarily because gun owners feel they are typically quite responsible lock up the bulk of their guns, but they want one out of the safe very easily accessible for personal protection. that's oftentimes where these problems come in because they are not always locked up and they are oftentimes unloaded -- loaded and that's when children and people who are high risk can easily access them and use them. -- mark: on a similar note, why is it we have an inordinate problem with gun violence when we compare ourselves to other countries? this is one of the most difficult questions of this issue. if we think about it
holistically, from a public health perspective, we don't have a monopoly on mental health problems or violent movies or video games, why do we have so much more gun violence in this country? i put that to anyone on the panel who would like to respond. pastor mcbride? pastor mcbride: well, i think a couple things. i'll certainly be speaking from a place of just personal reflection. the legacy of violence that this auntry has been founded on as has zing force i think -- sowed ed -- soed seeds of violence in this country that probably requires maybe latent persistent fear that somebody's going to come back and get you and get us, maybe.
i think there is a culture of violence that is just a part of the fabric of the united states of america. and while there are always folks that believe we need to get our country back to the good old days, things always remember that the days have never been good for a large number of people. and that has been because of the presence of arbitrary violence. that's one thing. i also think that it's a deeply moral problem. i think it speaks to a hole in the soul of america that we have become socalous in the value of life that we have and we share for our neighbor. i think that has spilled over to a certain sense of hopelessness that a lot of people are carrying that may cause them to feel like they don't have an
option but to take their life. i think it's a convoluted issue. i do believe that as a faith leader, someone who believes very deeply in spirituality and purpose i do think our country has a legacy of violence that is always a backdrop. i think it continues to inform the way in which we have marched from the past into our present and future. that's why i think all of us need to be advocating for more peacemaking work broadly in our country and not always resulting to violence to solve our problems whether they are domestic or abroad. mark: a related question from the audience suggesting that the fundamental issue may be poor parenting. guns are not the problem, it's the lack of education, especially in single parent families. how do you solve that issue? pastor mcbride: get rid of the guns. i always tell folks, you know,
every gun related homicide costs the city on the low end, $2 million. some have it as high as $5 million. it's a vicious cycle, right? because the kinds of resources that every general fund in a municipality has to spend to either deal with the homicides that are happening in our communities or the officers that are often used as a political ploy to expand their budgets are all coming from the general fund. if all the money's being poured into public safety, then you don't have resources left to put it to schools and parks and jobs and all these other kinds of things that i think all of us would say is a priority. so i think part of what we have to do is make some very important choices about what do we value the most? i kind of reject the idea that poor parenting is the result of -- is a cause for gun violence.
because that would seem to presuppose that poor parents are only in one community. how many of you have poor parents? keep it real, keep it real, keep it real. i think it's something much more complex than that. but i hear that often. i guess i'm used to rejecting that notion. robin: i would totally second that. the idea that the problem is that simple. i don't know if that person who wrote that question doesn't have children or doesn't have enough children, but i can guarantee you you get enough children whether they are from poor families or rich families and you will encounter children who have issues and are unmanageable and prone to violence whether it's one reason or another, and that's not always parenting. which is not to say that there aren't a lot of things that we try to do as parents to help our children go down the right path, but identity deto me that
americans are somehow worse parents than any other country and that's why we have a gun violence problem is astounding. i think it totally fails to recognize the real issues that poor communities do face when you're confronted with violence in your community every single day. the challenge is far different. when you have hopelessness, when you don't have jobs or good education, those are issues that that can help children have the hope, the path that they need. parents can only do so much without a community that supports them. with sort of what children are forced to witness in the community in which they live. i find that question borderline insulting because i think it doesn't take into account the realities and the difficulties and complexities that certainly many communities face, poor and rich, but more prevalent in poor communities because they don't have the resources and support. mark: dr. choi. dr. choi: as a pediatrician that talks about a lot of parenting and dad of three kids, woefully
inefficient -- insufficient in terms of my parenting skills, think every day the many ways i could have done this or that, to turn that suggestion on its head is to say we are all responsible. to try to be a good role model. to be the faith leader, to be the pediatrician. to be the personal on the street that shows children and young adults and all of us, for that matter, the role model good ways of conflict resolution. how we engage one another. how we handle aggression. we move that even further to talk about media, right. we talk about the public health successes around motor vehicle accidents. and tobacco. media campaigns. putting role models on television about gun violence and the dangers of it. education campaigns around those things. i think we all have a tremendous opportunity to play a role, to provide that influence as suggested in that question. so i encourage all of you to do
so. mark: you're listening to the commonwealth club of california radio program. tonight's discussion is gun violence and public health, underwritten by the california wellness foundation. our panelists are dr. ricky choi who serves on the board of directors for the national physicians alliance. margaux hirsch, president of the smart tech challenges foundation. pastor michael mcbride, lead pastor at the way christian center in berkeley, california, and director of urban strategies at peko national network. and robin thomas, executive director of the law center to prevent gun violence. i'm mark follman national affairs editor for mother jones and moderator for tonight's program. we touched on the economic cost of gun violence a little earlier. recently mother jones collaborated with the top public health economist to investigate
the economic toll of gun violence and found it to be at least $229 billion a year. that's more than what our country spends on obesity and almost as much as we spend on medicaid. in some ways the $229 billion annual figure is a conservative estimate. what does this massive economic cost mean in terms of public health and health in our communities and are people even aware of it? robin: one of the statistics i read and one of the facts that we talk a lot about in trying to show the correlation between the prevalence of guns and gun violence is in states where you have really strong gun regulations, have much lower ownership rates of guns who have much lower gun violence and gun death rates, it's not a causation argument but a correlation and that's obvious. california for example has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country even though we have some of the urban issues and other problems we have. far lower per capita than a
place like wyoming. and the state of hawaii has one of the lowest costs per capita for gun violence. i think it's $200 a person a year. wyoming's costs per person per year, gun violence, taxpayer cost is $1,400 a year. that's wyoming. not a state that people think of violence a huge gun problem but it does because there are so many guns in so many hands. it all fits together. you have high gun ownership, and the cost not just to communities, forget the human cost, financial cost, is tremendous. and most of that cost flows directly to the taxpayer. so we are all paying the cost every day of this issue. it's not something that's borne by individual families and the just to and communities which is bad enough. mark: you certainly see that in the medical world, too, right, dr. choi, the burden on hospitals? dr. choi: the estimate costs of gun violence to hospitals is on the order of $2 billion a year. i think that money is probably
much better spent on investing in public health, right. intervention that is we know work. addressing social determine nantz of health like poverty, homelessness, this is -- this goes back to the commonly used phrase, we don't have a health care system, we have a sick care system. if we really want to move forward in terms of creating a healthy society, the aims of public health it's investing in those areas is much better spend spent. -- better spent. mark: we haven't talked a lot about politics but an undeniable important part of this picture and the role of the national rifle association and other gun lobbyists, is it fair to ascribe such blame to the gun lobby in terms of standing in the way of the things that we know that work, the evidence based solution, the technologies in some ways they are an easy villain.
how does that equation work out in the reality of policymaking whether it's in the medical world or trying to bring forth technology solutions? dr. choi: here's a clear example. we already discussed, there is evidence that shows that taking proper precautions at home, locking up the gun, keeping it separate from its ammunition, unloaded works. when doctors talk about it, patients listen. however the gun lobby has taken active steps to prevent physicians from having this conversation. in states such as florida and missouri and other states have similar ambitions is now illegal . this is physicians can be punished if they have that conversation with their patients. not only does that infringe on first amendment rights of physicians of free speech, but also gets in the way of doing things that we know work. and of course infringes on what we view as a sacred physician-patient relationship.
i think that we should be very concerned, there are active efforts to erode those things that we know work and we need to work very hard to overturn those types of laws. mark: with health and technology, why the n.r.a. want to stand in the way of potential solutions like this? it's in no one's interests whether you are conservative or gun rights or liberal, nobody wants to see people die from guns, gun crimes, and suicide, why are they standarding in the -- standing in the way of technology? margo: their concern are smart guns, or this type of technology will lead to mandates around the technology and infringe on their second amendment rights. which is what they always bring up. in the case of a company last year, a german manufacturer that brought the first rfid smart gun to the u.s., and it was first showcased at a gun club in
southern california, and it received a fair a press, and all of a sudden the gun club removed the gun completely from its pub and shelves, completely disavowed, knowing the manufacturer and that also happened in maryland at another gun reseller where they received death threats from the gun community because they were offering this gun for sale. and the gun is no longer sold at this point in time. what's happened is that there is no incentive and if anything there is a fear of retribution for firearm dealers to offer for sale any sort of smart gun technology because they are concerned that their businesses will get boycotted and go out of business.
there is a mandate in the state of new jersey, it's called the childproof handgun law, that was passed in 2002, and the n.r.a. uses that as something to point trigert ays armitics this law and smart guns will lead to mandates. unfortunately the law that they passed in new jersey had the best of intentions to keep children safe by mandating that in three years when a smart gun comes to market all guns had to be smart guns to protect children, but in a sense, no pun intended, it backfired. it's been a huge hindrance in getting these technologies to the market. mark: robin? robin: i don't think there is any doubt that the n.r.a. is a huge impediment to innovative and big thinking approaches to
this problem. once upon a time the n.r.a. was a gun safety organization out of world war i and world war ii to help train people to shoot. and then that changed. now it is run by very hard line leadership which believes in absolutely no gun regulation whatsoever. i think far more represents the interest of the guntry and manufacturers and selling more guns than it does gun safety or interestingly its own members. when they poll n.r.a. members, 75% of them agree with most of the basic regulations and programs we are all talking about. n.r.a. members say, yeah, background checks, great. all kinds of policies that they agree with. yet the leadership, the lobbyists that represent the n.r.a., fight tooth and nail against even basic measures like background checks because more guns can be sold the looser the regulations. i think it's very clear to those of us that are looking closely that the n.r.a. is, in fact, an
impediment to any sort of progress on this issue. they are going to continue to be because a ton of their funding comes from gun manufacturers. and because their membership has a very small, very vocal base which are mostly hard line and who are very noisy and we have 90% of the american public who agrees with us but it's not their primary issue. they are moderately apathetic on this issue so they don't show up to the meetings and town halls and don't vote single issue. these n.r.a. hardliners do. we have this disconnect between 90% of americans and even n.r.a. members being cool with it and then this very, very small, very vocal, very hard line group that has money, that are aggressive, and that are single issue voters that can really dominate on the small front. pastor mcbride: which is to me why i think we need to ask more of our elected officials, i think that the courage necessary to bring about the change we seek can't always be about your
next election nor can it be about these moneyed interests. i know that sounds very altruistic. yet at the same time people's lives are at stake. and i have not found progressive lawmakers to be anymore courageous on this issue. we must remember that at the the senate was controlled by democrats. they couldn't even get all of their own folks to pass the bill out of the senate. so i just continue to believe that we have a lot of work to do to make sure that our lawmakers are oriented towards doing the right thing. t is, i think, again unmasking a moral challenge our country has around these sets of issues, around the valu of life over and
against political expediency or trying to hold on to power rather than serving the people. a lot of our work in the faith community is trying to actually as the pope hopefully influenced moral hner, maybe some force can influence a few other lawmakers to do what's best for the country and not their own political career. dr. choi: i'd like to pick up on what you're saying because i think you're suggesting that in a sense the hope for that is much more perhaps at the local and state level. mark: after the sandy hook massacre, almost three years ago now, as we all know congress had a very high profile debate over a background -- universal background check bill. failed to pass it. ever since there has been a pervasive myth that nothing has changed. that's not true at all. there's been a huge amount of legislative activity at the state level. can you talk about that, robin thomas, and what has and has not
changed since then. robin: i think you put it right that there was -- i thought of it as a sea change after newtown. we had been working at the state level for 20 years. we were lucky to get requests from three, four, five, states looking toint dues new laws. in the year after newtown we were contacted by 30 states looking to introduce new regulations. and eight states passed really sweeping profound laws, including states like new york, maryland, and delaware, and mississippi and colorado that passed really comprehensive regulations modeled in brought on california's regulation which took us 20 years to get in place. in the year after newtown we were able to help implement that in a number of states. i'm a domestic -- on the domestic violence front, 18 states have passed new lace since new tfpblet states you would never expect like wisconsin and louisiana. we are seeing good mental health progress. states passing laws about that. even background checks. we have 18 states with universal
background checks on gun sales. closed loopholes. that's brand new since new tfpblet we are seeing progress. we are also seeing some pushback and more conservative red states are making it easier to get guns and carry loaded guns in public. but i think mostly what we are noticing is momentum in all of those blue states and purple states. we had a referendum in washington last year, the first time ever this issue voter said ok, politicians, if you're not going to do the right thing by the people we'll put it to the voters. it passed by a wide margin. that was the first time ever that path was used and that same law will be before the nevada voters next year. you are talking about real beth ather -- bell weather states -- >> leave the discussion think point to take you to live coverage of the u.s. house. members are about to gavel in after their week-long thanksgiving break. they are expected to open lidge day with one-minute speeches and then recess to give their colleagues a little more time to
return to political political from their districts. the house will debate nine bills today, including one dealing with cybersecurity and another to continuing an e.p.a. program to provide technical assistance to small public water systems. live coverage of the house. tom: the house will be in order. -- the speaker pro tempore: the how will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., november 30, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable jeff denham to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you have blessed us with all good gifts in this past week with thankful hearts we gathered with family and loved ones throughout this great land
to celebrate our blessings together. bless the members of the people's house who have been entrusted with the privilege to serve our nation and all americans in their need. grant them to work together with respect and affection and remain faithful to the responsibilities they have been given. in the few weeks remaining in this first session, may those issues pressing upon the nation be considered and addressed to the benefit of all. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: blagojevich and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
-- i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the president's legacy of tragic failure is more revealing every day. as refugees flee conflict with children drowning at sea. he should change course to build peace and avoid murderous attacks on american families. i appreciate "the washington post" editorial page editor who clarified last week, quote, he withdrew all u.s. troops from iraq when experts advised that a residual force of 15,000 could help keep a fragile peace. he bombed libya to overthrow its dictator but opposed a small
dateo training force that might have stabilized a new government, end of quote. the president's failure to enforce a declared red line in syria, the president's abandonment of the people of iraq, the president's capitulation to the autocontracts of iran, allowing the nuclear development and the president's betrayal of israel has been catastrophic and has created chaos. it is not too late for the president to change course to promote piece in the middle east. to allow safe havens for slam ibs radicalists abroad is a threat to american families at home. senator lindsey graham tells the truth. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, isis has vowed to take its murderous islamic jihad to america.
isis fighters already here and more on the way. meanwhile, the president wants to add thousands more unvetted syrian refugees to the mix. this when his own f.b.i. director says the federal government cannot effectively conduct proper security checks on these syrian nationals. over half the state governors have refused to take the refugees because of the inability to fully vet them. but the administration says states have to take the refugees whether they like it or not. the law says the federal government must consult with states regarding refugee resettlement. but it's unclear if they could be rejected by the states. that's why i have introduced the states right of refugee renewsal act. this bill gives state governors the choice to accept refugees or not. let's resolve this now with legislation not lawsuits. we don't have years to wait for the courts to decide. meanwhile, let's ramp up aid to syrian refugee cam the overseas and encourage our middle east
earn allies like the saudi arabians to step up and help. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to major congress passed arlier this year, at 11:59 pksmks this last saturday, the national security agency ended the collection of call data. after revel laugsis -- revelations about data collection, myself included, violated search and seizure, congress passed the u.s. freedom act to end this activity. despite violating the privacy of millions of americans, the program never generated intelligence that prevented terrorist activity. americans spoke out and congress acted. our nation's security should be the government's first priority. yet we should never sacrifice liberty for a program that
doesn't increase our safety. as benjamin franklin stated, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speak, 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 november 20, 2015, at 10:06 a.m. that the senate agreed to without amendment, house concurrent resolution 95. that the senate passed senate 2328. senate 1550. that the senate agreed to house amendment to the bill senate 599. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore messer on monday, november 23, 015.
the clerk: senate 599, an act to extend and expand the medicaid emergency psychiatric demonstration project. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:00 p.m. today. >> and the house has recessed to give members more time to return from their home districts after the thanksgiving holiday. when they gavel back in at 4:00 eastern, debate will get under way on nine bills, including one dealing with cybersecurity and another to continue an e.p.a. public water assistance program. later this week you'll see debate setting u.s. energy policy and work continues on the house-senate compromise over highway funding. we'll have live coverage when members return at 4:00 p.m. eastern. while congress debates cybersecurity on this
cybermonday, some of the presidential candidates are getting in on the deal too, offering online discounts of their campaign goods. republican senator ted cruz is offering 20% off on this christmas sweater. and it's today only. and democratic candidate hillary clinton is providing free shipping on orders of $75 or more. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states admonish to draw and give their attention. >> coming up on creevep's "landmark cases" -- person showed a piece of paper and mrs. mapp demanded to see the paper, read what it was which they refused to do so she grabbed it out of his hand and a scuffle started and she put this piece of paper into her bosom. and very readily the police
officer put his hands into her bosom and removed the paper. nd thereafter -- thereafter, handcuffed her while the police officers started to search the house. >> in 1957, the cleveland police went to mapp's home who they believed to be harboring a suspected bomber and demanded entry. she refused them access without a warrant. later returning with a document claiming to be a warrant, they forced themselves into the home and searched the premises. ot getting their suspect, they obtained on scene and was sentenced to seven years for the contraband. she sued and her case went all the way to the supreme court. we'll explore the matter of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures and how this and other supreme court rulings transformed police practices nationwide. that's coming up on the next
"landmark cases" live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the "landmark cases" componon book available for $8.95 plus shipping available on c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> tonight on "the communicators," author robby bach talks about ebox revisited. he worked for microsoft for 24 years, including four years of president of the entertainment division and as chief xbox officer, guiding its creation and development. he also discusses technology, tech competition and microsoft and the importance of siffings in american life. >> to me civic engineering is the work that any of us can do and all of us should and must do to make our communities operate more efficiently and more effectively, to make our
communities serve citizens in a better way. it's old school civics and it's superimportant. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. kwitz next, artist joel is talks about the congressional gold medal through the concept, execution phases and the ceremonies upon the recipients. he addressed the museum of american finance in new york for about an hour and 10 minutes. david: good afternoon, welcome to our friends from the c-span audience. what that means for our audience, during the q&a, during the question-and-answer period, please wait for your question until the microphone, so everyone can hear. i am david cowan. i'm president of the museum of american finance. i'm found by our founder and
chair john herzog in the audience today. most are you -- our cherished bond. this is a bond from about 220 years ago, signed by none other than the father of our country, george washington. this is george washington's bond. from about 60 years ago, this document is a share certificate in r.k.o., and it's owned by howard hughes, signed right ere. and the point today is, what do those two men have in common? nd the answer is that both received a congressional gold medal. today, we will hear from joel iskowitz, who will tell us about the process of gold medals because he designed them, including one design for the apollo 11 mission, the original oon landing mission.
ow, joel has a voluminous body of work . you have seen it coins, journals, stamps. he has designed over 2000 stamps for 40 different countries. his artwork hangs in many places, the pentagon, the capitol, the white house. but my favorite is that it's actually been on a ride on the space shuttle. it's my pleasure to introduce joel iskowitz. [applause] joel: thank you so much. thank you. good afternoon, everybody. and i want to thank everyone for coming. and thank you, david, for that very, very wonderful introduction. i want to thank a couple of individuals just before i begin. john herzog, number one, the founder of this beautiful institution and chairman emeritus. i also want to thank my very good friend constantine, who
hatches and creates wonderful ideas, this being one of them hopefully. that i speak to you about designing congressional gold medals from my perspective. i also want to thank christian, who has held my hand through the process, making sure everything works well. that the slide presentation goes well. and i also certainly want to thank, last in this case but ot least by any means, jenny who truly made this event a possibility from my standpoint, she invested a lot of time and energy in interviewing me for trying to find out the story behind the congressional gold medals from my vantagepoint, from my point of view. that is really what i will be doing here.
when i realized that i would be speaking at this very prestigious institution, when kristin mentioned that it would immediately be covered by c-span, i got into an incredible panic. there is a tremendous sense of privilege one has when one is tasked with something like designing a congressional gold medal. a congressional gold medal is our nation's form of highest esteem for distinguished individuals, and also institutions. and it goes back to the founding of our nation. nd so, it is a very daunting process to take on such a role. it is a lot of hard work. but it is also incredibly ratifying. especially when one gets a
chance, as i have and my lovely wife suzanne had yesterday, to witness the recipients of the congressional gold medal in a congressional gold medal ceremony which occurred yesterday for the monuments men. so my head and my heart, too, is spinning with the events of yesterday. because that particular congressional gold medal combines so many stories, stories of world war ii. a combines the horror and the terror that hitler and his minions had visited upon europe, and literally the world. it also involves heroic efforts that were up until very recently, untold and unsung of museum curators and architects and restorers and artists and
sculptors and archivists. who took it upon themselves, they were in very comfortable lifestyles and had no need to be impressed into service, but in order to save the great cultural treasures of the world, they put life and limb and saved great treasures for posterity. i apologize. this is originally going to be the final piece of my running narrative but we had just returned from this very moving ceremony. as i say, it is filling my mind and heart right now. this talk is, or slide presentation, is in a sense very formal. but in reality, when i took a look at the seven or so congressional gold medals that i intend to speak to you about
this afternoon, i realize that each and every story was so complex and had such elaborate content and connection to so much history, that it would be literally impossible within the small amount of time we have this afternoon, allowing for some questions and answers at the end, to get into too much detail about each and every one. so, with that, my disclaimer is that i will show you the images and hopefully, if i have done my job properly, those images will speak for themselves to some extent. and i will have a very informal running commentary with each and every one, recounting some f the things that i remember that might be important and hopefully informative. it is interesting.
david callan's introduction mentions general george washington. e was the first recipient of the congressional gold medal. sometimes, legislation, as we know, takes a great deal of time. we have to be very patient before anything becomes a law. and in the case of these congressional gold medals, in our modern era, sometimes legislation takes eight or 10 years or more to get passed by both bodies of congress and signed by the president. then there is the process of creating the medal, in the purview of the mint, creating the treasury. i stand with you at the corner of wall street and alexander hamilton's bank. not many footsteps from trinity church, where alexander
hamilton, our first secretary f treasury, is interred. none of this is lost on me as i go about taking these assignments. hat is also not lost is this tradition, this lineage, this connectivity. i titled this exercise and looking at these special gold medals with you, "an artist's perspective." hat's a very, very kind of amorphous and relative term. it is respective to the change of each individual's vantage point. but one of the things i take very much to heart when i am invited to submit a candidate for something like a congressional gold medal, or for any coin that there's an image emblematic of the united
states of america, it is pretty daunting stuff. i think back to the early days, really, of our nation. when the story goes that martha and george washington actually ave up their silverware. things were pretty sketchy back in the revolution. and there are stories, some are corroborated and some are not, they gave their own silverware to help create the bullion for our nation's coinage. and there are scholars who know uch better than i that the imagery that is set in buillon and on medal carries humankind's highest ideals.
it carries images of exploits that are quite extraordinary by very distinguished, powerful, creative individuals trade it is all really very inspiring. there you see i put together some great founders, great visionaries. they put together this american experiment. and i've always been a great fan and a great admirer of course of abraham lincoln. i think like most of us, he has a close association because he really comes right out of the fabric of our society. where as a young fellow growing up in school, george washington always seemed so patrician. and still changed with so much of great britain, both in comportment and clothing and manner. but as i learned more and more about washington, i was deeply, deeply impressed by what
character and vision he showed. hat restraint. it really set an incredibly powerful precedent for what we call the united states of america. we are really unique. we are truly unique. and last -- yesterday's events are one more -- one more indication. ?re we losing the mic should i -- should i -- did i push something? i will wait a second. not only did i, by the way, incidentally, completely off my notes -- i made voluminous notes. i doubt if i'll remember what i was saying. someone will have to remind me. should i wait a little bit? or are you able to pick me up on this? ok, i was talking about george
washington. and i was talking about the fact that the precedent, the ochal precedent he set, as i contemplate the events of yesterday, we are the only country, the only nation who returned and repatriated what would orderly be spoils of war, the great art and treasure of europe. we repatriated that not only to the rightful owners, we actually even included germany. so, anyways, there is a great deal of history and lineage hat is not lost on me.
hamilton approved coinage back in that day, in the revolutionary era. it is something that is -- must be ratified by both bodies of congress. and once it is, it is sent up to the executive branch and the president of the united states signs it into being, into the law of the land. just as george washington did back in those days. one thing i did want to parenthetically insert about washington in terms of visionary, what a visionary he was, was that he insisted to the others that his image not be used on the new coinage for our nation. and that is a very wise and powerful concept. because he insisted that if you put mine effigy on our coinage, you will make me a sovereign. and in this new land, this new
experiment, it is the people who are sovereign. that still functions today. it sometimes gets wild and woolly, and in an election cycle like we have, it is not always pretty. but the precepts the founders laid down are alive and well. can tell you as an american citizen, a plain regular guy without many connections, that the system of meritocracy is still alive. and without any special connections or insider advantages, i know personally that my artwork, because of hitting the mark at certain points, gets to be part of our nation's history and heritage itself. which is very, very daunting for me. i will not bother with some of the verbiage. but basically, i was trying to
talk about the process, which i hink i alluded to. there's tremendous lineage that goes on today. oday, secretary lew, just like alexander hamilton, must sign any coinage into eternal life. sorry. 'm going to go back. i will go back one more last time here for a second. d i just want to also paraphernalia theycally mention - parenthetically mention that i have also, besides having the great honor and privilege to work for the united states mint and take on these incredibly inspiring assignments, that through the air force art program and through the national art program, i have had the occasion and the privilege to travel with the
united states air force to many different venues. and i have gotten the privilege of spending time down at asa. getting witness to a city of experts committed to incredible feats. nd witnessed a couple of launches of space shuttles. so everything is connected, part of my perspective. and i think that informs a lot f what i do, certainly for the united states mint. the very first congressional gold medal that was ever accepted was for the women's ir force service pilots. and very often, by the way, nother great thing about our nation is that we may not show gratitude to our men and women in uniform, or those who have done great service and achieved
great things for humanity, but after 60 or 70 years, we come around and we give credit where it's due. these women, these women, they lew marauders, they flew marauders which were nicknamed widow-makers. the pilots they were standing in for, so they could be assigned combat duty, they were afraid because it was nicknamed the widow-maker. these women, 25 of the wives of the pilots, work hand selected by jackie cochran. and they flew these b-26 planes and loved every minute. they were an incredible group of ladies that my wife and i
got to meet when the congressional gold medal was bestowed upon them back in 2009. that is my drawing. in terms of process, it's a pencil drawing. it's not just one pencil drawing. i might go through 45 different versions before i get it right. and before a very elaborate process that vets the design, feel that it's gotten right enough to be part of a design portfolio that makes it through the internal vetting process of the mint. which is quite complex, historical accuracy, coinability, manufacturability. ette theyic, integrity. etc., etc. then it goes to the national erudite national review boards. in the process is not over until the secretary of the united states -- of the treasury -- part me -- i've been watching too many
congressional hearings. the secretary of the treasury, secretary lew, in this day and age, signs it into being. then, there is the process that i will not go into, of sculpting the medal. we have, i am part of a group called the artistic infusion program, which began in 2003, which henrietta ford, a visionary woman in her own right. ho wanted to democratize the process and bringing the artist-citizen, invigorating the imagery on our coins and edals. -- was skull the by feeby sculpted by phoebe in philadelphia, a group that also submit design candidates, three-dimensional candidates, for consideration.
donatello of he philly. this is just another shot of my iphone. when you shoot a three-dimensional bas-relief, very often, the lighting is very telling of a different story. this is just a shot of what a congressional gold medal eremony looks like, when it is given to, you know, a group such as the woman's air force service pilots. incidentally, another thing that is not lost on me is that, in this day and age, also very edifying and wonderful, to see both sides of congress meet in perfect agreement over a perfectly well-deserved honor. it just does your heart good as american to see the leadership
of congress recognizing these heroes, these people of great distinction, who have done great deeds and paid great sacrifices. and also does not hurt to see them ohh-ing and ahh-ing over my work. [laughter] i can't help that. by the way the woman in the middle there is jeannie parish. she accepted it on behalf of the entire wasp community. because these medals -- most of them that i've done -- actually, all that i've done, the groups are recipients. they are collectively bestowed. the second congressional gold medal was for the soldiers of world war ii. this is an interesting and also very nuanced story. the backdrop was the attack of
pearl harbor. and f.d.r., at the time, saw it under the circumstances to, with an executive order, inter -- incarcerate and inter people of japanese ancestry, both in hawaii and on the main land. and as a context -- i'm sorry -- as a context for how complex these stories are, he also issued simultaneously another executive order which came probably closer to his real beliefs, that no one should be judged on their citizenship or their american identity by race or color. so against this backdrop of racial injustice, where there
-- their family and friends were incarcerated in internment camps, these men served in the voge mountains and saved the lost battalion at great cost, at reat cost. and incidentally, they served with more military distinction and recognition than any unit in american military history. this is the honoring the 442nd regimental combat team. the 100th infantry battalion and the military intelligence service. and that's why there are only three stars appearing, indicating the three branches. those are subtleties that go
into the thought process. incidentally, in terms of the thought process, before i ever left a pencil up, if i'm doing my job correctly, especially since my narratives, the task orders that come to us come with an attachment, and the attachment determines what is needed in terms of the design, is the congressional law that's been passed. and so that's the essence. i want to do my first research, i read congressional findings. why these people? they enumerate sometimes 28 different items why the wasps or why the nisei soldiers are deserving of congressional gold medals. literally, our highest civilian award. they've been given to many individuals, by the way. this is the closest i've ever gotten to doing a congressional
gold medal design for an individual. most of them are group recipients. and in a sense, these men were group recipients. but it was a combined effort here, honoring john glenn, the first american to orbit the earth. and neil armstrong, michael collins, buzz aldrin, they represented the apollo 11 mission which landed the first earthling on another planetary body on our lunar surface. i was around. i saw this on black and white tv. i was in san francisco somewhere. and it was an indelible moment in human history. as a matter of fact, when i was sitting in dave collins' office, he was showing me the certificates of -- for george washington and howard hughes, being congressional
gold medal recipients, what a strange, interesting juxtaposition. he said, you know, this is really cool. i told david in his office, you know, the speaker of the house, john boehner, whose last congressional gold medal ceremony was yesterday, in the rotunda of the capitol, in the rotunda of the capitol, it's the only congressional gold ceremony i attended in the rotunda, the inner sang it up democracy.of our and george washington was going to be interred there, like napoleon. other circumstances prevailed. in the rotunda of the capitol, the speaker of the house came to the podium and said, ok, i will say what everybody in the room -- and there were quite a number of people in the room, including scott kelly who is now in orbit on the space station. he said, i'm going to say what
everybody's thinking. this is pretty cool, and it was really true. it was really true because there is almost no other way to describe, you know, these kinds of exploits, these kinds of feats. they defy imagination. so basically, this is the congressional gold medal. y drawing. again, this is phoebe temple's incredible sculpt. and this is the reverse. incidentally, artistically, it is supposed to be an artist. between you and me and anyone else who might be listening in, i love art. i have loved art all my life. when the monuments men were honored yesterday, it was incredible to witness that.
art is our crowning, our crowning legacy. it is communication of who we are as human beings. and our creativity, it is a repository of all we are. but i believe what duke ellington said, there is no labeling. there is no, no formula -- one size does not fit all. and when i was tearing my hair out, trying to figure out what to do for the reverse, i was playing around with a lot of different elements. but i was really very excited about the fact that since i was working in the round, as you do ith coinage, the rectilinear rules of comp significance and ch are thrown out -- composition are thrown out the window. just as the experience of orbiting the earth, orbiting the moon, throws one out of our usual ways of reckoning our own
identity and our place within it. it is all thrown into complete flux. so i wanted to achieve a sense combo, almost, with this design. i wanted to -- vertigo, almost, with this design. i wanted to achieve a sense that there is no orienting point. there is no north and south. it is not a rectilinear, two-dimensional, it is three-dimensional -- it is all in motion. the reverse of the sculpt was done by the lead sculpture of the u.s. mint, don everhart. here is a little inside baseball for you. don called me up on the phone and said, i'm working on the clay for the reverse of the new frontier. he said, joel, is the sea of tranquility what you indicated with the lunar surface? i said no, don. because i had to portray the lunar module in such a way, it
would have been inaccurate to show the sea of tranquility, the actual landing site of the eagle. i said, no, it's just a lot of lunar craters that i think look really lunar in texture. i said, have fun with that. just make it look like the moon in contrast to the earth. not many people, i will never repeat that. ok, so i have to go back to his. this is a photograph that jenny kept saying, let's use that one. again, in the rotunda of the capitol where john trumbull's murals, one of which was the resignation of george ashington, general washington, which trumbull called one of the greatest moral lessons of history, which it was, there before we all left, someone took a snap of me between the obverse and reverse.
blowups. and behind me are john trumbull's murals. incidentally, he laid down his brush to be george washington's aide to camp. everything is connected. everything is connected. and a great story -- i got to uickly tell you -- about this medal is that as i was getting ready to leave the capitol rotunda, my head was literally over the moon. pun intended. don everhart, he said, joel, are you going to the after event? where nasa and families of the astronauts and the caucus -- in the caucus room? i said i don't know anything about that. but an aide -- a congressional page said, please follow me. you want to go? i had a call of the united states mint. i was good to meet those folks for lunch. i said, i'm going to stay with
don and see the astronauts at an after event. they tease me, of course. you're going to throw us over for some astronauts? there's a gentleman sitting here, adam, who it wasn't enough that when i followed don into that caucus room i got to shake everyone's hand. i got to shake the hand of neil armstrong and had a conversation about his remarks in the capitol rotunda which were soaring. again, pun intended. i went over to john glenn. and at one point, i told him something that is a wonderful story i have to tell you. talk about cool. when i first got the assignment, as a layman, my first question was, how will i portray friendship 7? how did it get inserted into orbit? what was its portion, east to
west around the globe? west to east? against the, you know, rotation of the earth on its axis? i didn't know anything about it, even though i spent time at nasa. this was the mercury program and long before i visited nasa. i got to go over to john glenn and i shook his hand. i said, senator glenn, i must tell you that when i was trying to get the pitch and awe and represent friendship 7 correctly on the medal, i came across the -- across nasa's archives, kind of a crummy p.d.f. document from the manned space flight center and in that document on page 32 or something or 132, there was something called pilot's flight report. i felt like i found, you know, he holy grail. and john glenn, perfectly and
matter of fact ease, he recounts the most hair-raising experiences you could possibly imagine. i actually copied it and i was going to read some to you. i want to move this along so you can get to the question and answer period. and while i was standing there telling him that, a woman who was kind of in charge of things, wanted to move the senator over to a photo op. and john glenn said, hold on. i am speaking to the man who esigned the medal. and this was for me an out of body experience because it was ut of a page from tom wolfe. it was out of the page of "the right stuff," where the astronauts went up against the nasa brass and scientists, look, we are not
going to be put in a capsule. that is a spacecraft. and we want a window for orientation. we want a control stick, we are not monkeys. we're not dogs. we're not spam in a can. we are pilots. and as john glenn and the mercury astronauts did not get their way, john glenn would not have had a window. he would not have had a control stick. he would not have been able to manually adjust reentry, so he would avoid -- he would be burnt to a crisp. the mission would fail. we would've lost john glenn. these are some the back stories that go through my mind when i'm designing. incidentally, i got to meet john glenn again because of adam, who is here today. who's trying to garner enough support for legislation for the ohio pathway through space
national heritage site. he is making good progress. there is good reason for it. there is a tremendous amount of individuals who have been part of nasa's space program as astronauts. they also spawned about six or seven sitting united states presidents, and they love politics. i am going to go kind of quickly here. again, each and every one of these have compelling stories and they're very complex. back in 2000, there was congressional legislation that was signed into being to recognize the navajo in -- code talkers in 2000. and they received their congressional gold medal, finally. it is specific to the european theaters, they saved many soldiers' lives. they created many united states victories. because their code was unbroken, the professional
decoders of the japanese and germans could not penetrate this language. and so, in 2008, congress said there were many other tribes that also been treated to the war effort. this one was my first code talker congressional gold medal for the seminole code talkers. a little artistic, parenthetical consideration, if you look at the border, that is a seminole border. in the seminole language means fluidity, communication. these kind of subtleties might be lost on some. but while you're putting this together, it is very important. it is very important, by the way, when these medals reach the recipients because when they recognize you have done
your homework and you are trying to honor them accurately, they are very appreciative. and that's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for me, when i see the recipients say that the work rings true. the second one was the apache tribe. this is a much more active scenario, running into fire -- which is what these men did. they provided cover with their indecipherable codes. the hopi code talkers. incidentally, i have to go back for a second. this was sculpted by joseph menna. by the way, all of the engravers in philadelphia are all classically trained. they are very much undersung
sometimes. but they are world-class sculptors. every time, i get a wonderful feeling when i see them bringing my two-dimensional linear concepts to new heights. pun intended, again. the hopi code talkers, b-54 lying above. culpted by don everhart. and the ponca tribe, in the background kind of faded is highly revered chief white eagle. sculpted by phoebe hemphill. ok. here's where some of my experiences traveling with the air force, you know, kind of paid off in terms of, you know, bleeblet. -- believability.
the 50th anniversary of war war ii, we went literally around the world to visit china, ndia, burma theater. china-india-burma theater war. we were in hawaii. i saw the marks at hickam air force base. i visited the arizona. these things become palpable. you know, when you have direct contact as opposed to indirect contact, it's going to play a role in how you interpret this. it's going to mean so much more. so being there, being in guam, being in india, being across the himalayas, we went to china. and i also went to normandy with the air force, i also went down to fort bragg and saw the green berets, our special ops graduating from their training, from the rigorous training. and i also did a private sector
painting of the filthy 13, who parachuted into what was really a suicide mission -- to obscure bridges in normandy, and actually, it was an incredibly important factor in the success of freeing the peninsula from hitler's minions. so i had a lot of background. the first special service forces were the only combined united states and canadian military unit. and they made silent landings, which is indicated by my ignette. and they climbed mountains at incredible altitudes in the most rigorous conditions. they lost many. they were the precursors of our special ops and they were quite a group of men to encounter, when i got to see them get their congressional gold medal back in february of last year.
the sculpt was by joe menna. the reverse was done by a fellow, a.i. peer. nd arctic infusion artist. that was the first, this is the lead of the infantry. so the arrow had to be a part of thatanother piece of inside baseball. imagery. there was a commander who the men revered like napoleon. he was first in, always. and when he was relieved of his duty, these tough guys -- they made john wayne look like a wimp -- they broke down in tears. they broke down in tears. and i actually, i put frederick's portrait in the medal. looked exactly like my friend
gary stern, who is here today, with a mustache. it's a medal that was given collectively so it wasn't going to fly. ok, i will talk very little about this treated it is so meaningful. here we are, not far from the trinity church where hamilton is interred. where the events of that black day, that horrible, terrible, unimaginable day. what do you do if you're a narrative artist? what do you do if you're a narrative artist with a figurative background who likes to tell stories? with the background as an illustrator? what do you do? one size for congressional gold medals, they're not like the medal of freedom or the national arts medal, which are beautiful things. each congressional gold medal
is individually crafted and struck specifically for the recipient. each story is different. what would one do, what would you do for this story? what would you do? what i came up with, as best as i could describe to you, are lines, be a tract lines -- it's a conceptual piece. i wasn't about to make this literal. literally, it was too horrifying to contemplate doing anything literally or iguratively. i won't go into my art theories. i'll just tell you what my thinking was. really, my design is thinking with a pencil in your hand. so my thinking was, if i make lines going up, that could counteract the horrible and unimaginable loss of the lines oing down. they also can figure the towers
that we lost. they're indicative or diplomatic of the towers themselves. our world was turned upside down a day, inverted. i'm sure everyone feels the same way. that it was unimaginable, science-fiction-like horror. but it was real. got a chance to visit the site, once on my own just because i had to go. then through the mint, they were striking a national medal. i visited the me -- memorial when it was a construction site. then again when the congressional gold medals were about to be struck, one for new york, one for shanksville, pennsylvania. one for the pentagon. i visited, through the kindness of the united states mint and the liaison of the 9/11
memorial, and what i learned by that direct encounter that the names on the parapet around the reflecting pools, the names -- more than 2,000. irforget the exact number. forgive me. the complexity of trying to arrange names in a respectful way, besides it being a museum, it's a memorial and a gravesite, and to be respectful, they had to hire elite algorithm specialists to put together the names of veryone from all the flights involved, from the 1983 event and certainly the events of 9/11. there were married couples who worked in different towers. there were gay couples who have different surnames.
so the complexity of that and the care that was taken was very impressive to me. and the other thing, the reason why the rose was on that wall, which i hope that little bead showed the spray from the falling water that is indicating the great loss -- the people at the 9/11 memorial had a logistics problem because with so many gone in the calendar year, there is an average of 16 birthdays and other anniversaries. and people would come with flowers, it would be a logistics problem with mementos and flowers, tacked up on the fences. at the church during the event. they took it upon themselves for every birthday, for every ccasion to put a flower in the these names are engraved into the wall like a ravestone.
and in design-speak, the legend or the inscription, which is always in the sky is the same -- indicated in my drawing s remember. meaning it's raised. when i found out this design was selected, i called up don everhart and said, do me a favor. to do this right, let's engrave "remember" into the stone. that's the way it's done at the memorial. the other part of that, the well imagine, they have different rules you have to follow and different rules you have to break as an artist. but again, this is a conceptual
theme attic piece, so the -- thematic piece, so the four flights, i placed them very carefully as if the round face of the medal were a clock. flight 11 that hit the north tower at 8:21, it's at exactly 8:21 and all the flights are sitioned, 77, 93, exactly at the times that those souls met their fate. so it was a very emotional medal. 'm very proud of it as well. the sculpting was done by jim mccarries who, the lines were very difficult he told me, jim did, to get them raised and get them to have integrity. he went through a lot of technical ups and downs to achieve this. that medal, by the way, most
medals, congressional gold medals are housed in the smithsonian institution but sometimes at the end of the wall it does say that the sense of medical an -- medal can travel, in the case of the nice soldiers of world war ii, it traveled at several exhibits and is now part of a permanent exhibit called the price of freedom. the american fighter aces served in every theater of war. they served in world war 1. they served in world war 2. they served in korea. and they served in vietnam. and each branch of service is epresented and to meet those gentlemen, when they received their congressional gold medal,
put is an example again, i in a couple of different versions to show the lighting and some show the portrayture better than others -- the portraiture better than others. don everhart did a fantastic reverse on the four crafts associated with these gentlemen. not only the wings, military and aviators' wings but in the center of those, shorten the global reach of their efforts. above them is an ace of spades which goes way back before world war i and is associated with iators all the way back to france. this one i shot with my iphone, i thought the lighting showed phoebe's incredible interpretation of my portraits
of the gentlemen. this is the last slide. this is what i was talking about at the outset where we got to tness the monumentsmen receiving their congressional gold medal. there were four. there are six surviving today, four were present at yesterday's ceremony, including harry, from new jersey who as a boy in germany fled with his family to erica weeks before crystalnact. joined the army and was pressed into service with the monuments men. and his job, his mission, was to go to the salt mines and save riceless works of art.
the astronomer, i put that in because it wasn't only artworks and oils and sculpture, it was all of civilization's precious heritage. man ewe vipts, voluntary, everything. they were taking everything. and yesterday i got a chance to etneger after he was interviewed by german press he said, when i was in the salt mines, they were pristine. this is chilling to me. they were clean and perfect. and he said, they were atmospherically controled to protect the work. to protect the work for what? to protect the work for themselves, that no one would get to have the face of evil, the face of pure elve. -- evil. and in the face of pure evil, what makes me feel so honored and so privileged to be an american and to, as an american get to tell some of these --
some of these stirring stories is that, in our worst days, in our darkest days like 9/11 which reminds us of what it must have been like at pearl harbor and what unimaginable horror and blackness of the holocaust, in our worst days, it also brings out the very finest of of what human beings are capable of. that's what the congressional gold medal is really all about. it's been my privilege to to be tasked with telling some of these stories and it's my privilege to spend this time with you this afternoon to tell you a little bit about my perspective. thank you so much. [applause] my -- she'll kill me because she's such a private person, but my beautiful wife is smiling so things are good. i know i came close to leaving
us no time for q&a. i should show you, it's like a congressional hearing, these are the notes i paid no attention to. i've been making them for days now. i didn't even look at them. i'm glad i didn't. i think so. so, yes. >> i noticed that in the first three medals, you have three figures coming out of the , undary, either stepping over the head is in a boundary, was that deliberate on your part to say that people are breaking barriers? >> absolutely. i'm glad you mentioned that. not only are the women on the tarmac, the women's air force pilots, walking out to us, let's see if i can get back there in a hurry.
that's perceptive of you. thank you for bringing it up, it gives me an opportunity to reiterate a design aspect. the design aspect has to be tied to content. it has to contain, you know a representation of something that you're trying to say. like that one. well that was -- that ceremony that ceremony in the bitter cold of 1944 meant a great, great deal to these men. they were being complimented, hey had lost somark they saved -- the lost battalion, that ceremony is iconic. more than icon ex. i thought you were referring to, and absolutely i wanted them to break out, to break the third wall, to come out to us. to reach out to us. absolutely. the same is true with the m1's. it's a convention. it's artistic. pablo eally, you know,
picasso said it very well. i love art and everything about art but sometimes art gets a little bit filled with itself and my personal take is, i think that art, whether you want to or not it's going to represent something. i'm fortunate because i get to represent something so meaningful. but yes, absolutely it's meant to emphasize that. i thought you were talking about -- yes. they're breaking the surface too. that was very apt because they really broke barriers for women, military pilots, it was breaking precedents and barriers. a.t. 6 breaking through. they loved flying. a little inside -- i worked very long, hard hours trying to find the right generic, i'm going the
wrong way, the right generic indication of what a woman would be like, and these women were not only heroic and courageous, but they didn't lose a thing about being feminine. ven the women who still fit in their uniforms as 81-year-olds at the se moeny they still looked beautiful, their hair was den. wonderful women. they broke barriers. i'm sorry, did you have a uestion. can you give us an idea whether they supply you with graphic resources or where do the images -- how are you coming up with those images? >> let's see do we have another couple hours here? i'll try to be very brief and terse. it's obviously a very complex
scenario. first place i usually head, if i can, is a site. if it's anywhere within physical -- within my physical ability to reach, even if it happened long ago, there will be vestiges and there will be a trail. there'll be people who remember. so that's my first thing. that's why traveling with the air force, going to nasa, seeing a launch, like seeing a home run, it's a different experience than any other media. that would be my first. my second is library of congress, national ar dives, you know things that are -- archives, things that are in the public domain and i do my own photography, use models, mix and match. i love what george balanchine said, he was interviewed once, the interviewer said, what is it like to be a create or -- reator
of this work he sthoped interviewer and said, creator? i'm not a creator. i take a bit from here and there. i'm an assemblage artist. i related to that. because you take from many, many different sources and re-- you recreate a brand new image. so mostly, national archives, library of congress, my own otography and live models to simulate, you know, poses that wind up being the final pose. i'm sorry. >> would you describe the back of the 9/11 medal? you didn't show us the back. you only showed us one side. >> i'm so sorry. that's my omission, you're absolutely right. the back of the medal for 9/11 is a common reverse.
with different inscriptions. the imagery is a common reverse. it's an american bald eagle. i don't have a picture of it right now, i apologize. it was designed and sculpted by phoebe henfil and it's of an american bald eagle, positioned away from the viewer three quarters, yet it's turning back or to look in retrospect introspection and then each site, the new york medal reverse, the pentagon medal reverse and the shanksville, pennsylvania, medal reverse each have different appropriate inscriptions. i couldn't tell you what they are right now. but that's what the reverse of all three medals is. you certainly can. if you go to the united states mint.gov and go to the historical archives, historical
picture archives, you'll have all the congressional gold medals and be able to enlarge them and see them very clearly and they'll have inscriptions, they're probably a -- descriptions, probably a lot more accurate than mine. es, david. >> is there actual gold in the gold medals? and how many are struck? >> that's a great question. that's a great softball question. thank you, david. yes. it's all solid gold. and i'm beyond my pay scale here to talk about this but from what i know, and i stand to be corrected, i do know it's solid gold. there's one gold medal struck. which as i said before winds up in the smithsonian unless in the letter of the law, the find offings congress also say that it can travel to associate or,
you know, appropriate venues such as, i believe, that the medal for the first special service forces spent time up in canada, which is certainly appropriate. most all, to my knowledge, wind up back at the smithson yanbu not all. i do think that the 9/11 medal for new york is housed here at the 9/11 memorial museum. i've yet to see it. i want to visit it. i hope it's not just in the permanent collection, i hope it's on display somewhere. but there is one and from i know, it's about $30,000 around wall street, so we can talk -- we're on wall street so we can talk money. it's about $30,000 worth of gold. i don't know what that might be as we meet here. but the beautiful thing about the mint is that it's the only agency, i do believe that does
not operate at a deficit. you know. it never costs the taxpayer to create congressional gold medals because bronze replicas of each and every gold medal are made and given to recipients and they're also available for sale to the general public like you and i. i have to buy my -- i don't get free samples of bronze and certainly not of gold. >> i notice all your medals are done in detail, minute. how long does it take to complete one to your satisfaction? and i'm just amazed how much you put into just a medal, how much time. >> people are probably going to ask you how much i paid you to ask me such a question. thank you for that question.
i can't, as i said, one size does not fit all. actually, our lead sculptor don everhart had a wonderful post of an artist handing in a drawing to an art director, whatever, and the art director, tag line it's like a new yorker cartoon or something, why should i pay $2,500 for this? youed the did that in 15 minutes. and the artist said, yes, but it took me a lifetime to be able to do it in 15 minutes. so you know with that in mind, there's no rule of thumb. they're each and every one very different. but in general it's months. it's usually a few months from the time i get the assignment. unless i get a call and they say, jell, you know, we -- joel, you know, we really need this right away. for the united states mint i
unabashedly push everything away because of the nature of the work and because i feel so privileged to be able to, you know, contribute to such a fine team. by the way when you go on the mint site, if you do, there are 18 of us, artistic and fuelings program artists. these things are not commissioned. there's nobody sitting at the treasury department saying, joel is a great fellow and good artist. let's have him do the muhammad ali congressional gold medal. i'd love that but it doesn't work that way. the process is, it's an elaborate procedure where every -- each and every program is a contest. between the 18 very, very fine artists the mint has amass in the artistic fusion program and e world class sculptor engravers submit designs. portfolios at the review boards is robert poe who has graced us
with his present, sometimes there's a portfolio of 30 or 40 different designs to wade through and one is selected. john riconte, the 12th engraver of the united states mint, told me, the way only john could, joel, he kind of speaks in a wonderful access that's -- accent that's a combination of robert de niro in the first "godfather" and elliot ness. he said joel, you know what it's like? it's like a rocketship going off. he was right. it doesn't ever get old because of that elaborate process and because of the nature of what you're doing to get a selection that, my wife will tell you, he keeps on saying this is the most important one ever. they're all important. i'm not sure who designed it but
my guess would be it would be a frenchman. think of lafayette who george washington called "my son." lafayette named his sons george washington lafayette, the two men really hit it off. the congressional gold medal george washington was given, given to him by thomas jefferson 14 years after it was aproved. years. it was struck in paris. so i don't know who the designer and sculptor engraver was but i o know it was struck in paris. i would bet in the smithsonian or maybe the museum in paris. thank goodness. i was afraid to be in front of -- hese
>> i want to thank you for that gold medal talk. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> congress is back in session today after a week-long thanksgiving break. the house meets today at 4:00 eastern to debate nine bills including one dealing with cybersecurity. and another to continue an e.p.a. program to provide technical assistance for small public water systems. live coverage of that debate here on c-span. major legislation deadlines coming up late they are week. we talk to a capitol hill reporter about what to expect. 50, (202) fo 748-8001. for 50 years and older, (202) 745-8002.
congress is back on the hill this week. to give us a preview, niels lesniewski. give us a sense of what the breakdown is between the house and senate as far as activities geared what are the big things that have to get accomplished this week? guest: really the first item up for business in both the house and senate are things that do not necessarily need to be accomplished, but on the house side, they will be addressing a resolutions,al involving the environmental protection agency. that is a special legislative process that allows for these resolutions of disapproval which already passed through the senate to get to president obama's desk, however, of course, when it is the obama administration, the epa came up regulations, they are
certain to face the veto pen. on the senate side, we are looking at the budget reconciliation process coming up, assuming all goes well, at a conference meeting on monday , sometime in the second half of the week could be the extended voting. that would be a measure that would repeal as much of the affordable care act, or .bamacare, as they can before the thanksgiving lot on theeard a topic of syrian refugees. is that on the agenda at all? guest: the discussion about syrian refugees, as well as the question of what to do about the visa waiver program, and the
european citizens, and others to enter the united states, without needing to obtain a visa as a taurus, or sure to business meeting, or the like, that will certainly be on but there is nothing bubbling up yet, in terms of how the senate will address that. what i will say is this is where we will get into the discussion that willher or not be tied into the government funding measure. the omnibus appropriation measure will need to arrive by the second week of the month. that is where the big test will be, whether or not there needs of syrianandoff refugees. ist: part of the discussion
whether or not there will be another government shutdown. how is the outlook of that happening? guest: since there has been a budget agreement, there has been less likelihood that there will happeningown showdown . it is not to say they're not lots of negotiations still to be done, including things like .olicy writers there is also, i would add, even before we get to that point, a more immediate deadline facing lawmakers to once again, either extend, or finish, the surfacersial report on
transportation. there is no shortage of things that have to be done within the next two weeks. the thing they have to be careful about is make sure they do not accidentally take too long doing anything, and then have a shutdown. host: you hinted at this, how many working days between now and the end of the year? guest: that is a really good question. as few as 10, probably. is whendecember 11 everyone would probably like to be out of here. a possibility that they work through september 18. that might be likely. certainly, no one wants to get closer to christmas. christmas falls on a friday this year, so ideally they would like to take the entire week off. host: news wa
>> all present having business before the supreme court of the united states are admonished to come near and give their attention. >> coming up on "landmark cases." >> shows a piece of paper. she demanded to see the paper and read it, which they refused to do, so she grabbed it out of his hand and she put this piece of paper into her bosom d very readily, the police officer put his hands into her bosom and removed the paper and thereafter, thereafter handcuffed her. while the police officers started to search the house. >> in 195 , the cleveland police
went to the home of a william they believed to be harboring a suspected bomber. she refused them access without a warrant. later returning with a document they claimed was a warrant, they entered, they confiscated a trunk containing obscene pictures. she was arrested and sentenced to seven years for the continue bra band. we'll explore the matter of obtained through illegal search and seizures and how this and other rulings transformed police practices nationwide. that's tonight live at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book, available at c-span.org/
landmarkcases. >> abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching at a private school she lobbied for funds to create the first white house library. may mi eisenhower's hairstyle and love of pink created fashion sensations. may mi pink was sold and stores sold clip on banks to help recreate her style. and nancy reagan as a young actress saw her name mistakenly on the black list of suspected communist sympathizers in the late 1940's. she appealed to screen actors' green guild head ronald reagan for help. she later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in the book "first ladies." the book makes a great gift for the holidays. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history.
stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. the book is based on original interviews from c-span's "first ladies" series and has received numerous reviews including this one from michael beschlaus, presidential historian and author who said, quote, c-span is a national treasure and its path breaking series on america's first ladies is another reason why. judy woodruff says, c-span has performed another valuable public service with its series on the first ladies. nowhere else can one find such a useful and insightful look into the lives and influence of these women who played a crucial role in the history of our country. and jane hampton-cook, first ladies historian and biographers noted that the book is an invaluable collection of rare insight on our nation's first ladies and the important role they played in shaping america during their husband's presidency. share the story of america's
first lay-- ladies for the holidays. it's available as hard cover or ebook from your favorite bookstore or online book seller. order your copy today. >> president obama is in france today for the united nations conference on climate change and between events he met with several world leaders, including russian president vladimir putin. the white house said they talked about the fight against isis. the president also squeezed in this kick hello with german chans lohr angela merkel at the meeting near paris. the goal of the conference is to come up with a plan to gradually reduce greenhouse emissions. after the meeting, the president went to dinner with french president hollandee at what was described as a posh french restaurant. this morning, the french president outlined the importance of a climate agreement more than 150 --
agreement. more than 150 world leaders will attend the conference. president hollande is joined by secretary ban-ki moon. >> your majesties, royal highnesses, excellentcies, president francois hollande of , i ce, ladies and gentlemen the courageous objection of president hollande in convening this meeting despite the recent terrorist attacks and ongoing mourning. i would like to express my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of all recent victims of terrorism. no cause or grievance can justify the violence we have
>> thank you, inspector general. i now invite the president of the french republic to take the floor. translator: secretary general of the united nations, ladies and gentlemen, heads of state and , the secretary of our conference, ladies and gentlemen, ministers, this is a historic day we are experiencing. france is welcoming 150 heads of state and government, thousands of -- thousands of delegates from every continent. never has a conference welcomed so many dignitaries from so many countries.
but never, and i say never, have the stakes of an international meeting been so high. since what is at stake is the future of the planet, the future of life. and yet, two weeks ago, here in paris, it was death that a group of fanatics brought to the streets. here i want to express to you the gratitude of the french people for all the shows of support, all the messages, all of the signs of friendship that we have received since the 13th of november. tragic events represent an affliction but also an obligation. they force us to focus on what's important.
your presence has generated immense hope which we do not have the right to disappoint. because people and billions of human beings are watching us now. i'm not choosing between the fight against terrorism and the fight against global warming. these are two major global challenges that we must overcome. because we must leave our children more than a world free of terror. we owe them a planet protected from disasters. viable, livable planet. the year that we have lived through has been a record breaking year. record co-2records,
concentrations, a record number of extreme climate events, droughts, floods, cyclones, ice melts, rising sea levels, ocean acidify case. the victims of these phenomena number in the millions. and the material damage in the billions. no country or region is spared the events of climate change. but how can we accept that it is the poorest countries, those with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, that are the most vulnerable and that they are even further affected and therefore it is in the name of climate justice that i'm speaking before you today and in the name of climate justice that we must act.
we need to wake up to the severity of the threats posed to balances in the world. climate change will bring conflict just like clouds bring storms. it is causing migrations which is causing more refugees to take flight than wars. states risk no longer being able to meet the basic needs of their population. with famine, mass global exodus and clashes for access to that increasingly rare resource, water. essentially, what is at stake with this climate conference is peace. and yet, hope has emerged during preparations for cop21. the international community in
september provided itself with a complete agenda through the sustainable development goals which were adopted in the united nations general assembly. and secretary general ban-ki moon, i congratulate you on that. 190 states, almost all the planet's countries, have put forward action plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. nd to adapt to climate change. and all actors of the global society, local governments, business, investors, citizens, all have come onboard for the climate. on top of this awareness and mobilization there's been rapid progress made in clean and renewable energies, opening the ay for a lower carbon economy.
to make a success of this conference, france has thrown its full weight behind its efforts and noblized its entire government beginning with the minister of foreign affairs who will be the president of this conference. i have myself visited the region's most affected by climate change. i return home with the same conviction that we need to ensure sustainable and equitable development without in any way compromising the limited resources of our planet. this is the equation that we, together, have to solve during this conference. i wanted the heads of state and government of the entire world to come together right from the beginning of our work to give this conference a drive and an ambition commensurate to the
challenge because on the 12th of december, an agreement must be eached in paris. against what conditions can we consider that this is a good agreement, that this is a great agreement, that this is an greement which truly meets the expectations of our people reaching into the future? there are three conditions that will allow us to say that the paris conference will or will not be a success. the first is if we need to determine, sketch out a credible path allowing us to limit global warming to below two degrees celsius or 1.5 degrees celsius if possible. for us to be sure of being on the righpath, we need to
provide for regular assessment of our progress against the latest scientific conclusions and therefore set up with a with meetingsnism every five year. the sec condition is that we respond to the climate challenge with solidarity. no states can abstain from its supreme commitment, even if a differentiation of a meck anymore will be able to take into account development levels and situations. no territory should be left alone to face climate change. and notably the most vulnerable countries. my thoughts go to those islands which could very soon clearly and simply disappear. and here i want to be their
voice. because biodiversity and the very diversity of our planet are at stake. from this we can conclude the agreement must be universal, differentiated and binding. developed countries must take their historic responsibilities. they are the ones who, for years, emitted the largest amount of greenhouse gases. emerging countries must accelerate their energy transition. and developing countries must be supported in adapting to the impacts of climate change. hence the need to release and secure financing to promote technology transfer. in copenhagen, the objective set of $100 billion is not an objective that we should set
here today but these are resources that we should free up with guarantees as to their origin and their availability. luckily, the third condition for an agreement in paris is that all our societies this their vast plurality and diversity get moving. all local leaders, informsors, economic and social actors, citizens and the great consciences, religions, all those who contribute to forming the global public mindset, all of this, all of these actors must understand that things have changed. this is the key for overcoming this climate challenge. theer i want to pay homage to all the -- here i want to pay homage to all the pioneers in
the environmentalist cause, those precursors who had to face, not so long ago, incredulity and distain when offering warnings and proposals. in a few years, mindsets have been transformed. businesses and financial actors that were previously reluctant are now ready to commit and change their behavior. we do still need to send them the right signals and this is what is at stake with the progressive introduction of a carbon price so that greenhouse gas emissions have a cost which corresponds to the damage inflicted on the planet. and so that investment choices gradually change so that all technologies can be accessible for all. ladies and gentlemen, heads of state and government, to resolve the climate crisis, i'll be frank. good wishes, declarations of
intent will not be enough. we are on the brink of a breaking point. paris must be the start of a far-reaching change. we can no longer consider nature as a common place, inexhaustible pool of resources. there for us to use as we wish. this transformation is at the same time a moral obligation and global opportunity. because it opens up development opportunities through renewable energy, clean transport, waste recycling, green agriculture, preservation of biodiversity, and access for all to global public goods. thus, by making electricity accessible for all, including in africa, it's not just life that we are providing but also
knowledge, education and -- it's not just lights that we are providing but also knowledge, education and development. on this first day of the conference we are up against a challenge. this challenge is the sum of our selfishness, our perceptions, our resignations. this challenge is built on indifference, insue shans, powerlessness. -- insouciance, powerlessness. but it is not insurmountable. everything depends on us. ladies and gentlemen, heads of state and government, the hope of all of humanity rests on all your shoulders. i understand in the job that i do how difficult it is to combine immediate imperatives with the long term, including when considering tragic events. this balance is not easy to
find. but here once again we must. our greatest challenge is to go from a globalization based on competition to a model based on cooperation where it will be more profit to believe protect than to destroy. we need to think of the planet as a unique place and establish a pact of equity between the north and south and partnership between nature and humanity. this is why we have met, the leads of the planet, this is why paris is an exceptional occasion. we are going to decide in a fedes the future for several decades. the greatest danger is not that we aim too high and miss, the greatest danger is that we aim too low and that we hit it. so let's set our ambitions as high as possible so that we can
state and goth, excellencecies, foreign minister, president of cop21, excellenceys, ladies and gentlemen -- excellencecies, ladies and gentlemen, you are here today to write the script for a new future. a future of home and -- of hope and promise, of increased prosperity, security and dignity for all. in september at the united you came up with a new, inspiring, sustainable development agenda, endorsed by all the people of the world. you showed your commitment to act for the common good. it is now time to do so again. more than 150 world leaders have me to paris and are here
together in one place at the same time with one purpose. we have never faced such a test. a political moment like this may not come again. but neither have we encountered such a great opportunity at this time. you have the power to secure the well being of this and ucceeding generations. choose the path of compromise and consensus. and if necessary, flexibility. bold climate action is in the national interest of every single country represented at this conference.
the time for brinksmanship is over. t us build a durable climate with clear rules of the roads all countries can agree to follow. paris must mark a decisive turning point. we need the world to know that we are headed to lower emissions, climate resilient future and there is no going back. the national climate plans submitted by more than 180 countries as of today cover close to 100% of global emissions. this is a very good start. but we need to go much faster, much farther if we are to limit the global temperature rise below two degrees celsius.
it must be able to adapt to changes that arise in the global economy without it being necessary to renegotiate the agreement continually. it is possible and desirable that the many provisions of the agreement can be addressed in a different way depending on situations, without this jeopardizing the collective effort. the agreement must preserve the balance between the leading role of developed countries and the growing responsibilities of developing countries. which vary according to their resources and their level of development. ladies and gentlemen, the third requirement for success is an agreement that embodies
solidarity with the poor and most vulnerable. it must ensure sufficient and balanced adaptation and mitigation support for developing countries. fourth, the agreement must be redible. current emissions must be the floor, not the ceiling, for future. five-year cycles beginning before 2020 are crucial. all countries should agree to move toward quantified, economy-wide emissions reduction targets over time with the flexibility for developing countries with a limited capacity. developing countries must keep their promise -- developed countries must keep their promises to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020. the same amount should serve as the floor for post-2020
ommitment. new afwreems must also include a single transparent framework for measure, monitoring and reporting progress and countries with low capacity should receive flexibility and so forth -- and support so they can meet requirements for this new system. heads of state and government, excellencecies ladies and gentlemen, this is a pivotal moment for the future of your countries, your people, and our common home, our planet. you can no longer delay. let me be clear. the fate of the agreement rests with you. the future of your people, the future of the people of the orld, the future of our planet
is in your hands. we cannot afford indecision. -- indecision, half measures, or measured approaches. our goal must be a transformation. the transition has already begun. enlightened investors and businesses are striving to create a climate-friendly economy. but they need your help and your vision in accelerating this essential spirit. and essential shift. the peoples of the world are also on the move. they have taken to the streets in cities and towns across the world in a mass mobilization for change. we have seen such mass mobilizations in new york in 014 last year, we have seen,
despite the security concerns, many citizens coming out to the streets, sending their voices to the leaders. i hope that you listen very carefully, sincerely, to the voices and aspirations of our people. i met with several key society groups yesterday and it is clear to me that they have come to paris filled with energy and emotion. and that they expect exeaver one of the leaders of this world today who are here today to show your leadership equal to the test. you have the moral and political responsibility for this world and for us and succeeding generations. history is calling. i urge you to answer with courage and vision. and i count on your strong
leadership and commitment to make this world a better -- to make this world better for all. thank you very much. [applause] >> i'd like to thank the secretary general. >> we leave this here, you can watch it online at c-span.org. the house is gaveling in after the thanksgiving break, nine bills on the floor today, votes after 6:30. live coverage here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the
gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, senate 611. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 611, an act to amend the safe drinking water act, to re-authorize technical assistance to small public water systems and for other purposeses. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimcurks and the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, leech control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, thank you. i want to take a few minutes to explain why we are pushing this bill and what the bill does. the smallest water systems of our country account for 77% of all systems. these smaller and rural communities with populations of
10,000 or less have a high percentage of systems in significant noncompliance with drinking water regulations and face significant challenges in maintaining, replacing or upgrading aging and obsolete drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. a major source of financial stress for small and rural drinking water supply systems is compliance with a number of drinking water regulations issued by the environmental protection agency under the safe drinking water act. unlike water systems in larger market, they do not have the rate base or access to capital markets to fund the costs of some projects and still maintain affordable rates. as a result, these communities depend heavily on federal and state grants and subsidized loan programs to finance their needs. many times, simply giving them more money is not the answer. these communities may need access to technical professionals to help find the
most cost effective way to meet these new standards. technical assistance offered by e.p.a. has historically enabled small public waiter systems to identify affordable repair and replacement options for their systems. currently, section 1442-e of the safe drinking water act provides e.p.a. authority to provide technical assistance to small public water systems to enable these systems to achieve and maintain compliance with applicable federal drinking water regular ligses and to help small public water system respond to environmental stressors, including thru circuit rider and multistate regional technical steabs programs, training and prelim nation engineering evaluations. senate 611 authorizes e.p.a. technical assistance programs through 2020 for small public water systems, maintaining the existing funding levels of $15 million annually including for public systems owned and
operated by indian tribes. in addition, senate 61 authorizes funning under section 1442 of the safe drinking water act. this funding is used to provide grants or cooperative agreements to nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to small public water systems this technical assistance will help them achee and maintain compliance with national primary drinking water regulations. these grants or cooperative agreements are supposed to go to nonplofts with a history of providing certain types of on-site technical assistance and training and e.p.a. should give preference to those nonprofits that the administrator determines are most qualify and experienced in providing training and technical assistance to small public water systems that small public water systems find most beneficial and effective. finally, senate 611 prohibits these grants and cooperative agreements from being used to bring a citizen suit under the safe drinking water act. the senate passed this bill by
unanimous consent. the energy and commerce committee provided vi voice vote. this sends the bill right to the white house and i expect into law. i urge all my members to support senate 611 and i want to thank the ranking member, mr. tonko, and my colleague, mr. harper, for their diligence in pushing this legislation forward and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves this echair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. >> i too rise in support of s. 611. this legislation will re-authorize funding to and provide techny assistance to small water systems under the safe drinking water act. mr. sarbanes: small and rural water systems face unique challenges. they have a smaller rate base making it difficult to afford necessary upgrades and maintenance and often lack the expertise to comply with national drinking water standards. s. 611 will prioritize funding
to nonprofits and provise technical assistance to these small public water systems, giving them the needed expertise to tackle these challenges. this is a small but a very important step toward resolving our nation's drinking water problems. as we know, infrastructure problems, problems with source water quality and limited budgets are taking a toll on drinking out water systems. the changing climate is creating further challenges. public water systems are facing extreme conditions endangering our drinking water. severe storms, alalblooms, extreme droughts and salt waurlt -- salt water are problems they face, affecting their ability to provide safe drig water to our community. small public water systems rely on technical assistance from nonprofit organizations to navigate everything from routine maintenance to managing complex
situations to ensure the water they provide is safe for their consumers. s. 611 is one step of many that we must take to address our nation's drinking water issues. our nation's water systems serve over $27 -- serve over 272 million people and according to e.p.a. require infrastructure investments to $334 billion over the next seven years. i look forward to continued bipartisan support for water-related legislation including re-authorization of the safe drinking water act and state revolving funds so we can afwress the myriad of issues facing the druing water systems. i'd like also to think subcommittee ranking member tonko and representative harper for their work on this issue. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this measure thank you, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: the state of mississippi has led this legislation from our former colleague, now senator, roger wicker and now i'd like to recognize the author or the pusher from the state of mississippi on the house side, mr. harper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. harper: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman for yielding. across our country, over 90% of community water systems serve a opulation of less than 10,000. the 1996 amendments to the safe drinking water act authorize technical assistance for small and rural communities to azest them in complying with laws under the act. this important technical assistance and compliance training ensures that federal regulations don't overwhelm the resources of small and rural communities. it also allows small communities access to assistance which is necessary to improve and protect their water resources. without these initiatives,
effective implementation of the safe drinking water act and clean water act in rural areas would be nearly impossible. in addition to being the main source of compliance assistance, rural water technical assistance has been invaluable in emergency responses small and rural communities. rural water technicians led the assistance effort in the wake of hurricane katrina where hundreds of communities relied on assistance from the local and surrounding state-rural water associations for immediate assistance in restoring drinking water and sanitation services. s. 611, the grassroots rural and small community water assistance act would help ensure tech tissue these technical assistance continues. as author of the house companion bill i appreciate the energy and commerce committee's commitment to this issue and want to thank chairman shimkus and ranking member tonko and the entire
environment and economy subcommittee staff for the time an effort they have invested in discussions, negotiations, legislative hearings and markup of this legislation. throughout this process, my friend kirby mayfield, executive director of the mississippi rural water association, mnd mikki began with the national rural water association, and others have provided a wealth of knowledge in helping to develop and shepherd this legislation. i'd also like to thank senator roger wicker and his staff for sharing my deep interest in this issue and for authoring s. 611 and working toward its passage in the senate and house. again, mr. chairman, thank you for your attention to this issue that affects so many of our constituents and i encourage all members to support s. 611. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi yields. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker, i appreciate it.
i would now like to yield as much time as he would consume to representative paul tonko of new york. a distinguished member of the energy and commerce committee and ranking member of the subcommittee on the environment and thank him for his work on this piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding. i rise in support of this bill, s. 611, the grassroots rural and small community water systems assistance act, re-authorizing a small but important program that deliver aztec -- that delivers technical assistance and training to our community water systems. i want to thank representative harper for introducing h.r. 2853, the house companion bill to senator wicker's bill. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of that legislation. i also want to thank chairman upton, ranking member pallone, chair shimkus and the energy and commerce staff for working with us on report language to clarify language in this bill so that we can indeed provide a wide range
of technical assistance that would help small water systems such as source water protection system monitor -- monitoring, sustainable -- sustainability and watt community aspects. many small and rural communities with populations of 10,000 or less face challenging in maintaining and upgrading aging water infrastructure. the rate payer base for these systems does not provide a sufficient operating budget to support full-time technical positions. source water quality problems resulting in system shutdowns and expensive treatment processes are an increasing problem for far too many public water systems due to inadequate attention to nonpoint source pollution. in other areas drought has affected both water quality and quantity, challenging the ability to have water utility to meet their basic service obligations. technical assistance for small systems is esen torble finding the most cost effective
solutions to these problems. i know that the circuit riders program in new york served many small public water systems and provides essential tech any -- technical support to small system operators. s. 611 would authorize the appropriation of $15 million annually from 2016 to 2020 for the environmental protection agency's program that provides technical assistance to these given systems. the previous authorization for this program expired back in 2003. it has been nearly 20 years since we last authorized this program, along with the drawing wall -- water state revolving fund, the s.r.f., the primary source of funding for water train haveture. the drinking water authorization also ex-- expired in 2003. it too needs to be re-authorized and at a higher level provided in 2003 to support all systems, small and large, make the necessary repairs and the
necessary upgrades. across our country, we experience over 700 water main breaks per day. 700 per day. breaks that result in losses of treated water, not just water that's lost in those break bus consumer tax dollars and rate dollars. and with a growing backlog of drinking water infrastructure needs estimated at $384.2 billion over the next 20 years in the fifth national assessment of public water infrastructure needs that's staggering. it is clear we should be doing much more to assist our states and water utilities to reduce this backlog. recently we came together to pass a bipartisan, long-term surface transportation bill. it had the overwhelming support, bipartisan support, of this house. there is no doubt that our roads and bridges are in desperate need of investment. but we cannot forget that hidden infrastructure, critical,
unseen, out of sight, out of mind infrastructure that we rely upon to deliver safe, reliable and affordable drinking water. we have neglected this essential infrastructure for far too long already and it too needs more federal funding and a long-term re-authorization. infrastructure does not repair itself. it does not improve with age. our inaction is only adding to the expenses of states and local governments and forcing increases in water utility rates for given consumers. s. 611 is i urge my colleagues to support this bill but i hope we use this opportunity as a challenge. as challenge to recognize that this is just the beginning of the drinking water infrastructure issues that we face. with that, i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. again, i want to urge my colleagues to support this important measure, s. 611, and with that 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 illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. there's a lot to be done on infrastructure and safe drinking water is among those important things. my district is very large and rural with 33 counties in southern illinois. this bill will help. we need to do what we can now and hopefully this success, as my colleague has said, will help us build on future areas where we can work together, mr. tonko will continue to be a rabid dog on this issue and i appreciate his commitment to -- for further discussions. with that 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 senate 611. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move what the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3490, the strengthening state and local cyber crime fighting act as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3490, a bill to amend the homeland security act
of 2002, to authorize the national computer forensics institute and for other purposes. of. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierre losey, each will control 20 -- mr. pir lucy, will each control 20 minutes. mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3490, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: the national computer forensic -- forensics institute serves a vital purpose in preparing state and local law enforcement to combat computer and cybercrime and i'm pleased to support this legislation. the united states department of justice has declared that cybercrime is one of the greatest threats facing our country. and that cybercrime has enormous implications for our national security, economic
prosperity and public safety. the justice department has also stated that the range of threats and the challenges they present for law enforcement ex pabbedpand just as -- expand just as rapidly as technology evolves. with this in mind, the national computer forensics institute serves the vital purpose of providing legal and judicial professionals a free comprehensive education on current cybercrime trends, investigative methods and prosecutorial and judicial challenges. the national computer forensics institute is a 32,000-square-foot facility located in hoosker, alabama. this institute boasts three multipurpose classrooms, two twork investigations classrooms, a mock courtroom and a forensics lab. special agents of the united states secret service staff the institute and work diligently training attendees in modern countercybercrime procedures and evidence collection.
when the attendees leave, they take with them the critical knowledge and equipment required to conduct autonomous and thorough cybercrime investigations at their home agencies. in 2008, the tion institute has earned praise for its work in preparing america's local law enforcement in how to deal with these important technology issues. over the last seven years, the institute has instructed law enforcement professionals from every state in the country and from over 500 different law enforcement agencies. in fact, law enforcement in my own district has benefited from ncfi training, including lynchburg commonwealth attorney mike dusette and his staff. each professional educated at the institute is a force multi-- multiplier for the secret service and after successful completion of the program, the students can bring their new knowledge back to their local agency to inform their colleagues.
-- colleagues how to properly conduct computer forensic investigations. i firmly believe that for our nation to successfully combat the cybercrime threat, we must support legislation such as h.r. 3490. i want to thank the gentleman from texas, mr. ratcliffe, for sponsoring this important legislation. authorizing the existing national computer forensics institute in federal law will cement its position as a high-tech cybercrime training facility and will help law enforcement professionals nationwide in their efforts to combat cyber and computer crimes. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. purely purely -- peerlpeerl mr. speaker, i yield -- pier pier -- mr. pierluisi: i rise in support of this act. this bill establishes the national cyber forensics institute as an official federal program which will be
managed by the department of homeland security and operated by the united states secret service. i support this bill because it addresses a topic that is critically important to our country. cybercrime poses an enormous threat to national security, economic prosperity and public safety. the range of threats and the challenges they present for law enforcement expand just as rapidly as technology evolves. in fact, during the past decade, our federal law enforcement community has observed a significant increase in the quality, quantity and complexity of cybercrimes, targeting private industry, including our financial services sector. these crimes include intrusions, hacking attacks, the installation of malicious software and data breaches that have exposed the personal information of millions of u.s. citizens as well as members of our law enforcement and intelligence services. to date, the national cyber forensics institute has trained more than 800 state and local law enforcement officers and
approximately 238 prosecutors. with this legislation, the institute will continue to educate state and local law enforcement officers and judges on cyber crimes and investigations and it will train them on proper procedures . in addition, the national cyber forensics institute will continue to work to protect our citizens' personal information from unwarranted government intrusion. by establishing the national sttstds for conducting cybercrime investigations, the institute will provide mote -- these important privacy industries. it's important to highlight the successful efforts that have already taken place to combat the ever-growing threat of cybercrime. as the operator of the national cyberforensics institute, the secret service has demonstrated its expertise in pursuing cybercrime investigations. the secret service's investigations have resulted in over 4,900 arrested associated
with more than 1.4 billion -- $1.4 billion in losses and the prevention of over $11 billion in potential fraud losses during the past five years. in closing, this legislation will assist law enforcement in continuing to combat the threat cyber crime poses to national security, economic prosperity and public safety. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. ratcliffe, the chief sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. rat rat i thank the chairman for -- mr. ratcliffe: i thank the chairman for his leadership on these issues. rise today? pour of h.r. 3490, the strengthening state and local cyber crime fighting act. this bill will authorize the national computer forensics institute or ncfi, which is located in hoover, alabama. mr. speaker, when f.b.i.
director jim comey recently testified before the house judiciary committee, he told us that an element of virtually every national security threat and crime that the f.b.i. faces is cyber-based or facilitated. i want to pause and let that sink in for a minute. because it makes a perfect case for this bill. the fact that our federal law enforcement is seeing a cyber element to almost every national security threat and crime problem is incredibly compelling. because you can be certain that our state and local law enforcement are seeing the same trend, but with a lot fewer opportunities to learn how to address it. we've all seen the crime shows on tv where pieces of d.n.a. evidence, a strand of hair or a drop of blood, are used to solve a case. but in today's world, we have to rely upon digital evidence. an email that was sent, an online purchase that was made, geolocation technology that
places an individual at the scene of a crime. mr. speaker, today's cybercriminals present new challenges to law enforcement, prosecutors and judges. it no longer takes a sophisticated cybercriminal to compromise the personal and sensitive information of u.s. companies and everyday americans, any criminal can now easily obtain on the dark web the cyberexploit tools that are needed to create this type of havoc. so, with the ever-increasing number of cyberattacks, it's vital that our state and local law enforcement, prosecutors and judges be properly trained to respond to cybercrime and to protect the american people. the ncfi, which my bill authorizes, does just that. the ncfi was created in 2007 by the state of alabama and is now operated by the united states secret service for the purpose of training straight and -- state and local law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges on how to investigate
cyber and electronic crimes, methods for conducting computer and mobile device forensics examinations and on performing network intrusion investigations. the ncfi has already garnered a reputation as the premier crime training center in the nation, supporting state and local law enformentse -- enforcement, investigators, prosecutors and judges. it's already equipped and trained officials from all 50 states. these ncfi graduates, all of whom are now equipped to hit back on cybercrime, represent more than 1,500 agencies nationwide, including agencies from texas' fourth congressional district that i represent, like the greenville police department, the hunt county district attorney's office and the collin county sheriff's office, kelly akin, an assistant district attorney from hunt county, told us her training at the ncfi had transformed their evidence
collection and prosecution, leading to more successful apprehensions, more prosecutions and more convictions. so you see, mr. speaker, this isn't some highly theoretical bill where the rubber never meets the road. this piece of legislation takes what's already working and formalizes these practices to better amplify their impact going forward. this bill gives our law enforcement across the country the necessary tools and training necessary to successfully fight cybercriminals in the 21st century. that's why i was honored to introduce it and why i'm grateful for its vote today here in the house. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: mr. chairman, i have no further witnesses, i'm prepared to close. mr. goodlatte: i'm prepared to close as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico. good good i'm sorry --
mr. goodlatte: i'm sorry, mr. speaker, i apologize and now am happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for two minutes. palm palm thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. palmer: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. as has been noted, prior to 2008 training for state and local law enforcement and cybercrimes was difficult to find. recognizing recognizing this problem in 2007, the state of alabama took the lead and offered the department of homeland security and foib construct a state of the art facility, i'm proud to say this facility is located in my district in the city of hoover. doors,he ncfi opened its state and local law enforcement officers have come from all across the nation for vital training in this one-of-a-kind
facility. they're trained by secret service agents on the same equipment and software our secret service agents use. we train prosecutors and judges and law enforcement from all 50 states have -- and have garage watts all around the country. i'm proud of the work ncfi is doing and i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of h.r. 3490678 i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time i'm pleased to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and -- will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? 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 virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i move that the
house suspend the rules and has p.r. 3279, the open book on equal access to justice act, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3279, a bill to amend titles 5 and 28 united states code to require annual reports to congress on and the maintenance of database on awards of fees and other expenses to prevailing parties in certain administrative proceedings and course cases to which the united states is a party and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, each will control 0 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. gad loot: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 3279 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i'd like to begin
by thanking representative collins and ranking member steve cohen for introducing this important government transparency legislation. every year, pursuant to the equal access to justice act, the federal government, through settlement or court order, pays millions of dollars in legal fees an costs to parties to lawsuits and administrative adjudications that involve the federal government. however, despite a large amount of taxpayer dollars paid out each year, the federal government no longer comprehensively keeps tack of the amount of fees and other expenses awarded pursuant to the equal access to justice act. nor does the goth exile and report on why these fees and expenses were paid and to whom these costs were awarded. this is because in 1995, congress repealed the department of justice's reporting requirements and defunded the administrative conference of the quites. the agency charged with reporting this basic information to congress.
the administrative conference was re-established in 2010 but the requirements to report on fee and cost payment have not been re-enacted. accordingly there has been no official government-wide accounting of this information since fiscal year 1994. over 0 years ago. this -- over 20 years ago this lack of transparency is troubling given that the equal access to justice act is considered by many to be the most important federal fee shifting statute. fundamentally the act recognizes that there is an enormous disparity of resources between the federal government and individuals and small businesses who seek to challenge federal actions. congress enacted the equal access to justice act to provide individuals, small businesses, and small nonprofit groups with financial incentives to challenge the federal government or defend themselves from lawsuit brought by the federal government. as the supreme court has noted, the act was adopted with, quote,
specific purpose of eliminating for the average person the financial disincentive to challenge unreasonable governmental action, end quote. but how can we know if the fact is working well toward this end if we have no data on the awards? without the data, this bill requires the administrative conference to compile and report , we have nothing more than anecdotal evidence as to whether the act is providing some measure of relief to the financial disincentive to seeking judicial and administrative redress against the federal government. the legislation we are considering today will end this lack of transparency and restore the reporting requirements that were repealed in 1995. i want to once again thank representatives collins and cohen for introducing this bill and urge my colleagues to support its passage. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico.
mr. pierluisi: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pierluisi: i rise in support of h.r. 3279, the open book on equal access to justice act, as amended. i support this measure for several reasons. to begin with, it strengthens the equal access to justice act aen important law that's helped senior citizens, veterans, the disabled and nonprofit organizations vindicate their rights against unreasonable government action. under the so-called american rule, parties to adviewed -- adjudicative measures typically pay their own lit fwation costs, subject to certain exceptions. one exception is the equal access to justice act. which allows a party to be reimbursed for litigation costs then he or she is victorious against the federal government under specified conditions. for example, if the united states can't show that its position was substantially
juffed or that -- can show that its position was substantially justified, they aren't eligible for reimbursement. whether these restrictions sill make sense is an open question as congress simply does not have adequate information to assess the effectiveness of the act. this is because there has been no comprehensive federal report on the total amount of fees awarded under the act since 1995 and as a result, there has simply been conjecture. fortunately, h.r. 3279 addresses this shortcome big requiring annual reports on the amount of fees paid under the act to proprevailing litigants against the government. as a result of this legislation, congress will know on an annual basis the agencies that have been required to reimburse parties for their litigation
costs, the claims giving rise to the litigation and the amount of awards made under the act as well as the basis for them. with this information congress will be in a much better position to assess the implementation of the act and the perform eevens this litigants. another reason i support this bill is it respects the privacy interests of the parties who are reinbursted for their litigation costs pursuant to the act. unfortunately, prior pergs of this legislation were necessarily intrusive -- unnecessarily intrusive. organizations such as the national security claim and the paralyzed veterans of america expressed concerns they would infrings the privacy of those who have applied for social security or veterans benefits. these are real concerns especially since it requires the information being collected to be made available to the public
through the internet. as currently drafted, h r. 3 79 strike thinks right balance between encouraging transparency while respecting the legitimate privacy interests of parties. finally, i support this bill because it recognizes the important role that the the united n part tates has played in saving taxpayer dollars. requiring a report to be prepared, the bill also requires the conference to provide any other relevant information that may aid congress in evaluating the scope and impact of such awards. given the excellent work and scholarly analysis that have been hallmarks of the conference i expect this report and its findings will be an invaluable aid to congress. as the judiciary committee is
the authorizing committee for the conference, i encourage our freppeds on the appropriations committee to ensure that the conference has adequate funding to implement this important legislation. in closing, i want to recognize any colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their diligence in helping to craft this bipartisan legislation. the gentleman from georgia, dan collins, and the gentleman from tennessee, steve cohen, as well as the gentlelady from wyoming, cynthia lummis, have worked to effectuate a commonsense bill that will improve efficiency and accountability of the federal government. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3279 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. good lat: at this time it's my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, a member of the judiciary committee and chief sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 3279. i introduced this legislation with a bipartisan group of co-sponsors to proprovide additional transparency under the equal access to justice act. i want to thank the original co-sponsors of this legislation for their support but in particular my friend from tennessee, mr. steve cohen, and also a member of the judiciary committee, but also a special thank you to cynthia lummis of wyoming who has been an advocate of this legislation and i want to thank her for her tireless work and leadership on this issue as we move forward. h.r. 3279 passed the judiciary committee on voice vote on october 27, 2015. almost identical legislation passed the judiciary committee and the full house on voice vote last congress. the bill reinstates needed measures to ensure the equal act
ss to justice act is helping individuals as intendedful congress originally passed the equal access to justice act to remove a barrier to justice for those with rimented -- limbed access to sue the federal government and remove attorneys' fees to go along with such suit. the law was written to provide citizens with the opportunity to challenge or defend against unreasonable government actions when they otherwise might be defwird large legal expenses. to be eligible for payment under the ehaa an individual's net worth must be less than $2 million an a business must have a net worth under $7 million though the cap doesn't apply to certain tax exempt organizations. the equal access to justice act was intended to address the david vs. goliath situation when a -- when an individual has to face the federal government in court. payments of eaja attorney's fees
come from the budgets of the agencies whose actions gave rise to the claim. while the original act included a requirement to track payments and report to "king kong" and the agents -- -- and report to congress annually, congress and the agents withdraw this in 1995. without any directive to track don't do it. we only have anecdotal evidence on how how much we're spending on terns' fees, and what types of claims are being covered. this is simple, commonsense transparency. since 1995, there have been no comprehensive federal reports on the fees awarded under the equal access to justice act. we are sorely behind in our responsibilities in this area and this takes steps to address that problem. it directs an annual report to congress on the number, nature, and nature of the awards, claims
involved in the controversy and any other relevant information that may aid congress in ie valuating the scope and impact of -- impact of such awards. this covers both agency adsgrude cases and court proceedings. it also requires the conference to develop and implement an online searchable database to facilitate public and congressional oversight. agecies will be required to provide information requested by the group for the development of the database and report bus importantly it would be required to withhold information from the database if prohibited by law or court order. the open book ensures that agencies are operating under the watchful public eye and taxpayer dollars are being spent properly. our federal government is too big and i believe it needs to be downsized. until we can make that happen, transparency houb a minimum requirement. that's why h.r. 3279 is important. it is commonsense, plain and simple. for the federal government -- where the federal government is
spending money, congress these to exercise oversight to ensure it's being done in the way the law requirementsle for most people facing a suit against the federal government it's a once in a lifetime challenge. even if they're completely in the right we need to make sure the law is working for them. allowing plaintiffs to recoup costs when they sue the frft for deserve reparations are fair. the equal access to justice act gives people power to take on the federal government by removing the barrier to justice. however, since the initial reporting requirements for halted, information is lacking. tracking and reporting payments will help me serb the integrity of this law andmen congress make sure that the law is working effectively for the people it was intebbeded to help. it is pastime we shine light on this issue. we owe transparency to the taxpayers who are financing the law and we owe it to the citizens of small businesses, veterans, and social security claimants who rely on that law.
h.r. 3279 represents a bipartisan agreement that transparency other payments made under equal access to justice needs to be restored. the open book on equal access to justice act will ensure that the taxpayer dollars are being spent as intended under this law. past support for this legislation demonstrates consensus we need to address this issue and american deserve to know what their government is doing. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3279 and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: i have no further speakers so i'm ready to close had. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close as well. mr. pierluisi: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield back and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3279, 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 the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1755, to amend title 36, united states code, to make certain improvements in the congressional charter of the disabled american veterans, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1755, a bill to amend title 36, united states code, to make certain improvements in the congressional charter of the disabled american veterans. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from puerto rico, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
teerls to on h.r. 1755, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: since 1920, disabled american veterans have been serving american veterans who were wounded in the line of duty. it provides free assistance to veterans and their families, in obtaining federal benefits and services earned through military service. it represents the interests of disabled veterans, their families, their widowed spouses and their orphans before the federal, state and local governments. and it provides a structure through which disabled veterans can express their compassion for their fellow veterans through a variety of volunteer programs. the organization received a federal charter in 1932. the d.a.v. is seeking enactment of h.r. 1755, which will amend its charter to help clarify
d.a.v.'s charitable mission, explain the educational component of its mission, and mandate the assignment of its assets to the department of veterans affairs in the event of its disillusion. these changes will aid the d.a.v. in its transition to a 501en this c 347b organization -- 501-c-3 organization. as the organization explains, for decades the d.a.v. has been exempt from federal taxation under section 501-c-4 of the internal revenue code. donations to most 501-c-4 organizations are not deductible for income or estate tax purposes. the d.a.v. is a rare exception as it qualifies to receive deductible contributions as a war veterans organization. many donors, even sophisticated donors, don't believe incorrectly that charitable deduction are available only for gifts made to a 501-c-3 organization, more commonly known as a public charity.
we believe that this misconception has been limiting the d.a.v.'s opportunities to gain corporate support and major gifts including beguests. there is no doubt that the d.a.v.'s activities of service to wounded and disabled veterans would enable it to qualify as a public charity, exempt from taxation, under section 501-c-3 of the internal revenue code. to achieve that designation, the organization needs to make application to the internal revenue service. the application requires that certain language be included in the organizing document which in our case is the federal charter. we can help d.a.v. carry out its vital mission through this legislation. i commend representative miller for introducing the bill and i urge my colleagues to support it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. pierluisi: i rise in support of h.r. 1755, which makes a small but important change to the federal charter of the disabled american veterans. once this bill becomes law, that federal charter will better describe the mission and actual practice of the organization today. in response to the thousands of veterans who returned home, having made considerable sacrifices during world war i, the disabled american veterans was established in 1920. currently the organization serves our disabled veterans by helping them access all the benefits of a level to them, fighting for their interest in washington, d.c., and educating the public about the sacrifices they made. this organization remains today every bit as important as it was at the time of its founding 95 years ago. h.r. 1755 simply makes clear that the mission of the disabled american veterans is exclusively a charitable one. i urge my colleagues to support
h.r. 1755, to amend the disabled american veterans charter, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i have no speakers remaining and i'm prepared to close if the gentleman from puerto rico is prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: 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. 1755, 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.
mended. the speaker pro tempore: h.r. 2288, a bill to remove the use restrictions on certain land transferred to rockingham county, virginia, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include ex traunious -- extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamalfa: h.r. 2288 removes the use restriction from the deed of an approximately one-acre portion of land. the property was transferred to rockingham county, virginia, in 1989, to construct a child care facility. h.r. 2 -- h.r. 22 8 would remove restrictions on the land so upgrades can be made to the plains area daycare center in
broadway, virginia. which provides child care for families who could otherwise not afford. it i reserve the balance of my time. -- afford it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. h.r. 2288 removes the use restrictions on one acre paris ofle -- parcel of federal land in rockingham county, virginia. as was stated, in 1989 congress authorized it to use three acre parcel of federal land for the purposes of establishing a child care center. under the condition that the land continues to be used nor purpose. as the county no longer needs the land for a child care center, the land reverts back to ownership by the united states or the county has the option to purchase it at fair market value. the federal government has a long tradition of providing public lands to state, county and local governments. fair use of federal land and
fair return to the american taxpayer has been the forefront of these transactions. removing public purpose requirements and use restrictions should only be done when it is deemed appropriate and necessary. in this particular case, the sponsor of this legislation has worked with the national park service to develop legislation which is both fair and transparent. the land provided to rockingham county includes a garage, previously used by the national park service, but the county has determined could benefit the plains area daycare center. the park service no longer needs the garage and removing the use restriction on one of the three acres would allow this child care provider to access financial assistance in order to upgrade and rehabilitate the garage so it is suitable for their needs. it's a worthy goal. we support the adoption of h.r. 2288 and congratulate the sponsor of the legislation for it. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i
yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from california for yielding me this time. and the chairman of the resources committee, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, for moving this legislation through the resources committee and to the floor. i rise today to urge passage of h.r. 2288. this bill simply removes 20-year-old deed use restrictions on one acre of land. for over 25 years, a little over three acres of land and its associated buildings, previously wholly held by the federal government have been maintained by rockingham county and the plains area daycare center in my congressional district, the sixth district of virginia. in 1989 the federal government deeded these three acres of land with restriction to rockingham county. but even prior to this official declaration, rockingham county
had already been faithfully maintaining the property which the federal government no longer utilized. the property had previously been used as a garage and maintenance facility for the national forest service. when the government transferred this land to rockingham county in 1989, the condition was that the property was to be used for public purposes. the county decided that the nonprofit plains area daycare center in broadway, vgs, which provides child care on a sliding scale to many families who otherwise could could not afford child care, would benefit from use of the old garage. therefore congress enacted public law 101479 which allowed the deed to be changed from public use to the particular use in the child care center. donations by the community totaling $75,000 turned the garage building into a nursery, daycare and after school care facility. additionally, the creation of the daycare center provided for
the creation of a playground that the center supports and is open for public use. to be clear, the center and the playground are the sole reasons that this previously abandoned government land is being used by the community. i have visited the plains area daycare center on main occasions and seen the immeasurable investigations this center is making in the community by providing high-quality child care. since opening in 1991, the center has always been at capacity and is the only facility of their kind in the community. however, after two decades of consistent use, the facility is in desperate need of repairs. unfortunately, because of the narrow way public law 101-479 was drafted, and because of the terms of the deed, the daycare center has been unable to get a loan to complete the much-needed renovations. to solve this issue, my legislation would remove the deed's use restrictions from the one aircraft of property on
which the building re-- one acre of property on which the building resides. while i would have liked to have seen the entire three acres released this this is a compromise that's been endorsed by the national park service and rockingham county -- by passing this legislation and allowing rockingham county, and in return the plains area daycare center, more authority over the land it will ensure that more children and more of the community will be served by this land. this bill is the result of hard work over the past two congresses. the house passed relationed legislation in the 113th congress, however the senate did not act. this congress my staff and i have worked closely with rockingham county and the natural resources committee to see h.r. 2288 brought before the house. i am hopeful that the senate will take action this time. . mr. speaker, while my legislation is a for malt, it is of great -- formality, it is of great importance. for 25 years, the land has been
deeded to rockingham county, but with overbearing restrictions. since it is clear the federal government no longer has a vested interest in the land, it is time to lift those restrictions to allow the plains area daycare center to reap its full potential. i'd ask the gentleman to yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. goodlatte: 20 years ago, congress made its intention clear that dare care was to have use of the property. i urge passage of h.r. 2288 to simply remove the deed restrictions on one acre of land so that the necessary upgrades may be made to the childcare center and this community investment can continue to thrive. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. lamalfa: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: i reserve. i have no additional speakers. i reserve the balance.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: i reserve also. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, 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. 2288, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are 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 the uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1541, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar umber 207, h.r. 1541, a bill to amend title 54, united states code, to make hispanic-serving institutions eligible for technical and financial assistance for the establishment of preservation . aining and degree programs the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: 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 materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection, so ordered. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamalfa: h.r. 1541 provides colleges and universities with a high enrollment of hispanic, asian american and native american, pacific islander students access to a grant program that encourages student involvement in historic and cultural projects. this grant program already includes historically black colleges and university tribal colleges and nontribal colleges with a high enrollment of native americans or native hawaiians. h.r. 1541 will ensure that historically underrepresented groups are eligible for technical and financial assistance to establish preservation training and degree programs. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. in march of this year, when i introduced this legislation, the preservation research at
institutions serving minorities , the prism act, it was to ensure over 400 hispanic serving institutions have access to competitive grant programs for historic preservation, training programs. h.s.i.'s and colleges and universities where at least 25% of the student enrollment comprised of hispanic students. current law provides, as was stated by the gentleman, for hcbu's, tribal and native hawaiian institutions, my legislation adds h.s.i.'s to the list and representing over three million hispanic students that are enrolled in those universities and colleges. at the markup, the committee adopted an amendment you offered by my good friend, congresswoman bordallo of guam. pacific sian american, island serving institutions to the list of institutions eligible for historic
preservation, education and training programs. i commend the gentlelady from guam for bringing this issue up. her bill makes the bill more inclusive and better. i ask my colleagues to support aboppings. it is to enhance educational experience and contribute to the preservation of hispanic history. along with -- as is being preserved for all americans under this program. with that i yield back and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i have no additional speakers. i yield back the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers. i appreciate the efforts of my colleague from arizona, mr. grijalva, 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 ill h.r. 1541, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2212, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar umber 238, h.r. 2212, a bill to take certain federal lands located in lassen county, california, into trust for the benefit of the susanville indian rancheria, and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california.
mr. lamalfa: 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 materials on the bill under consideration. e speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamalfa: thank you again, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2212, which would direct the secretary of interior to place into trust 300 acres of bureau of land management land for the susanville indian rancheria. the isolated -- adjacent to tribal lands in lassen, california, since 2005, the tribe has worked for the b.l.m. office to complete the transfer of these lands which are culturally and historically significant to the tribe. the comprised of four tribes, the susanville indian rancheria has a long history of relocation and adversity.
the rancheria were party to 18 unratified treaties with the federal government. and their lands were taken after passage of the land claims act of 1851. displaced during the california gold rush of the 1850's, the tribe was homeless until 1923 when the federal government purchased and placed into trust 30 acres. since that time another 120 acres was added by congress in 1978 and approximately 950 acres had been added by b.i.a. action. the rancheria's long ties to this land which holds a number of cultural, archaeological sites, including stones, petroglyphs and other important artifacts. they gather traditional herbs, vegetables on the land and continue to game on the land as their ancestors did. the land was classified as surplus by the b.l.m. which written to support transfer the land and is adjacent to the
rancheria's lands. it will eventually construct a cultural center, a museum and recreational facilities, including sports fields. at the request of the tribe, the bill includes a prohibition on gaming. the rancheria seas long proven to be a contentious to the city of susanville. mr. speaker, this bill was passed by the natural resources committee with unanimous support. the counterpart bill also received unanimous support in the indian affairs committee. i urge your support and thank you for your consideration of his measure. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. grijalva: h.r. 2212,
introduced by our colleague, mr. lamalfa, is indeed a good piece of legislation. 300 acres of b.l.m. land to be put into trust for the benefit of the susanville indian rancheria. the land in question is not only adjacent to the susanville trust land, it is part of the aboriginal territory. there are numerous archaeological sites on the land that the susanville indians continue to protect. in addition, the area is important to -- for traditional -- as a traditional hunting ground and utilized for traditional ceremonies. the land has been identified by b.l.m. as access inventory and a cost burden to the federal government. mr. speaker, this bill is a win-win for all parties involved. the susanville indian rancheria members will finally have a portion of its historic land returned and the federal government will save money on administrative costs on land that it does not want. i want to congratulate the
sponsor of the legislation and i urge its swift passage and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, again, i appreciate the support of our committee's ranking member, mr. grijalva, and the unanimous efforts to move this bill out of committee. so thank you. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: again, i appreciate it and would seek support for my legislation and i'll yield back the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2212, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on
the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2280, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 256, h.r. 2270, a bill to redesignate the nisqually national wildlife refuge, located in the state of washington, as the billy frank jr. nisqually national wildlife refuge, to establish the medicine creek treaty national historic site within the wildlife refuge, and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. lamalfa: thank you. h.r. 2270, introduced by my friend, congressman denny heck from washington, and co-sponsored by the entire washington designation, would redesignate the nisqually national wildlife refuge located in the state of washington as the billy frank jr. nisqually national wildlife refuge, to establish the medicine creek treaty national memorial. it is intended to honor the life of billy frank jr. who brought together tribes, government officials and others to improve treaty rights, tribal sovereignty, environmental stewardship in the puget sound area. frank jr., who passed away in 2014, was awarded the prize for humanitarianism and martin luther king distinguished service award and was nominated
for the noble peace prize in 2010. it establishes a national memorial to commemorate the signing of 1854 medicine creek treaty which established reservation land and the right to fish for puget sound area tribes. congressman heck has worked tirelessly to honor the treaty and the life and work of billy frank jr. i strongly encourage my olleagues to vote yes on h.r. he speaker pro tempore: are -- reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: h.r. 2270 designates the delta is the billy frank junior anise equally -- nisqually wildlife refuge. billy frank junior, who passed away last year has been recognized for his work,
defending treaty rights and sovereignty and recovery in his home state of washington. aside from the awards, november 24, president obama presented his family with the medal of freedom honor that he so justly deserved. the bill also creates a national memorial to commemorate the signing of the medicine creek treaty in 1854. i thank my colleague from washington, representative heck, for his work and advocacy on behalf of this legislation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: i commend my friend, mr. heck, for his quality legislation and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from washington,
sponsor of the legislation, representative heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. just last week, we were home celebrating thanksgiving and giving thanks for everything we are blessed with and everything we cherish and a lot of the things we take for granted. for those of us in the pacific northwest we give thanks for the puget sound, our salmon and all the natural beauty that surrounds us and we give thanks to billy frank junior was in our lives. as was indicated earlier, in addition to the many other awards he received in his lifetime, just last week, the president conferred upon billy frank junior the presidential medal of freedom. t is literally no exaggeration to suggest that what martin luther king meant to civil rights, it is what billy frank met to people around the globe.
e is a fitting person to receive the award. we have the opportunity to seize it. billy frank junior was the foremost advocate for restoration of native american fishing treaty rights in the pacific northwest. he cherished clean water, healthy salmon runs and key voice in the recovery of the puget sound. he also probable proudly served our nation in the united states marine corps. he was an m.p. he got along with everyone. he was open and inclusive and his energy was infectious. we were deeply stunned in may of 2014 that he passed away, even though at the age of 83, we thought billy would live forever. he is gone, but his spirit is not, his story is not, his courage and belief in us is
here, because you see, billy wandered the halls of congress frequently and testified numerous times and respected this institution and was a powerful voice within our chamber. and his story is in the nisqually national wildlife refuge in the 10th congressional district which i have the privilege to represent, which we protect to give our wildlife a clean and sustainable home. billy grew up in franks landing which is a hop, skip and a jump from the refuge. he fished in the nisqually river . that is the location where he was arrested more than 50 times for advocating for his treaty fishing rights. this bill will name that refuge after billy frank junior and calls for the accomplishment of a national memorial at the exact place which was the signing of
the medicine creek treaty in 1854. that was the first treaty in the state of washington between indian people and the newly established territorial government and it was between the people of the nisqually and others. throughout his storied career, people often asked billy, how do you get up every day and advocate on behalf of clean water, good fish runs. how do you do that decade after decade? and he would always tell them the same thing, tell your story. so when people go to the billy frank junior nisqually national wildlife refuge, they will be able to see why he risked arrest and why he worked with others to help protect his home. like many young people today, he fought for what he believed in, but later worked with lawmakers to build consensus and started
out as a civil rights protestor and an advocate and being one of the great uniters in the history of the nation and certainly in the pacific northwest. so i hope that when people drive by the signs that directs them to the refuge, maybe they will feel that billy magic, too. and wonder, who was this billy frank junior, what did he do. for those of us who knew him, it will be a reminder of this hero. they say you die twice. the first time and the second time when they stop speaking about you. it is our goal that they never stop speaking about billy frank junior and the lessons he taught us all. the refuge will be a constant reminder. i knew billy for almost 40 years. i loved him like a beloved uncle and i called him umping will billy but you know i was not
special in that regard. hundreds if not thousands of people did the same thing. indeed, at his memorial service, the official estimate of the number in attendance was 10,000. that's how beloved this man was. i would like to thank the members of the house natural resources committee who unanimously approved this bill. all the members of the delegation from washington state, and would like to recognize chairman bishop and the ranking member grijalva and the hardworking committee staff for the majority and minority for their help on this legislation. in conclusion, billy once famously said, i don't believe in magic. i believe in the sun and the star, the water the tides, the owls, the hawks flying, the river running and the wind talking. they are measurements and tell
us how healthy things are and how healthy we are because we and they are the same. let's remind visitors that we and they are the same at the billy frank junior nisqually wildlife refuge. thank you, mr. speaker and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. heck should be commended for bringing forward such a worthy piece of legislation to honor a man who has done so much in the area and indeed this legislation will make sure his story will continue to be told and he will ways be commemorated and memorialized and i'm proud to
support the bill. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i yield to the gentleman from washington, representative kilmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kilmer: i join my colleagues for recognizing billy frank junior. billy protecting our natural world and everything that depends on it wasn't a political issue. rather it was an inate calling. and folks responded to that. they followed his fearless protests by standing up for civil rights. they followed his example by becoming fishermen themselves in places like south puget sound. they followed his lead in championing clean water and fish runs and protecting puget sound and listened to his ideas of keeping communities vibrant by
building community centers and in congress, he convinced so many that the tribal treaty rights could not be held back and that we can't keep damaging our environment and we have to stand up for extraordinary bodies of water like puget sound. he left tracks all across our state and our nation and his advocacy will live on. to help honor this gentleman, i encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill. naming the nisqually national wildlife refuge the billy frank wildlife qually refuge and we need to keep fighting for all of those things that he fought for. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. mr. grijalva: let me thank the
chair of the public lands subcommittee mr. mcclintock and ranking member ms. strong asand the staff's work on this and mr. heck and the delegation from washington, a great piece of legislation and i urge its passage and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers on my side, so i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2270 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. lamalfa: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. the yeas and nays are requested. hose in favor say aye.
a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states i am transmitting an alternative plan for increases for federal civilian employees covered by the general schedule in january 2016, title 5 united states code authorizes me to implement alternative pay plans for pay increases for civilian federal employees covered by the general schedule and certain other pay systems if because of national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, i view the adjustments that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate. civilian federal employees have already made significant sacrifices as a result of
three-year pay freeze that ended in january of 2014 and january 2014 and again in january 2015, increases for civilian federal employees were limited to 1.0% overall pay increase and lower for statutory adjustments to the base schedule for 2014 and 2015. however, as the country's economic recovery continues, we must maintain efforts to keep our nation on a sustainable fiscal course. this is in an effort to continue to require forces. under current law, locality pay increases averaging 28.74% and costing $26 billion would go into effect in 2016. federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases. accordingly i have determined that under the authority of section 5304-a of title 5 united states code, locality base
exarblingte payments for the locality pay area established by the president's pay agent and the amount set forth in the attached table shall become effective on the first day of the first applicable period beginning on or after january 1, 2016. these rates are based on an allocation of 0.3% of payroll as indicated in my august 28, 2015 alternative pay plan for adjustments to the base general schedule. these decisions will not affect our ability to attract and retain a well qualified federal work force. the adjustments described above shall take effect beginning on or after january 1, 2016. signed barack obama, the white ouse, november 30, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house committee on government oversight and shall be printed.
urged g.o.p. lawmakers wanting to support it instead of voting against it in the hope that others will provide the votes for passage. thehill.com. "the ght on communicators"," mr. bock worked for microsoft and as chief xbox officer guiding its creation and development. he discusses technology, tech competition and microsoft and the importance of civics in life. >> and all of us should and must look at to make our communities to make our communities serve citizens in a better way. it's old school and it's super important. >> watch the -- "the
communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span 2. >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court states draw near and give their attention. >> coming up -- of paper. a piece and see the paper and read what it was, which they refused to do and she gabbed it out of his hands to look at it and a scuffle started and she put this piece of paper into her bosom. and very readily, the police officer put his hands in her bosom and removed the paper. and thereafter, thereafter, handcuffed her while the police officers started to search. >> in 197, the cleveland police
went to a home who they believed to be harboring a suspected bomber. she refused unless they had a warrant. they forced themselves into the home. not finding the suspect, police confiscated a trunk containing obscene pictures. she was arrested and sentenced for seven years. she sued and her case made it to the supreme court. we'll explore the evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures and how this transforms police searches nationwide. that is live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span 3 and c-span radio. order your copy of the companion book. it is available at c-span drg/
landmark cases. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," chris stuart will look at the strategy to fight isis in iraq and syria. peter welch discusses the democratic legislative agenda and your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. defense under secretary spoke earlier today on the defense department budget and the implications of the recent two-year budget and provided an update of the pentagon's budget rocess for 2017. >> i welcome you all on this cyber monday, monday after thanksgiving and wonderful d.c. weather cooperating. it's my pleasure this morning to introduce the d.o.d. comptroller
under secretary mike mccord. he is the principal adviser to the secretary of defense on budgetary matters. before that job, he served as five jobs as the principal deputy under secretary of defense and before that, he served on the hill for 21 years in the senate armed services committee and before that, he was in the congressional budget office. well known and well respected around the defense budget community. it's my pleasure to welcome him this morning. [applause] guest: good morning. cyber ly forgot it was monday. there could be a link where you could go. good morning. it's a pleasure to be here in this -- i'm going to call a new
building. i know it's not new but new to e. this is the second time i have been to the new building, first time i was in this very room and honored to be here for the fair well to my your chairman at csis, former senator sam nunn and hosted by your president. both of us counted sam nunn as a mentor. this morning i'm here to talk about the budget agreement, where it leads us overall. i think it's a good deal for d.o.d. and partly because of what it does. actual funding in the deal but as a hopeful sign, of return to ore problem solving than brinksmanship.
i have to move my slides. does this do it? all right. quick look of where resources have been since 9/11. total resources including base funding and war funding called o.c.o. funding, total defense resources doubled over the decade of 2001 to 2010, 2011 before leveling off and then declining somewhat. with this deal, we are getting back to where we were about ree years ago in nominal dollars. we are back to leveling off and we will look for rough stability in the top line over the next couple of years into this deal. throughout my talk and my slides, i'm going to be talking about d.o.d. numbers and 2005 numbers. if you see references to the
caps in here, they are not the caps in the budget deal. they are 95% of those numbers because we like to talk about inside the building our share of the budget deal. if you thought that is what is in the deal, it's not. we consume 95% of the defense side. so it's a pretty good estimate. so again, we are looking to level off at the $580 billion over the next two years. and high intensity operations in iraq and afghanistan and up from where we've been. so i want to talk before we talk about the budget deal and going forward a little bit of where we were heading into the negotiations, what we have been up to at d.o.d. you are familiar with the points i have listed here of things we
have been trying to achieve and challenges we needed to respond to. the range of national security challenges we face today, virtually have a military dimension has expanded to cover major portions of the globe. we talk about asia pacific and europe in a way we weren't before and of course the middle east. and as well as a broad range of spectrum of conflicts from cyber to high end, and counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. we have to be ready for just about anything on the demand side of what we need to do. in terms of the resources and the support to accomplish all these missions, our budget has remained tied to the sequester caps, the caps that were as occasionally remind me were never meant to be the final answer. they were meant to be a bad idea to force a compromise.
we have gotten additional resources above that level. but i think the b.c.a. caps and strong gravitational pull on our resources and i will have charts to talk about that. i think this is in part because f the existence of c.o. -- o.c.o.. it can flex your budget up a little bit without requiring people to reassess the whole deal and whether your resources are right in the big picture. you can tweak in the margins without having to reexamine your fundamental sallingses. what i have seen from the resource side, the demand has broadend not necessarily in intensity but in diversity, which requires us to look at balancing which is the key thing between near term and far term
and the size of the force and the abilities of the force. in that period of time, we have had i would say lukewarm congressional support for many of the things we thought were necessary and still think are necessary to make ourselves sufficient as we can be and to get rid of some low priority platforms to move from legacy issues to invest in the future and many of you are familiar with all the kinds of these issues whether it is the a-10, brac. we have had instability in terms of our budget picture. we have had a lot of short-term deals that come at the last minute and one of the things we live with probably more so in the organization and also in services is the c.r. issue which is probably not thought about that much outside this area, i would suppose. probably not a front-page news
item but little by little the situation has gotten where we have had the worst record in the last 30 years in this administration in terms of getting our funding on time. not the first term of ronald reagan have we seen this many c.r.'s that lasted this long and i did the math and got their attention by pointing out to them we have spent from f.y. 2010 to f.y. 2015, one of third of that time, 24 months out of six years under a c.r. sometimes three months or six months. one-third of the time which essentially swings our fiscal year of nine months instead of 12 months. that's the situation we face i would say, uncertain funding, increasing demand and poor performance of getting our
performance on time. we had some opportunities to do better and this deal did do better but things were not what we wanted them to be. one of the things that helped us in the deal was that we have been pretty consistent at the department in f.y. 2015 budget and f.y. 2016 budget in terms of talking what we are trying to accomplish and all the basic aspects of strategy. what we are trying to accomplish, the size of the force that we felt we needed to accomplish it with and the amount of resources we felt were necessary to underwrite the force. we have been pretty consistent of saying where the budget needed to go in the 2015 budget and 2016 budget. i will have some charts that will lay it out virlly. i think again, i believe it helped that our committees knew pretty well where we were coming from and understood what we
needed and why we needed. that helped us in terms of the thought process. we hadn't been out there in term of what resources we needed and that was well understood by a large block of members heading into the budget deal. this chart is a very busy one. we have talked about this chart or something like this inside the building and i'm not going to beat it to death. the line on the top is the resource plan when the budget control act was signed. this was submitted earlier in the year in 2011. sort of a starting point of how we measure the resource pressure we felt from the b.c.a. the next line down which is gold, after the b.c.a. was signed, this was the budget we submitted. we recognized we would have to cut half a trillion dollars over
10 years. this was what our chairman of the joint chiefs, mike mullen, called the first $500 billion because he suspected this wasn't the only cuts we were going to take. you may remember in january 2012, the president came to the pentagon with the secretary and deputy secretary and talked about our strategy. when we talk about the strategy, can we resource the strategy, we are going back to where we were in january of 2012 and the budget. we came in lower than that in 204 and as deputy secretary carter -- now secretary carter, along with the vice chairman made choices and that looked at a range of what we could support given the new reality of the budget control act, what range
of resources we needed to support our strategy. and that was a gray area between the blue line on the top and you can see it hitting some of the other lines on the bottom there. what we have been -- and this gets to my point -- we have been telling people we need to drive our budget up to the level covered by that gray line and what we needed to do and what the f.y. budget for 2016 and 2017 and helps us do a substantial portion of that. if you look at it what i call a normal taxpayer kitchen table point of view, well, it drops like a rock. but the world didn't seem to come to an end. you could live with a lower level of resources. you are asking tore a big increase.
we did ask for an increase. we needed a big jump in 2016. we had been pretty consistent saying that's where we needed to get back up to that range. we prepared the battlefield in terms of budget discussion for saying what we needed. 2015 budget discussion was formed by the ryan-murray deal. like we are going to write the 2017 budget in the second year of the new deal we have today. bottom of the chart shows the difference between there a dashed red line and solid red line sm the dash is the worst case once the supercommittee failed with the sequester cap and gotten relief ever since then. this shows where the cap stood right before the budget deal was enacted and i will show you the next chart here that now shows
you how the caps have moved up since then. if you look all the way out through f.y. 2017, you the solid red line are higher than the worst case caps. this is the relief we have been able to get through three budget deals. so every year and this is the point that jumps out at you. ever year since the supercommittee failed we have never gotten the worst case or the president's budget except when the president's budget was written to be the second year of the ryan-murray deal. e budget request and the budget caps will coincide. it has been an a negotiation. you know you will be in the range between where the president is and where the budget control act is and where you are going to end up.
that has been a painfully slow process. we don't get the best or worst case. i want to take you back again -- i'm not sure everybody thinks this way but a lot of folks in the building do, we look at where we started before the budget control act. once the supercommittee failed we were looking at $1 trillion worth of cuts. we say where are we in that range of taking the cuts with no relief whatsoever for the entire 10-year period. we are close to the worst case even with three budget deals that have helped us. when i talked about with former chairman mike mullen called the first trillion and the budget recognized what we had to do know matter what, we owed $500 billion off of where we were. that's the blue line that is on the chart. the green line shows where we
ended up up to and including this new balanced budget act. we have $75 billion of relief so far and you can do the math. that's the difference between that green line and the red line on the bottom of that box. you can -- this gets to my earlier point. the budget control act has been a key driver, this is the strong gravitational pull. when you saw from the black line at the top or the middle of that box which the president and congress agreed that d.o.d. would have to give up, you can see we are pretty close to the bottom of the bucket compared to the top since the b.c.a. and that's when i say it has been a dominant force in my opinion. i'm going to skip to this next
chart. this walks through the math of those charts, what resource level we had. couple of jumps that we had take us down when the supercommittee failed, couple of jumps we had, the murray-ryan deal and that is $78 billion of relief and then we are then and probably if i can best show this going to the next chart. if nothing else happens and we went back to let's say we went back to the caps, there's no deal coming after this two-year deal expires and we go back to the bottom of that box, we will have gotten $78 billion of relief. we will have absorbed the cuts over 10 years if we get no urther relief after this deal. what that gold mine represents
is the outyears of our plan. i expect it will be consistent with the 2017 budget. the profile that we say we need. another $100 billion of relief. the difference of what you will see in our outyears compared to the worst case going back to the caps is. more relief in the last four years in the deal that we have been able to achieve in the first six through the variety of budget deals. our best case now morals, i can't principle dect what the next administration's budget will be, but the position we del had in the 2015 budget, is $800 billion of cuts over 10 years. that's the best case in this point and worst case is 900 just being what it is.
that shows you that the range is much closer to being driven by the b.c.a. which is surprising when you think about the changes in world events. none of them have caused people to re-examine the construct of the b.c.a. as a fem grounding point for many members in terms of political discussion of where the defense budget should be or the discretionary budget should be as a whole. i have been surprised by the resilience. why do we have a budget deal? these are arguments that we have made before. why do we have the budget deal? because of the feud over the o.c.o. maneuver in the budget resolution which the president made clear. just to refresh you, here are some of the concerns we had about that approach. in the end, you may think this is easy for me to say now, but we were right to hold out for a deal and not this one-time
maneuver. we got two years instead of one year and health for both the defense and the non-defense whole government side of the budget, not just for the d.o.d. part. so secretary carter was never just about helping ourselves in d.o.d. getting our number fixed for one year but he wanted to help homeland security, d.o.j. and the treasury and the players on the national security team as well as the non-defense side. so in the end, although we didn't get all the money we wanted out of this deal, we felt good about the outcome and i think that our reluctance to go to the short-term easy solution produced the outcome we got in this budget deal. let me give you a few observations of mine what it does and doesn't do. it provides additional resources -- it provides less resources. we don't talk a lot but the
threat of default for two years may not be a great accomplishment but still for our economic security, that's not something to take for granted. provides predictability. came early in november to figure out how to meet the target in a rational way in the 2017 budget and to work with the appropriators to at least give them our views of how the top line should be adjusted downward in 2016. they will make the final decision but we provided our opinions. 30 years in this business, having pre-target. that's kind of an odd concept. but we think we can work with that. therefore, because of the last point, one of the things this new budget deal does is alter
the rules of what is in base and o.c.o. and what is in base and o.c.o. and we'll talk about that some in the discussion part. the only offset in this bill that probably affects us down the road requires spectrum, big users of spectrum. 10 years down the road there will be an impact and won't be fully known for five years when the spectrum is identified. there are mechanisms in place to make us whole should they continue to work properly. this budget deal strengthens our interagency partners and that was port that we just not help ourselves but everybody out there. one man in the lifeboat with everybody else flailing around is not his idea for success. and one of the key partners we
worked with, there is a mixed bag. the way the o.c.o. relief was written for the non-defense side . so they are going to be highly leveraged in o.c.o. when the administration ends. they are going to be much more leveraged than we are and lot more uncertain as we head into the next administration. some of the things the deal doesn't do, it doesn't give us specific targets at d.o.d. it's a defense function that we share with n.s.a. and doesn't provide us money. and the next stage is getting an omnibus appropriation bill on time. so therefore it does not prevent a shutdown since absence of an omnibus appropriation bill, this deal alone doesn't help us prevent a shutdown, although it is a helpful sign that people are about solving problems and
we won't have that situation come up. doesn't provide us guidance after this budget deal ends in two years. it is a jumped ball. it continues the pattern of short-term relief but doesn't guarantee you anything or make commitments about what will happen. the threat of sequester coming back for 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, which is the law and not removed by this budget deal and make assumptions whether this is a good sign or bad sign and there is no guarantee of whether or not we will have sequester returning. does not extend the spending caps and this was very important to us. our top priority when we talked to o.m.b., we did not want to see these caps extended even further because as i'll talk about in a minute, the decade of the 1920's, we need additional
resources above of where we are today to start the nuclear triad and having the cap being extended. one of the best thing is something that you did not see in the deal. nd finally you can make judgments as i might about whether the way of reating oco -- treating o.c.o. spending or other spending, it doesn't tell us whether this was a one-time, something needed to make the deal work as a compromise or whether it's going to be perpetuated in the future that uncertainty, i think, is one of the key things we all need to keep an eye on. let me give you one example. the european reassurance initiative started, the president's speech was only a little over a year ago. we put some money put in 2015. the 2016 level was somewhat
comparable. we're going to wrap that up in the budget, we're still debating the exact number but a significant increase. then the muse sec going to stop, the budget deal then ends, and he future of o.c.o. is sort of indeterminate this administration had one construct for handling war funds, the priest administration had another one, the next one may have a third. here will our european reassurance initiative be, having ramped up in 2017 almost certainly in o.c.o., then we head into a situation where the future of o.c.o. is not clear at all. the deal overall is very good for us. i don't want to be nitpicking but there are concerns about it s we look to the future. let me talk about the near term
for a second. this chart illustrates where the president's budget was. where the caps were in the red, our budget was in the blue and not surprisingly, as many compromises go, in thed my is where we ended up with this budget deal. what i shaded in at the top is the o.c.o. relief many of you have probably read about. it's been descreened as $8 billion or up to $ billion in each of the years, that's compared to the -- to where we were at in the 2016 budget. to me the o.c.o. relief is not really $ billion. the president decided shortly before the deal was agreed to to extend the higher troop level in afghanistan that had a bill not contained in our 2016 plan that bill is a good $3 billion a yore or more than that. i think the bill at five, compared to our new cost of doing business including keep manager troops in afghanistan going forward.
$5 billion in relief is a good thing. that extra cost is a good thing theasms attack on paris reminded us, the enemy has a vote. i can't control or predict my o.c.o. cost but i can predict that the extra cost will have a cost but can't predict what will happen. given that, knowing what we know today, i would say we got about 9 % of what we were asking for in 2016 at the defense department. not counting this o.c.o. relief and probably 90% of the total funds we were seeking including it. for 2017, it's a little les. maybe 97%. 97% of what you want is a good day for most people, i count it as such for us for both years. on the other hand, you are budget is pretty large. 3% cut of what we were asking
for is still over $15 billion. that's a lot of money to cut out. but still, we got, you look at the difference between another way to measure deals, i was couldn'ting -- counting from the zero collar up, from zero to $530 billion. we were getting 96% or 9 % of what we wanted in 201, 97% of 9 % in 2016. if you look at the space between where the president was and where the caps were, we probably got about 0% up in 2016, maybe halfway, but that's still not surprising and that is more relief sooner and a better deal overall for us than murray-ryan was, just to put it in perspective. and later on, we can talk about any implications again on the base versus o.c.o. side going forward. that's going to be one of the quirks of this deal. so now looking beyond the budget deal, as i know that you want to do today.
we have to think about so many dimensions now from terrorism, counterinsurgency, we have to think in temporal terms today as well as 20 years from now. court that uild a does many things well. here's what's on the plate for building this program. balance is a key point for us. extend the size of the force, the readiness of the force, the high end capabilities of the force. i think many of you are familiar with hopefully secretary carter's briarities, which he's been clear about investing in the force of the future, how to get the most of the same kind of talent if not better talent than we have today as well as innovation in our investments and trying to keep pace with the way the technology is delivered today and with innovative business practices since we compete for talent in so many rems and we compete for -- in so
many real. s and we compete for others. the secretary is trying to leave his successors with the same best military in the world. i wish i could i say -- say i have the ability to underwrite what we want to do as a department, i do not have that. we do know some of the big issues on our place. one of which i allude to is the big bill, trying to capitalize on nuclear deterrence. secondly across our society, we have the mass migration of the aby boom to full retirement. i'll take a second to show you a chart that does that. this is something c.b.o. did they do a long-term budget outlook, i try to put it into a picture. the revenue is a dark line across the top.
i stacked these from the bottom to the top in terms of what i call ability to pay or difficulty of cutting and maybe rough must-pay order. by 2020, the entire nondefense budget could be construe as above the line of the revenues coming in. by 2035, the entire discretionary budget, both defense and nondefense is above the line that period as i described, 2020 to 2035 sake peer ff us because that's the -- that's what we need to recap it and need a bump up in resources. not maybe the ideal situation in hich we find ourselves here. knowing we have fiscal pressure going forward. so coming back a little bit more to the near term, where will things be for the next administration? this is one of the reasons we feel fair hi good about this new budget deal.
you can see where we were, the irst three years, we were at about the $530 billion level. then we got run overy the b.c.a. train as i like to think about it. we had a $30 billion drop in one year. dropped below where we had been. we managed to jump ourselves up with this budget deal, back up just about $30 billion above where we had been. i've put in my estimate of the role o.c.o. relief here. first of all, obviously there's stuff here and now, i'd rather be at $522 billion today than at $495 billion again for the fourth year in a row, same for next year. more important to me, you'll notice i haven't connected the
2016 and 2017 line to any particular future. i've left a gap there. when the next administration and next congress show up two years from now. sometime in calendar year 2017. probably not before the summer, maybe in the fall, hopefully there'll be another budget deal. seems reich the time would be ripe based on past history at least. i certainly would be glad, you know if at the defense department that my successors will be starting and secretary's successors will be starting from a place to negotiate from the mid 520's not the mid 490's. even if we went back to the caps where we were kind of be flat, we would be over there. hopefully we can jump up to where we need. the jump we made in this year was difficult to achieve based on where we been for the last three years. it would have been impossible, i think, to jump up to that yellow line at the top of where we think we need to go had we stayed down here in 2016 an 2017. at least it's doable, it would require a comparable jump in
2018 from 2017 to 2018 to what's in this budget deal but this budget deal does show it's possible. it sets up fairly well for the future, given all factors considered, i think this is not a bad place to be. i certainly would rather been starting from here to have the negotiations for the future of defense budget starting from where we are with this deal and where we have been the last two or three years. i think that's an important point. finally a couple of observations on defense budget over the last couple of years of what i've een. the president's defense request has been the ceiling for these negotiations, which is different than what i would call, what i s used to, a traditional spoinl defense, the president's is a high water mark is different than what history has sown us but that's been the case here a little unusual. second, a point i made before,
we never had the full worst case or the full best case. wever never gotten everything we wanted, and we've never had absolute worst case. there's been some relief but not -- but only in one or two-year doses, not till late in the year you know it's coming but you have to wait for it. we have never gotten, you know, two year deals, we've had two two-year deals and one even shorter term deal that delayed the request and reduced it slightly. would say our top line is dictated heavily. there's been many changes in the security situation. the combined desire of the president, several secretaries and several joint chiefs to raise that budget up. we've had some success in getting additional resources but it's been a fight.
there's no guaranteed success, except for one tiny bit here and there, all the increases to b.c.a. d.o.d. has gotten or nondefense have gotten have had to be paid for. the construct is really kind of a supply of resources as much as it is the demand of whether the national security of the country -- the deal seems to be driven by what can people come up with resources they can get people to agree to that have in the included much of any revenues. that's kind of been our constraining factor. that points out to me that the b.c.a. remains a dominant factor even though you done find a lot of fans of it around here. it's remained a dominant factor in setting defense resource priorities. finally, we will, by virtue of is deal, be dependent on o.c.o. funding at the end of the administration. i know there was a desire by this administration to do better
on that front and have more resources out of o.c.o. and into the base budget when we left but that's not going to be achieved under this deal so it is what it is. i think it's still a good deal for us. that's one thing we left as an important variable for the future. that's my summary, i don't know if it's fair to call it quick or not, but that's the summary of key aspects of resources we've been looking at. i think it leaves a couple of points hanging in familiar on the o.c.o. side. with that, i thank you and look forward to a discussion with todd and any questions you have. >> so just as a way of getting us started here, can you give us a bit of a status update on where things stand an the f.y. 2017 budget process?
near the end of the program review where do things stand right now? >> we are near the end of building a 2017 budget. not at the end. there's probably about three weeks to go, i'd say. we need to be completely done in less than three weeks now, 2 1/2 to three weeks. it's crunch time for sure. mr. mccord: in a normal year i think you'd be getting passback, it would come today, the monday after thanksgiving. i think this week we're not going to get it this week. i think we'll get it as late as a week from today instead. but we are near the end of program review. we have a couple more issues to discuss. finalize. and the european reassurance initiative is one of them as well as the particulars of o.c.o. funding and i think compensation questions are still out on the table a little bit. we have a couple of issues, we've discussed this at least once. we've got a cupple to bring to
closure. then we need to get a little more quality time with the secretary who is going to be hard to reach in the next couple of days, he's got a hearing again tomorrow. we are very close to the end. enge we're in decent shape but we do have a couple of big issues to wrestle, we have not seen our passback yet, that will probably come in about a week. we are looking to lock this up before christmas. i anticipate the budget will be submitted on time. we can't assume we'll have any additional time and we do want to let this get locked up and let people enjoy a little christmas because they're done. so that's our shared goal between the comptroller and front office. i think we all want to get this wrapped up on time. i'm pretty confident that we will. >> so we kind of have an idea, even though you haven't gotten the passback from o.m.b., top line, because of this budget deal so it's about a $15 billion reduction in the base budget
compared to what was planned in last year's request. given the magnitude of that reduction, should we expect major program terminations or any major deviations from planned modernization programs? i'm thinking in particular the f-35 is supposed to b ramping up in production. lrsb is supposed to be ramping up in fund, are we going to see deviations because of this? mr. mccord: one way we'll accommodate this cut is there will be some slowdowns in some modernization programs. lrsb had a low-budget delay scheduled by its own dynamics anyway. i think there will be some slowdowns in a few places, compensation we need to relook at, to get new, all the new inflation factors that are an important part of that dynamic. military retirement, you know, just enacted in the authorization bill the president signed a fedes ago will be taken
into account in our new budget. it's not got a huge near term impact but it will be, i think, it will not be a net increase for us, it might be -- the actuaries need to finalize their determination of what we're waiting on. i think it might be a net savings for us. i think that's a good accomplishment for this year in terms of having something that kind of update ours compensation for retirees and gives more people that without making the situation worse. i think that's a positive for us. >> and that's like 2017 -- in f.y. 2017 might be a slight decrease. in f.y. 2018, 2019, will there be more decrease mr. mccord: i think it will be flat -- decrease? mr. mccord: i think it will be flat across the years. given that this budget deal tells you what your top line is for 2016 where the pen has left our hands, it's left the
appropriations committees and we've got one year of new topline to write to in 2017, i would not expect any major changes in the size of the force because there is that, a short-term deal doesn't give you the demand signal to say, i need to shrink my force to accommodate the topline because again we don't really have, based on history you don't know what you're going to be living with, the b.c.a. toplines from 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. history shows you you never deal with the worst case. we know what the cors case is. but we don't know what the best case is. we have thope for additional resources. i think in terms of having the leverage to say we need to shrink the force because we know that we're going to be living with less, we don't know what we're going to be living with. oklahoma you'll see a big move on that side because that's such a hard thing to do without a clear imperative. given the demands on the force.
nobody wants to shrink the force that much if we don't have to and you don't really have that case to make that you have to. >> all right. so let's turn to o.c.o. funding for a minute. in the last budget request, it talks about migrating these so-called enduring requirements from the o.c.o. budget to the base budget. sounds like a euphemism to me. but the trends seem to be going in the opposite direction. we see it in this budget deal, putting o.c.o. money in there deliberately intended to the base budget. it's not even new to this budget deal. congress has done similar things in the past. are we at a point where the lines between o.c.o. and base have been blurred? there's no meaningful distinction anymore? do we need new guidance on what counts at o.c.o. and how this will be used in the future given that it's evolved? mr. mccord: i would say yes, they have blurred, i don't think
they've blurred to the point of having no meaning. but you're right, the desire of the administration was to ramp o.c.o. down. remember the course as we had ramped down the presence in iraq, the president had you know, intended to get us pretty much out of combat mission in afghanistan, it therefore seemed like a natural thing to ramp down o.c.o. which we had built up some dependencies over the years, largely i think unintentionally but as a matter of making course of least resistance. the budget for 2016 laid out a plan to get us out of o.c.o. except for direct war costs by 2020. as you said the trend went exactly the opposite way in terms of where the budget resolution handed us a way to solve this year's particular budget problems and it became obvious to us that d.o.d. early on that the climate was totally wrong for trying to accomplish this goal of transitioning o.c.o. down to a lower level and getting more of these costs back to the base budget. you may ask, why would anyone
care as long as you have money and there is at the end of the day there is a point to that. but there are organizations, socomm is a good example, that are heavily dependent on o.c.o. they're not comfortable having the majority of their budget in o.c.o. they would like to have -- everyone would like to be below the line and have only your absolute incremental costs be above the line. but it's clear to us that's not achieveable that will be left hanging. i cited european reassurance as an issue, something you could argue, you know, presence and posture, activity, exercise level in europe, europe's a place we have been for decades. why would anything in europe be in o.c.o. but under this deal, it's going to be in o.c.o. again if you looked at what our requirements are going in, which i think were fairly well known to people and o.c.o. numbers bigger than that, some rule has
to change. it's not yet agreed between us what rules will change and what items will have to be reclassified. but it does send a confused signal to the future. it's obvious to me at least why it ended up this way and that you could change the deal at the margins without having to fundamentally re-examine and exit to the future with a long-term budget deal this way but not ideal for us but compromises, this to me was part of a compromise it's maybe not the way we would have written it. we had the desire to ram down on -- ramp down on o.c.o., and compromised with this temporary thing that leaves a lot of questions hanging about what people want o.c.o. to be. when you think about it, there's only a couple of ways to fund contingency activities. you can give the executive branch the money up front with, you know, with not a lot of strings or give it to them up front with a lot of strings or
you can wait until after the fact when you incur the expense and present congress with the bill with not much choice except to pay. so before and after, there's only so many ways to skin this cat. so i think we may well see a new formulation of how to pay with contingency funding though i couldn't guess what that might be at this point. ultimately there's only so many models that you can do. >> let's talk about something i hear keep coming up a lot of times is d.o.d. audit readiness. d.o.d. has not yet passed a clean awe tit. it's been in the work farce while. it's been delayed many times. can you give us a bit of an update on where d.o.d. stands in terms of getting to an audit and you know, tell us, we've got a pretty smart audience, why sit hard for d.o.d.?
>> we have a goal that we set out that congress then came back and agreed with us on and legislated that we would submit the entire department for a full audit of all, there's four segments that go with a full audit. in 2017 system of that's the fall of 2017. so presumably there will be a different c.f.o., most likely, when that happens. then secretary panetta, when he was here, felt that five years or so was too far away to have an interim -- without an interim goal he felt we needed an interim goal so he established one to submit an audit on current year statements for the fall of -- this last fall, fall of 2014. 2015, i'm sorry. and so we have done, now, audits, submitted audits to the army, navy, air force. they're under audit now. one has just come back with a disclaimer is pretty much what we expected the first time out. we elected to get those to the
other two as well. we are making a lot of progress. one of the things i was talking about on the top line aspect that we had in terms of what resources we needed and what size of force we needed, which is fairly consistent over the last couple of years, which has helped us. same is true on the audit side, we have a plan we have stuck to the framework of, we've worked down the to-do list of things to get done but haven't changed the plan a lot over the last couple of years and not going to change the plan at this time either because we got the disclaimer will will not surprise us when you get started on these. we have the benefit, everybody know what is the plan is and it's work -- and is working together on this plan. it's going to be a journey. it will last beyond my time there most likely. we are making progress. why is it difficult for us? i think largely our size and complexity, of course is one thing. i think people probably appreciate how big we are. in terms of, you know, we have millions of employees.
our budget is the size of dash pretty good sized economy, say belgium, in terms of, or the netherlands. so we are not a small organization at all. we have, you know, i think maybe 25 million acres of land. half a million buildings. so our size is part of it. but i think the main reasons are probably two. one, that we have so many systems that were built to do something else that need to work together to produce information in a way that auditors can use and verify which is not what they were built for. we're too big to just sort of glow up -- blow up our systems and buy one system that runs the entire department. we have to include all kinds of logistic systems and that's been a difficult effort. second, i think culturally we're an organization that's all about getting the mission done and this has not been and probably
never will be seen as the department's primary mission. it's not. the primary mission is to defend the nation and fight and win wars system of the trick has been to get our culture to see this as a mission that needs to get done even though it will never be the top mission of the department, but to bring that same attitude of, this is something we need to get done because we are about accomplishing missions. that, i think, is what we actually have been achieving over the last couple of years. but it's kind of hard, it's hard to measure, i will tell you that some members of congress have said to me, you know, they will concede that you guys have a plan that makes sense, you awe a-- appear to be following your plan and you're moving the ball down the field but it's not in the end zone. and we don't have that. it's hard to assess progress when you don't see the ball in the end zone but i will tell you progress is there. one evidence of that to me is that we've had, by my count, i think actually zero hearings
about the awe tit this year which is prur sur prizing. of course there's a lot else going on. and we have as we talked about under this bill less resources, right? we have headquarters cuts, we have financial cuts to absorb. one thing you might say, what's something that maybe we need to dial back on, should we slow down the audit effort? there's been strong resistance to doing that. so i think what, to me there's a couple of signs that culturally this is now a mission we want to get done. we don't have to be pushed, we don't have to be beaten we feel don't have to have hear organization sticks or other things to make us want to do this people have internalized this as a goal. but it's going to be difficult to get there for us, i think, given our size and complexity and the need to get so many parts of the community, the logisticians and everybody else working together. i think we are on the right track. i think that history will look back and see that. but it will take a couple more
years to get this doning. but my predecessor, bob hale, was fond of characterizing this and say, you can't learn to swim on the beach. you have to get into it to really learn things, you need to have an audit, independent awe did to say, here's what you're going trithe and here's what you're not. that's where we are. i think we'll learn at a more rapid rate now that we're in audit. even though the initial results will be, you weren't good enough to get a clean audit. >> so you need a couple of failures? mr. mccord: i think you do and you need to stop practices and actually be getting grades. not doing test prep, and that's important -- >> follow this later on our schedule and online at c-span.org. the house is gaveling back in for two votes. live coverage here on c-span. of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on november 30, 2015, at
6:03 p.m. that the senate passed senate 1698. with best wished i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 539. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 8, to modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and manufacturing work force, bolster america's energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government accountability and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the joint resolution, senate joint resolution 23. providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code, of a rule submitted by the environmental protection agency relating to standards of performance for green house gas emissions, from new modified and reconstructed stationary
sources, electric utility generating units, and providing for consideration of the joint resolution, senate joint resolution 24, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of a rule submitted by the environmental protection agency relating to carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources. electric utility generating units. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. h.r. 2288 by the yeas and nays, h.r. 2270 by the yeas and nays, the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15 minute ed vote. remaining electronic votes will be conduct d as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2288 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title
of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 218, h.r. 2288, a bill to remove the use of -- the use restrictions on certain land transferred to rockingham county, virginia, 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 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.]