Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  May 29, 2014 11:00pm-1:01am EDT

11:00 pm
theory of disparate impact. it allows the government to allege discrimination on the bay siffs race or other factors based solely on the statistical analysis that finds disproportionate results among ifferent groups of people. the justice department has increasingly used this theory in lawsuits against mortgage lenders, insurers and landlords and forced these companies to pay multiple dollar settlements. what's wrong with this one might ask. under disparty impact, one could never intentionally discriminate in any way and even then have strong anti- discrimination policies in place and still be found to have discrame nated. example, a mortgage lender uses a completely objective standard, like debt-to-income ratio, they can still be found to have discriminated if the
11:01 pm
data shows different loan approval race for different groups of consumers. some of these result mace be due to discrimination and other mace not be. it's impossible to tell which is which from the statistics aaloan. you should disparty impact it doesn't matter. all statistical differences are considered by themselves discrimination. to be clear, none of us have a tolerance for intentional discrimination. if there's intentional discrimination, we must prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law. the justice department's use of disparty impact tries to fight one injustice with another. on a more practical level, disparty impact will make it difficult if not impossible for lenders to make rational economic decisions about risk. lenders will feel pressure to weaken their current standards to keep their statistics in line with whatever the justice department bureaucrats consider
11:02 pm
nondiscriminatory. we have seen this discriminatory -- what discriminatory lending can do to our economy. it's reckless for our government to be encouraging those dangerous and shortsighted practices to continue. ironically, disparty impact forces lenders, insurers and land lords to constantly take race, ethnicity, gender and other factors into account or risk running afall of the -- afoul of the justice department. you and i both know, mr. speaker, that even an acquisition of discrimination could have a devastating impact on a small business. i quote roger clay, the president and general counsel for the center for equal opportunity he said, disparty impact standard for anti-discrimination law pushes people to do one of two things. either a, get rid of legitimate selection criteria or b, use racial double standards to ensure that numbers come out right. on balance, mr. speaker, disparty impact will make it more difficult and expensive for families to buy a home and
11:03 pm
will result in more discrimination, not less. for these reasons, both philosophical and practical, i ask my colleagues to reject this misguided theory of -- by supporting my amendment. thank you and i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> first i want to raise a point of order against this amendment. the chair: no, the amendment has been offered. mr. fattah: ok. secondly, i rise in opposition. i won't waste the congressman's time with a great deal of debate but as briefly as i can, what the gentleman's amendment says is, no matter what the result, if whole classifications of people are discriminated against based on a set of policies that d.o.j. can do nothing about it. that's the america you want, i hope the congress would register our opinion on it when we get a chance to vote.
11:04 pm
we'll be seeking a roll call vote on this matter and i'll be ld to yield. >> you said that if the the justice department may not go after them if a whole set of policies result in discrimination. mr. fattah: what i said is what the gentleman offers to the house is an opportunity where no matter what the result, if whole classifications of people re left out, i.e., there's a disparty impact, that d.o. -- a disparate impact, that d.o.j. can't go after them. i hope we reject it. i reclaim my time, i appreciate you offering and we'll see what kind of america we'd like to have when we cast a vote on this. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from new jersey.
11:05 pm
mr. garrett: so i think what america wants is to only have -- be able to bring lawsuits for discrimination when there was in fact intentional discrimination. not just the end results from some statistics some may believe there was discrimination. if there was intentional discrimination, this amendment does not do anything that would prevent the justice department from proceeding. i would also like to enter into the record support for the legislation from a number of organizations, including the consumer and mortgage coalition, credit union national association, national association of credit unions and also p.c.e.i., american insurance associations, all -- many of whom say -- the chair: the question is ofed by general leave. mr. garrett: which in part states, all 50 states have strong and comprehensive anti- discriminatory regulatory regimes including a long list of enforcement tools, there is
11:06 pm
no evidence that these regimes re insufficient. furthermore, they state that they do not allege -- furthermore, they say under dispair rat impact theory -- durnedis par rat impact theory theory, ate impact this could increase cost and undermine the availability of credit throughout the economy. in the end, mr. speaker, what we were intending to do here is allow the continue for the justice department to proceed with when there is evidence of intentional discrimination but when there's no evidence whatsoever, when it's purely on statistics, it should not proceed under this theory of law. with that, if there's no other speakers, i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yooleds back. the question is on the -- >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is
11:07 pm
recognized. mr. fattah: i want to make one point. every single federal appellate court has upheld this -- a way to proceed in terms of looking at the impact of policies. what the gentleman offers is that if american baseball looks like it looked prior to jackie robinson, that that's just perfectly fine and i happen to think that american baseball is a little bit -- as a pastime, more enjoyable for all of us after the jackie robinson decision, which was to take into account those who have been left out and to take affirmative action to include them in that's the america i want my children to grow up in. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment from the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. fattah: i seek a recorded vote.
11:08 pm
the chair: a recorded vote is asked for. puffer sunt to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to carry out operation choke point. the chair: pursuant to house order of today, the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri for five minutes. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. chairman. how does the federal government get rid of an industry it doesn't like? easy. it cuts the industry off from the financial services it needs to operate. sound impossible? sure it does. however, that's exactly what the department of justice is doing in conjunction with the
11:09 pm
fdic. this program even has a name. operation choke point. it's designed to force legally operating and licensed entities out of business by choking them off from financial services they need and what started -- starred with nondepository lenders is spreading. d.o.j. is now pressuring those who service the gun and ammunition industries. as a former bank examiner and banker, i know how they are using the power of their position to intimidate the banks and undermine the bank's ability to serve their customers who are doing a legal business. it's just plain wrong, mr. chairman. however, i want to be very clear. i strongly support d.o.j.'s authority to go after the bad actors. those actions should be commended and should not be inhibited. what cannot be tolerated is the federal government using its authority to broadly target entire industries including those that obey the law and are
11:10 pm
living within the rules. the staff report just released from the eversight committee summarizes 853 pages of intefrpbl d.o.j. documents. many of these internal document show that even d.o.j. officials question the legality of their actions and yet they continue. this isn't a republican or democrat issue, this isn't a conservative or liberal issue. this is an issue of d.o.j. stepping outside the law. we worked on a bipartisan basis to inform d.o.j. and other regulators of the consequences of operation choke point but those concerns have fallen on deaf ears. as a result, this bipartisan amendment is an important step to ensuring that d.o.j. can continue to do its job and makes clear that the department must not abuse its authorities. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my good friend from colorado, mr. perlmutter. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. luetkemeyer. i supported the original intent of operation choke point which
11:11 pm
sought to restrict online payday lenders usually operating from overseas from lending to states that prohibit payday lending. but the program expanded and is now being pushed well beyond its stated objective. eliminating fraud and illegal transactions from our nation's pame system should continue to be a priority for the department of justice and other federal regulators but employing a dragnet to companies engaged in legitimate business activities is wrong. state banking commissioners have also expressed concerns that federal agencies are attempting to deny essential banking services to lawful state licensed firms. operation choke point pressures banks to close accounts and stop processing payments for those businesses that pose a reputational risk. what is happening here is this approach this dragnet approach, causes chilling effects on legitimate businesses and legitimate banking services.
11:12 pm
as a consequence, going after bad guys, the department of justice needs to do that but not in such a broad, all inclusive way to chile jit -- to kill legitimate business. that's why i support this amendment and urge an aye vote and i yield back to the gentleman from missouri. the chair: the gentleman yields ba. the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: i want to close by saying i appreciate the gentleman from colorado's support. this is a -- an agency that's gone well beyond the scope of its authority. it even questions its own authority and internal memos. the original intent is questionable but at this point it's gone well beyond the original intent. there now is a list of other industries to go after. so i think this is a situation where we need to stop what's going on and i think my amendment clearly sets out what needs to be done. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia -- for what purpose does the
11:13 pm
gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: strick the requisite number of words. i rise in opposition to the amendment. faces -- a consumer fraud and fraud is a major crime. this ought to be addressed by the committee of jurisdiction. the judiciary committee and the financial services committee. we do hear stories of outside of military bases veterans being exploited. so i'm just concerned of what it actually means and i think in order to be looked at by the committee of jurisdiction and not by the appropriations committee at 11:15 at night. so for that reason i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. wolf: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. . fattah: i strike the requisite number of words. i support this but not in this
11:14 pm
bill, not at this time because we don't completely understand it. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill before she short title insert the -- before the short title insert the foal log. none of the funds made available in this act under the heading state and local programs, may be used in contravention of section 642-a of illegal immigration reform of 1986, 8 u.s.c. 1337-a.
11:15 pm
chip pursuant to the order of the house of today the gentleman from iowa will be recognized for five minutes and a member opposed will be recognized for five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment does -- what my amendment does is prohibits any of the funds used within this portion of the bill to go to cities that have enacted what we call sanctuary cities or sanctuary political subdivisions. the sthoveks code we refer to 8 .s.c. 1373 is -- write this is way. notwithstanding any other provision of law a state or local official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the immigration and naturalization services which would now be i.c.e., information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. this is current law. we have multiple cities in the country that are violating
11:16 pm
current law and they're doing so with the impunity. when we send funds out of this appropriations bill to those cities, it ignores an opportunity we have to restrain these cities and have them come back and comply with federal law. i was brought up in a law enforcement family. i had the constitution waved at me on a regular basis. it was expressed to me clearly it's the supreme law of the land and the enumerator powers in it which this congress asserts and defends are included in u.s.c. -- 8 u.s.c. 1373. in other words if these cities and if these political subdivisions disagree with federal law, they can come here and ask congress to change the law but to defy it and do so with the level of impunity that they have can't be accepted by the united states congress. we have a response to believe the assert our constitutional and statutory authority. so that's what my amendment does, it says any cities that
11:17 pm
have sack chair policies and inch those will not receive funds out of this section of the bill and the dollar figure we're dealing with is from a fund of $1.235 billion. so i point out that today the secretary of homeland security, jay johnson, testified tpwhever judiciary committee, he was speaking specifically of secure communities. the act that allows fingerprints to be transferred back and forth between homeland security, f.b.i. he said even with the secure communities issue he said quote we have mayors and governors pursuing laws that limit the effectiveness of security communities, close quote. this address security communities in this way and addresses sanctuaries policy which the secure communities policy according to secretary jay johnson is a very worthy one, close quote. so this supports at least the tone of the message delivered today in judiciary committee and supports what this congress has done multiple times in the
11:18 pm
past. i urge the adoption of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time does anyone seek time in opposition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i won't take five minutes. obviously the other team -- this is -- between the garrett amendment on disparate impact and this, this is i guess not actually part of the effort to reach out for a greater fan base. the idea that local communities can't make decisions in their own interests and we need the heavy hand of the federal vernment tole turn them into some particular set of responsibilities that are actually our responsibilities, immigration laws are our responsibility. not local communities. when the fire department shows up, they are supposed to put the fire out not worry about
11:19 pm
where someone's papers are. i just think that it's somewhat contradictory of some of the -- what we hear from the other team about where they are headed, but if this is representative thereof, rather than do comprehensive immigration reform, do our job as the united states congress. the senate has done its job. the president has said that he wants to sign a comprehensive bill. the chamber of commerce, all of the various religious and faith-based groups in our country have come forward. but rather than the congress taking up any bill, any bill on on immigration reform what we have is this constant effort to -- local communities who are just trying to make the best of a very tough situation that the federal government has created. we didn't want to burden them because we don't want to take
11:20 pm
our responsibility and enact a comprehensive immigration program. so i'm opposed to this amendment but i'm pleased that the gentleman has reminded us that this is in essence the immigration program that has some currency from the majority party. we should do something different than this. and we can, and 218 votes on this floor that would do comprehensive immigration reform if we would bring it. then we wouldn't have to deal with these kind of amendments year in, year out, bill in, bill out. because we would have dealt with the problem. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd point out that these political subdivisions, particularly in the cities, are contravening and ordering their officers not to cooperate with federal immigration officers. refusing to allow them to collaborate with or transport or in other ways cooperate with our federal immigration
11:21 pm
officers. we simply cannot have a law enforcement structure in the united states where you don't have local and state and federal officers cooperating with each other. it's not good for our community security. it's not good for our national security. this is in defiance and contravention of federal law that directs they cannot do this. they write these ordnances any way in defiance of the law and this congress must assert its primary authority over the funding that flows to those communities. we fail to do that, we shouldn't be surprised if there are other federal laws that are contravened. i urge its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment for the gentleman from by iowa, mr. king. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. nd the amendment is agreed to.
11:22 pm
pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, will be postponed. the gentleman from north carolina rise. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meadows of north carolina. at the end of the bill before the -- mr. nedos: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: any objection, hearing none the amendment is considered as read. pursuant 209 order -- pursuant to the order of the house today the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. i have a very simple amendment. currently there are negotiations going on with ustr. this amendment would prohibit funding to have any of the negotiations enter into a trade agreement that would establish a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. this congress in the 110th
11:23 pm
congress democratically controlled congress rejected the cap and trade and -- in 2009 and it would be very clear in supporting this amendment that we would carry on the will of the house in terms of making sure that we don't use any funds to circumvent the will of congress. additionally, u.s. chamber of commerce came out recently with proposed rules from the e.p.a. that are set to come out next week that would indicate that these type of rules could cost anywhere in the neighborhood of 3 1/2 million jobs over the next 15 years. with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. seek time in opposition? seeing none, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for the remainder of his time. mr. meadows: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
11:24 pm
back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. fattah: we seek a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina reside -- rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hudson of north carolina. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the amounts made available by this act may be used for any program not authorized with the law as of the date of the enactment of this act. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. hudson: i rise this evening to offer a amendment to the c.j.s. appropriations bill that would prohibit funding for any program that is not authorized
11:25 pm
by law. for far too long congress has continued to appropriate spending on government programs with little or no oversight. our country has essentially been on auto pilot towards the cliff of fiscal and economic disaster. this is has resulted in a massive and out-of-control bloated bureaucracy. in this bill alone, mr. chairman, there are 141 unauthorized programs. some of these programs were last authorized in 1993. there are others that have never been authorized. in total these unauthorized and unchecked programs in this legislation received $57 billion. with over $17 trillion in debt, it's time, mr. chairman, for us to say enough is enough. mr. wolf: would the gentleman yield -- mr. fattah: would you yield for a question? mr. hudson: my amendment prohibits funding in the bill for unauthorized programs. it peril lells my sunset act of 2014, h.r. 3847, which would force congress to actually do oversight and evaluate each
11:26 pm
individual program. mr. speaker, this type of sweeping reform would dramatically overall the way washington butts and spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars and allow congress to take back control, scale back our bureaucracy, and provide accountability to the federal government. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. fattah: i thought gentleman would yield for a second. my question was the large -- i would claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minute. mr. fattah: a large swath of our bill has not been authorized including nasa. we have to deal with transport back and forth to the international space station. even though it's not been re-authorized your amendment as written would seem to prohibit nasa from being able to conduct life sustaining activities relative to the space station. that was my question. the gentleman neglected to yield.
11:27 pm
if that's a rhetorical question at the moment and i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yield back. all time has expired. mr. hudson: i ask unanimous consent that i withdraw the amendment. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the mendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. -- designate number 16. the clerk: amendment number 16 in the congressional record offered by mr. collins of georgia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from georgia, will be recognized for five minutes and a member opposed will be recognized for five minutes. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i do appreciate the opportunity and i look i'm probably -- i'm on a boat as we
11:28 pm
can say one of the last one coming in. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the time and been watching all night. i want to thank you-all for the work you have done on this bill and look forward to offering this amendment. i rise to offer this amendment to ensure that no funds appropriated under h.r. 4660 are used to assist states and localities whose laws and policies are in direct contradiction to federal immigration law and enlformente efforts. state and local jurisdictions are immetting policies that directly contradict u.s. immigration statutorily mission to identify and remove illegal aliens currently incarcerated. not only do these policies go against the spirit and letter of the law enacted by this body, but they do a disservice to the very community they are designed to protect. local jurisdictions are increasingly implementing policies that bar state and local officials, including law enforcement officials, from asking a person about their immigration status. reporting them to federal immigration authority or otherwise cooperating with or
11:29 pm
assisting federal investigation. some are going further to defy the law by implementing anti-detainer policies that restrict local and state police from cooperating with federal authorities who have been arrested and charged with crimes. and when local sheriffs accused to follow the law, some have been slapped with a lawsuit for cooperating. in response to unanimous of local jurisdictions refusing to honor i.c.e. detainers in all cases, former i.c.e. director warned of what would occurment he said that the approach of one particular county's ultimately going to lead to additional crimes that would have been prevented had we been able to enforce the law as presently written. i ask my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment and send a clear message if localities and jurisdictions refuse to honor i.i.c.e. detainers, they should not be eligible to receive funds under this act. specifically federal reimbursement grants. with that, mr. chair, i reserve the balance of my time.
11:30 pm
the chair: does anyone seek time in opposition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i reluctantly rise in direction opposition because i rise with mixed emotions. i am a very pleased this is the last amendment. but nonetheless i'm opposed to it not in the main, that is to say of course none of the funds in this bill should be used to operate contrary to our laws. some of the vagueness of the language as is intersecretaries with state and local communities and decisions they may make. so, for instance, a local mmunity may say that in a an emergency situation public safety officers should not engage in questions about whether you have papers or not, right? or when you're seeking information about a child that's been kidnapped and you go to a certain home or family, you shouldn't be questioning them about their immigration status when you're trying to
11:31 pm
save a child who could be in imminent danger. there could be circumstances in which this apparent language would create a real problem. . . so i reluctantly oppose it. i thank the gentleman for joining the party and closing us out for the night and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgiaingly do appreciate the ranking member's opinion on that. i think the descriptions you have just made are basically a little hyperbole when officer goes in this emergency when they would not act in the best interest of the situation they're in mr. collins: all we're saying is we're not going to put federal funds to cities and states who want to continue tra -- contradict immigration law in the course of business. i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves.
11:32 pm
mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. not in relationship to the amendment. i'd like to yield to the minority leader who wants to make some remarks on the circumstances that we find ourselves in tonight relative to his colleague and our colleague, chairman wolf. yield to the minority leader. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, first let me briefly say i rise to speak on this bill which directly impacts our economy, our competitiveness and our ability to create jobs that pay well and open doors for opportunity. while there are many positives to this bill, not limited to strong support of nasa, the space flight cent for the my district as well as robust funding for the national science foundation, this bill nonetheless makes two deep cuts to vital programs to protect
11:33 pm
against crime, promote innovation and facilitate exports. but the reason i wanted to come to the floor is because i wanted to take a moment to congratulate my friend, representative frank wolf of virginia. the chairman of the subcommittee who is managing this bill on the republican side. frank was elected in 1980, i was elected a few months laettner a special election in 1981. we served together for 23 years on the appropriations committee. we served all of the time until i left when i was elected majority leader. we served on the helsinki commission together which fought for human rights while the soviet union exirsed and so many were enslaved behind the armed cur -- behind the iron curtain. frank wolf has chaired this subcommittee for many, many years. he has done so with honor, with honesty, and with fairness. he and i have served together
11:34 pm
in this house for 33 years and sat together on the appropriation committees as i said for 23. when he retires at the end of this congress it will be a significant loss to the people of his district. it will be a great loss to this house which he has served so well. we may sit, frank, on opposite sides of the aisle. mr. speaker, but that has done nothing to diminish the friendship we have forged and the aslines we have forged over the course of our service together and the level of respect i have for him as a sledge slator, as a human being. he has been indefatigable, mr. speaker, in his work on behalf of his constituents, on behalf of our federal employees, and on behalf of the interests of the washington metropolitan area. this is his final commerce justice science appropriations bill, at least as it's being
11:35 pm
initiated on this house floor. i know his passion and professionalism when it comes to these issues will be greatly missed. not only by the many outside groups that provide input to him and the subcommittee each year but to his democratic colleagues on the subcommittee including ranking member fattah with whom he has worked so well. and indeed, previous ranking member who was worked well with him. i applaud them for their work. frank wol san francisco a principled, courageous, tenacious advocate for human rights in every corner of the earth. i have traveled with him frequently behind the iron curtain to argue for those who were discriminated against, whose human rights were undermined, whose civil rights did not exist.
11:36 pm
frank wolf always prepared to go anywhere, any time in the toughest of circumstances by himself and yes, with others to advocate on behalf of those who had no advocate. i've had the privilege of working with congressman wolf on many issues over the years. i've always found him to focus on the merits of issues and not on their politics. mr. speaker, i join all my colleagues in thanking him for his service to this house, to the subcommittee, to the nation he served in uniform of the united states army, and to the people of his district. i look forward, of course, frank, to working with you the balance of this year as you continue your focus and javo kacy on behalf of the issues hich you so abeably support. 113th congress will come to an
11:37 pm
end and frank wolf will leave us. he still will have many things to accomplish. he will still make many significant and important contributions to his country and his -- and to his community. i know that all the members join me, frank, in thanking you for your service, your dedication, and your friendship. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. > would the gentleman yield? i think we all owe mr. wolf and mr. fattah gratitude for the work they've done. this will be a long, hard slog, there's been dozens of amendments and endless debate but they have stayed at the chore and guided us through this maze that we've been
11:38 pm
coming through and have done really well. i want to thank both of them for the hard work they've done on this bill yesterday, last night and today and tonight. mr. rogers: and then i want to say in addition to what the minority leader has said about frank wolf, he and i came here together, same class, there was only three of us left -- there's only three of us left out of 54, two after he leaves. but frank wolf, as the leader has said, never fails in compassion and honesty and transparency. he's above board. what you see is what you get. d they say that character is what you do when no one is watching. when you do the right thing when no one is watching. and certainly that is true of
11:39 pm
frank wolf. he's a patriot. he served his statement and -- his state and district and nation and the people of the world, for that matter, in an exemplary way. i can think of no one in this body that i've served with in these years together, i can think of no one who better exemplifies honesty, integrity, and devotion to his country and family as has frank wolf. so frank, we're going to miss you dearly. this is the last time, i guess, that you will chair this bill on the house floor. you've been a great chairman of this subcommittee, which i had the pleasure and honor of serving as chairman for several years, and as a member of that subcommittee for many, many years. no one has done it better and our hearts are open when it
11:40 pm
comes to our love of frank wolf and we wish him the very best in the next chapter of his life. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania, all time has expired. mr. fattah: thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the sque on the amendment by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my request for recorded vote on my amendment be withdrawn. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: i ask unanimous consent that my request for recorded vote on my amendment be withdrawn to the end that the amendment stand adopted by
11:41 pm
the earlier voice vote. the chair: without objection the request for a recorded vote is withdrawn and the amendment stands adopted in accordance with the earlier voice vote thereon. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 13 by mr. moran of virginia. amendment number 14 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee, amendment number 15 by mrs. lackburn of tennessee. amendment ms. bonamici of oregon. amendment number 25 from mr. rohrabacher of california. an amendment by mr. holding from north carolina. amendment by mr. massie of kentucky. amendment number 24 from mr. southerland of florida.
11:42 pm
amendment by mr. ellison of minnesota. an amendment by mr. grayson of florida. an amendment by mr. duffy from wisconsin. an amendment by mr. garrett of new jersey. an amendment by mr. king from iowa. an amendment by mr. modos of north carolina. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote of this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 13 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman, mr. moran, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning
11:43 pm
institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
11:44 pm
11:45 pm
11:46 pm
11:47 pm
11:48 pm
11:49 pm
11:50 pm
11:51 pm
11:52 pm
11:53 pm
11:54 pm
11:55 pm
11:56 pm
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
12:00 am
12:01 am
12:02 am
12:03 am
12:04 am
12:05 am
12:06 am
12:07 am
12:08 am
12:09 am
the chair: on this vote the 230, re 189, the nays are the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 14 on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim amendment number 14 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having
12:10 am
risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:11 am
12:12 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 148, the nays are 253, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 offered by the squom from tennessee, mrs. blackburn on which further
12:13 am
proceedings were postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. clomentaurm 15 prinned in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:14 am
12:15 am
12:16 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 198. the nays are 208. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote by the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clrk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.
12:17 am
[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.] ou
12:18 am
12:19 am
12:20 am
the chair: the yeas are it 37. the nays are 170. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 25, printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the a. the clerk: amendment number 25, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the recorded vote please stand and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:21 am
12:22 am
12:23 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 219. the nays are 189. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
12:24 am
gentleman from north carolina, mr. holdings, on which further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. holding of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:25 am
12:26 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 219. the nays are 189. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on
12:27 am
the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, on which the further proceedings were postponed and the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. massie of kentucky. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:28 am
12:29 am
12:30 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 246, the nays will 162, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on
12:31 am
amendment number 24 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland, on which further proceed wrgs postponed on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 offered by mr. southerland of florida. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:32 am
12:33 am
12:34 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 185, the nays are 223, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by
12:35 am
voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by -- amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:36 am
12:37 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 196, the nays are 211, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the -- by the gentleman from florida on which the noes prevailed by voice vote the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.
12:38 am
those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:39 am
12:40 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 225, the nays are 183, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the gentleman mr. duffy on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. duffy of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded volt has been requested. those in support of the record
12:41 am
vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:42 am
12:43 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 229, the nays are 178, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment from the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered.
12:44 am
members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:45 am
12:46 am
the chair: the yeas are 216. the nays are 190. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote by the amendment by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having
12:47 am
arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:48 am
12:49 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 214. the nays are 194. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, on which further proceedings were postponed and oy which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. lord the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meadows of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be
12:50 am
counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a members will record their votes by electronic deviced recorded moat is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
12:51 am
12:52 am
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 216. the nays are 179. the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read the last two lines of the bill. the clerk: this act may be cited as the commerce, science, justice and related atecies act of 2015. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass.
12:53 am
the chair: the motion that the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4660 and reports the bill back to the house with sunry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole with a recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amended do pass. under house resolution 585, the previous question is ordered.
12:54 am
is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science, and related agencies for fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for ther purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin rise?
12:55 am
ms. moore: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady opposed to the bill? ms. moore: yes, sir, in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. moore of wisconsin moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4660 to the committee on appropriations -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. ms. moore: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment of this bill. this amendment will not kill the bill nor will it merely send it back to committee but rather if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final assage as amended. mr. speaker, this motion to
12:56 am
recommit is straightforward and simple. it would increase funding for three critical priorities. first, our chronically underfunded violence against women act program. second, for grants to process the backlog on rape kits. and third, for our community oriented policing service, cops grants program which was slashed deeply in the appropriations bill before us tonight. now, given the limited time that i have and the late hour, that i have to discuss all these issues, i just want to focus my remarks on one of the nation's staggering backlogs we haven't talked about. we've talked and importantly about the backlog at the veterans administration. but we have been silent about the backlog of the sexual assault kits that have not been analyzed. we have not seen a similar
12:57 am
amount of attention paid to the crisis in these rape kits that have been backlogged. we have all heard these harrowing tar heels from our communities from -- tar heels from young women and men who have -- tales from young women and men who have waited so long for justice and waited and waited and waited some more. these victims have not only endured the initial assault, ut they have also endured an evasive exam to collect d.n.a. shortly after the attack. these examines last for over four hours in some cases. it is unimaginable how difficult this is to bear. it takes so much courage for a victim to come forward and endure in hopes that the perpetrator will be caught. and you know it's the very least we owe to these victims to process all of the evidence. yet thousands of victims across
12:58 am
the country never hear anything ever again. police already possess the evidence that's needed to identify and convict the perpetrators of these crimes, yet criminals remain at a large primarily because these unprocessed kits remain in back rooms, wear houses, and labs. and given the sad reality that most sex offenders are resid vists is imperative we close the loop on these old cases so offenders don't seek out new victims. part of the terror of being raped is knowing that the perpetrator is still out there. he can come back to get you, someone else you don't know who he is, and it puts not only that individual in terror but puts the whole community in terror. on the aggregate level the department of justice has
12:59 am
tallied about had00,000 rape kits -- 400,000 rape kits sitting evidence lockers, largely because local authorities cannot afor the $500 to $1,500 it costs to test the kits. some go back to the 1980's. even though this evidence is old, mr. speaker, we shouldn't assume that they are meaningless. in detroit law enforcement personnel as an example are currently analyzing 11,000 abandoned kits they found in a warehouse six years. these kits have been kit sithing there for six years. after processing, only 10% of these rape kits they have identified 46 serial rapists who have been -- that they have identified. in new york city, they showed that after they processed their backlog of 17,000 kits the
1:00 am
arrest rate for rape kits increased from 40% to 70%. the overwhelming scourge of backlog kits will require nothing less than a national commitment, mr. speaker, including a dedicated response from the united states congress. i am pleased that the bill before us tonight fulfills the request for funding for a new grant program to inventory and test rape kits, develop units to pursue new investigative leads and offer support to victims during the process. the new investment through this bipartisan bill is an important first step. however, through simple addition we can tally pending costs. thank you so much for your indulgence, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia

27 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on