tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN May 15, 2015 9:00am-3:01pm EDT
reminder, booktv is on c-span2, every weekend. 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors, and this week and we are live at the gate book festival -- gaithersburg festival. you will hear from david axelrod, tom davis, mark frost. that is all live this week and on booktv and every weekend on c-span3, american history tv, 48 hours of history, and here comes the house. [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] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. we ask your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given. the issues of these days and in coming months remain complicated and potentially
divisive. endow each member with wisdom and wquanimity. we send your spirit of peace upon those areas of our world where violence and conflict endure and threaten to multiply. may all your children learn to live in peace. and may all that is done within the people's house this day be for your greater honor and glory. amman. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings -- chaplain conroy: amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question shall be postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. mr. dold: 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: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? without objection. mr. dold: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, chip anderson has been an integral part of troop 18 in scouting. he's provided outstanding
leadership. first as the troop's quarter master and then as the troop's scoutmaster. he's moving to atlanta with his family for career reasons and is resigning his active leadership position with troop 13 but will always remain a vital part of troop 13 and its legacy. during his tenure, the troop has been very active with weekly meetings community service projects and monthly camping and overnight trips. advancement is one but not the only measure of success, and during his tenure, troop 13 has had 45 young men attain the rank of eagle, the highest rank. chip has directed each of these young men as well as the young men in the troop. most have called him a mentor and a friend and the notes they have written to express their thanks. we are thankful for his outstanding contribution, as a community feel very fortunate to have his leadership and dedication to the scouting program and to the development of young men in the village. it's an honor to recognize chip today.
it's an honor to call him my friend. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. kennedy: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of a long-term re-authorization of the highway trust fund. just this week, one came to tell me how another stopgap bill would negatively impact projects in his city. the bridges in my home state are some of the oldest in our country. over 5,000 bridges in our commonwealth more than half are considered deficient. every single day cars trucks school buses cross our structurally compromised bridges nearly 10 million times. those numbers underscore the urgency for our federal government provide the critical
long-term investments in our infrastructure that our constituents demand and deserve. each time we approve a short-term patch of the highway trust fund we're continue them uncertainty and doubt on moving projects that not only create jobs but keep all of us safe. and a transportation plan is hindering our ability to maintain the infrastructure we have when we should be instead be focused on new projects to increase our modern economy and communities across our country. it's time to fix this problem, time to invest in our country, time to pass this bill. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: south carolina governor designated may as teacher appreciation month. as the husband of a retired teacher i know firsthand the time resources, support and guidance our dedicated educators give to their students.
while i regularly take the opportunity to visit schools and honor educators throughout the year, i'm grateful to give special recognition to our educators this month. i'd like to honor my constituent, daniel from dreer high school who was a finalist for south carolina teacher of the year. staff member drew kennedy is a graduate. i'm grateful for the teacher association led by executive director kathy for their tireless work on behalf of teachers throughout the state. the success is amplified by the superintendent of education, molly who is a dedicated individual for recruiting and retaining quality teachers. in conclusion, god bless the united states and may the president not forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the
gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. adams: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of long-term investments in our nation's critical transportation infrastructure. across this nation our roads and bridges are crumbling, communities are in need of updated transit systems. investments in critical infrastructure are necessary to ensure our our roads, bridges and transit systems are in good working condition and updated with the newest technologies to ensure our safety. jobs hang in the balance. the safety of our constituents hang in the balance. in north carolina alone, there are more than 5000 bridges in need of repair, more than 700 of those are in my district. we must make sure that critical road and infrastructure projects are put on hold and that jobs are not placed in jeopardy. my colleagues, i urge you to make the smart decision for our nation and support a long-term solution to funding our transportation infrastructure. i yield back mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to address the house and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? >> i'd just like to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman seeks unanimous consent. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my fellow republicans and other members to support the fiscal year 2016 national defense authorization act. my colleagues and i on the armed services committee came together in a bipartisan fashion to pass this legislation out of committee with a vote of 60-2. that seems pretty bipartisan to me and it should be. our nation's security should not be a partisan issue. the committee had a goal of implementing some lasting reforms to ensure our military is better prepared for the challenges we face. mr. scott: it is ensuring that they have the best systems for the fight. this legislation recollection that with the need to -- legislation recognizes that with the f-10, the aircraft that is best available and is flown out of moody air force
base. and j stars that flies out of robin air force base. it's an honor to support them in congress. i urge my colleagues to pass this legislation for our nation's war fighters who bravely serve so we may remain the land of the free. mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for run minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. learning to do, doing to learn, earning to live, living to serve, those are 12 short words of the future farmers of the united states who came together to share as the future farmers of this country. agriculture is the cornerstone of our economy, supporting over 23 million jobs in our country but is also an industry that requires more than just skills
and knowledge that might be learned in the classroom skills that are necessary to feed our country and to connect with the changing marketplace and consumers. it's how they succeeded in fulfilling this gap by expanding not only agriculture education in our schools but also in teaching students to be confident participants and leaders, to be honest and fair and share respect for others and to share our land resources. these lifelong skills are good for not just farmers, but marketing, research, engineering. i rise to recognize this organization and the millions of the future farmers of america, both current and past and express their dedication to strengthening our towns. it's that spirit of service and love for this country that truly represents the heart of rural america. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i, too, rise and ask unanimous consent to address the house for one
minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise with concern over the president's ongoing nuclear negotiations with iran and i rise in support of the legislation that house passed yesterday, the iran nuclear agreement review act. mr. speaker, there's absolutely no guarantee that any final agreement negotiated by secretary kerry and president obama will be a good deal. mr. stutzman: there's no guarantee this will be good for the security of the united states good for the stability of the middle east and good for our good ally, israel. by passing h.r. 1191 we're empowering congress to review the final agreement and block any bad deal negotiated by the president. mr. speaker, june 30 the deadline for the negotiations, is nearing quickly. when and if the president is able to arrive at a deal, i encourage my colleagues to take a strong, thorough look at all of the details. there's too much at stake in the world to get this wrong.
thank you mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 260 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1735. will the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack kindly take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of the bill h.r. 1735 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house on the state of the union -- when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, may 14, 2015, amendment number 83 printed in house report 114-14 offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, had been disposed of.
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 260 i offer amendments en bloc in package number 6. the clerk: en bloc number 6 consisting of amendments numbered 90 91 96 99, 101, 102, 103 104, 105 106 112 113, 114 115 116, 117 and 118 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260 the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry and the gentleman from washington, mr. larson, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, this en bloc package consists
of 17 total amendments, nine of them have been offered by republicans, eight of them have been offered by democrats. they cover a variety of very important topics for our national security, including cooperation with india evacuations of u.s. persons from yemen, the impact of u.s. troop levels on nato and violence in mexico. i believe these are important subjects and important additions to our bill. i hope members will support this en bloc package and i hope that all members who make these contributions will support the final version so that their contribution has a chance to become law. with that, mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the chairman for the efforts put forth by himself and the committee on necessary legislation that indeed should pass. america has given 14 years, nearly $1 trillion, and
thousands of lives to help build a stable afghanistan. while most of our troops have come home, congress has still obligated billions of dollars to be spent on reconstruction efforts. as we transfer oversight authority to afghan officials, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction has identified serious deficiencies in our ability to ensure the proper use of these american taxpayer dollars. as the afghan ministry's currently lacked the capacity to effectively manage and account for u.s.-funded assistance my amendment would require sigar to certify it has sufficient access to afghan accounts to guarantee effective audits. . i appreciate that this amendment has been added en bloc and i ask my colleagues to support this legislation and this amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from
washington. >> mr. chairman i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask members to support this en bloc package and with that, yield a minute to mr. nolan from minnesota for comments. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. nolan: mr. chairman, members of the house, as mr. walberg just pointed out we spent literally trillions of dollars in the middle east in what many would describe as wars of choice and nation building. i want to applaud the committee for this underlying legislation to ensure some accountability of how that money goes. all too often the moneys have made a mockery of our good intentions and ended up in the wrong hands and many cases used against us. the underlying legislation requires the definance department now to require them to give us a list to whom money has been given to in syria and
iraq to fight isil. my legislation says that when they find evidence that those funds have been misused by any one of those parties, they can no longer be recipients of our funding. and our intentions in this regard. thank you, mr. chairman. i urge adoption of the amendment en bloc as well. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield one minute to my colleague from texas, mr. pow. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: i thank the chairman for yielding and want the chairman to know i support my amendment en bloc and i support the bill as well. the number of foreign fighters traveling to syria and iraq to join isis is increasing at a dramatic rate. the director of the national counterterrorism center said more foreign fighters have joined isis in the last two years than those who went to afghanistan or iraq in the last 20 years. more than 180 of these fighters are from the united states. these killers are not just going to fight and die on the
battlefields of iraq and syria many return home to their home countries as trained battle hardened islamic radicals. before the first american to carry out a suicide bomb in syria, had he already been to syria and back to the united states as a trained suicide killer. the united states government didn't even know this. we need a comprehensive strategy to reduce the flow of foreign fighters from the -- isis to the united states and foreign fighters going to train with isis. this amendment requires that strategy. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from michigan. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. larsen. mr. chairman members of the house, i rise in support of my amendment 1303, contained on this block. mrs. dingell: which expresses
the intent of congress that the president should exercise all available authority to evacuate u.s. citizens from yemen as soon as possible. my district is home to the highest concentration of yemeni americans in the united states. since hostilities began in yemen my office hears daily from yemeni americans who are terrified frustrated, desperate, and have no idea how to exit the country. these are united states citizens in yemen with nowhere to turn. this week n.p.r. told the story of rana, a 16-year-old girl from the hometown -- my hometown of dear born, michigan. she had traveled to yemen to visit her father when the hostilities began. and she tried multiple options to escape. she tried to cross the border in saudi arabia and got turned back into hostile areas because she did not have a man traveling with her. ultimately, she ended up on a private fishing boat going with no food or water onboard.
my constituents and their families stuck in yemen need hope and they need to know that american zints are not being forgotten -- citizens are not being forgotten. we dot not in any way want to put american military in danger but we need to tell americans there is hope. thank you, mr. larson and chairman thornberry. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. walker: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to express my gratitude for the hard work and dedication put forth by chairman thornberry ranking member smith, and their colleagues on the armed services committee in drafting the national defense authorization act of 2015. i'd like to thank the rules committee, chairman sessions, and ranking member slaughter for their efforts in ensuring members on both sides of the aisle had an avenue to voice their opinion. we recreptly finished 10 town
halls in 10 counties. the number one thing from our constituents is making sure that washington is held accountable. these efforts help restore our constituents' faith in this body and the process of lawmaking. i thank the gentleman. yield back. the chair: the gentleman froming washington. mr. smith: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two meant. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman from washington, my good friend mr. larsen, for yielding me this time. the effort to expand u.s.-india relations has always been and continues to be a bipartisan effort, and i want to thank both sides of the aisle in acceptsance of the amendment that i put forward -- acceptance of the amendment i put forward. over the past two decades we have seen the relationship between the united states and india flourish and blossom. under both -- i should say
starting with president clinton as presidency followed by president george bush's presidency, and we have seen how advanced it has become under the presidency of barack obama. i had the opportunity to travel with the president earlier this year to india and the incredible reception that the president and the delegation received was like no other experience i have ever had in india. this relationship continues to grow. this is the first time we have had an opportunity to express of the house and congress of this burgeoning relationship especially as pertains to cooperation. i believe that this is the most critical relationship that we will have this decade in the world. india anti-united states -- and
the united states we have shared values of civilian control of the military. very important aspect when you consider the part of the world we are talking about. we share that same value with india. india's quest for securing peace normally within her region, but around the world, is something we share with her. their commitment india's dit commitment to democracy, rule of law, is something we also share with india. overall using democracy and the quest for peace trying to bring stability throughout the world i'd also want to thank the indian diaspora in helping in this effort. this is truly as i said earl yerks i believe the most important alliance the united states will have this crentry. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly.
the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. kelly: i thank the chairman. i rise in strong support of my amendment to renew a one-year ban on the obama administration from using any department of defense funds to implement the united nations arms trade treaty. this amendment updates and strengthens the language of my amendments that were entered on the previous two nadas. why? we must always uphold our individual right to keep and bear arms. we also must uphold the sovereignty of the united states over our arms export control system. how do we do this first? the amendment forbids of use of d.o.d. funds to facilitate domestic prosecutions of americans. this is a danger because the obama administration has already engaged in domestic prosecutions of individuals using treaties. this is totally unacceptable. second, my amendment specifically bans the use of d.o.d. funds for a a.t.t. secretariat created for implementing the a.t.t.
according to the supporters. appallingly and equally unacceptable a.t.t. backers seek to put the u.s. on the hook toe fund the activities of a treaty which it is not a party. i thank the chairman and ranking member for including this amendment in the en bloc amendments. i urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of the second amendment, our nation's sovereignty and vote in support of this amendment to renew the annual ban on the funding of the united nations arms trade treaty. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: could i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman has five minutes remaining. mr. larsen: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida ms. castor. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized tore two minutes. ms. castor: i rise today in support of the castor amendment which is an amendment in support of military families across the contry. it expresses the sense of congress that when it comes to housing military members, the pentagon should factor in the commuting times for base personnel and the land available for onbase housing. on-base housing is a critical
readiness issue. having our service members as close to their assignments as possible is vital. and d.o.d. must ensure that the decisions relating to base housing take into account relevant factors and each base is different. for example, at mcdill air force base in my hometown in tampa, florida, it's home to the sixth air mobility wing, special operations command and central command. the recent expansion of on-base housing for military families has been a great success. pursuant to a public-private partnership that was authorized in 2007, 572 homes have been constructed on the base. and this has been a godsend for the families at mcdill. and here's why. the neighborhoods closest to the base are expensive. and out of reach for many military families. so service members oftentimes buy homes about 30 miles away and then commute to the base. but this recent public-private
partnership at mcdill has been a win-win for the military and the families who serve. in fact, one top pentagon official who oversees installations noted that the mcdill air force base housing initiative was one of her favorites forcewide and was exceptional. think about the difference it makes to that military family when they can live close to where they work and where their children attend school. now, until recently the air force and the housing contractor were discussing the next phase of on-base housing. mcdill has over 330 families on a waiting list. the unfortunately, despite the long waiting list, the obvious demand, the air force has inexplicably terminated discussion. this is happening in my opportunity, it could be happening in yours. with scarce federal dollars we must continue to encourage fruitful public-private partnerships in the best interests of our brave men and women in the service. i thank chairman thornberry, ranking member smith mr. larsen for their support of the
amendment. i urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: we reserve as well. no speakers on this side. the chair: who seeks recognition? mr. lrsen: with that we yield back the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yielded back his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i support the en bloc. i hope all members l i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas so many as are in favor say aye. spone. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed . to for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: i offer further amendmentses en bloc, en bloc package number seven. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: consisting of amendments number 107 108 109, 110 111 119 120 121 125 126, and 127 printed in house report number 114-112, offered
by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington mr. larsen each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: this en bloc package consists of 11 amendments. they touch such important subjects as the nuclear enterprise review the long range standoff weapon, military manufacturing arsenals, and a variety of other very important topics. they are sponsored by both republicans and democrats. four of these amendments are sponsor the by democrats -- sponsored by democrats. i believe they deserve the support of the whole house, i also believe the whole bill deserves the support of the whole house so these important amendments have a chance to become law. i hope all members support not only the pack and but final package. with that i yield one minute to the distinguished vice chair --
one minute to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, who is vice chair of the subcommittee on strategic forces. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of my amendment number 1088 included in this package. my amendment adds a sense of congress provision for the herb might kingdom of jordan. mr. lamborn: i believe the united states should support jordan's military efforts to the greatest extent possible. . they are on the front lines on the fight against isis. jordan is under fire from those who wish to do it harm and we must stand by our country that has been a force for good in the region in colorado, we have a unique interest in this relationship as the colorado national guard has partnered with the jordanian military through the state partnership program. colorado guardsmen are helping train jordanian service
members. this is just one of the ways that we can help stand with our friends in mr. jordan:. i thank the chairman for including this amendment in the en bloc package, and i urge its adoption. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: mr. chairman i would want to echo mr. thornberry's comments about en bloc 7 and encourage members to support it. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. foster: i'd like to thank the ranking member for yielding and the chairman and his staff for working with me on this amendment. the national defense authorization act tasks the missile defense agency with developing a concept for a space-based missile defense system. there is no doubt that a missile defense, if technologically feasible militarily robust and economically justifiable would be an important priority for our national security, but as a
scientist, i think we need to do our home work before we begin investing hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this system and that's why i'm introducing this amendment to require a preliminary cost estimate for this project. a 2012 report by the national academy of sciences estimated that even to provide limited coverage, hundreds of interceptors would be required to stop an incoming ballistic missile. because of the cost to launch, maintain operate and replenish the interceptors, even a limited system would cost a minimum of $200 billion. we must do our due diligence before investing billions of taxpayer dollars in any project. so i urge my colleagues to join me and vote yes on this amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. at this moment i'm pleased to yield one minute to the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, the gentleman from california, mr. royce. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: thank you very much.
i very much appreciate chairman thornberry and the armed services committee for working collaboratively on this amendment but let me also in speaking on behalf of this royce-maloney amendment, i want to recognize the leadership of representative maloney from new york who has been dedicated in the fight against boko haram and dedicated in terms of trying to raise awareness on this. and last year in our committee you know, many have seen on television the continued kidnappings of boko haram, the pillaging of villages, the taking of women and children as captives, i just wanted to tell you the story that we heard from this one young girl, a survivor from chebook and that touched the hearts, i think, of many people there that day. she gave this brave narration of what happened when boko haram broke in and before her very eyes killed her father,
killed her 14-year-old brother. she is one of the few from her village who survived. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. royce: i thank the chairman for yielding. so i just wanted to say this. nigeria and its neighbors, chad, nijer and cameroon, have cleared a number of northern my jeerian towns. now we have an opportunity with the african union force but it lacks equipment, it lacks capacity for a protracted fight there. and this amendment expresses support for robust security assistance training, equipment, that capacity building they need so that the african troops that are fighting against boko haram can continue to advance on the field. the amendment also requires the department of defense and the state department to produce a report to make sure that congress sfullly aware of the nature of the assistance -- fully aware of the nature of the assistance we provide.
and we need to give them the appropriate means they need. that's the best chance we can to eliminate boko haram, to eliminate this terror so that other young girls are not snatched and their lives destroyed. the region stability by the way, depends on it. i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york mrs. maloney. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his strong leadership. i rise in support of the amendment i introduced with representative royce. i thank him on this issue and so many of them. and this particular bill expresses u.s. support for the defeat of the terrorist organization boko haram. boko haram and combating it is in our national interest and certainly in the interest of the security in the region and the united states should support the regional allies in
their operations against boko haram which are making significant progress in combating them. we just marked the one-year anniversary of the kidnapping of 270 young school girls from nigeria. this horror raised the awareness of the world to the terror of boko haram and what it has unleashed on nigerians for years. the amendment clearly affirms that boko haram represents a threat not just to our nation but to the world and certainly to stability in the region and the amendment calls for the united states' support which may be in the form of equipment training, technical support for the coordinated military response in africa to combat boko haram. since its formation, the coalition has made significant gains against this terrorist threat and has started to improve stability in the region. many of the young girls have escaped and come here to speak
to us in congress. the amendment also calls for reports to congress on the progress of the mission and the accounting of u.s. support. combating boko haram is and should remain a national security interest and we must remain vigilant in fighting this enemy. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and again, i thank chairman royce for his attention and strong leadership and really saving lives in this region and securing stability in the region and stability for america too. thank you so much, and i reserve the time and yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i just want to appreciate the work of the chairman and mrs. maloney on this issue with boko haram. i noticed in the headlines this morning's paper, boko haram has a new offensive against a military base in nigeria. this is very important. the contribution they made to this bill so that the nigerians
and others in the region are better able to fight these terrorists, and there's no other word for it. there are also provisions in this bill to help the ukrainians fight aggression they're undergoing. there's provisions in this bill to help fight isis. all part of the reason i believe this bill deserves support of all of the members and i appreciate the contributions of both members on this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. in the legislation today there is a clause that would cause us to think about what to do in the high arctic. it is melting. there will be a northwest passage. we need a new icebreaker, new heavy icebreaker to provide the support for the navy as well as commercial. yesterday during the hearing we
hit upon the notion of creating a special one similar to one exists for the strategic missile submarines. we'd like to begin discussion of a national strategic high latitude ice breaking fund. that discussion could then merge into a way of funding about a billion dollars for a new icebreaker, absolutely essential for the u.s. navy, absolutely essential for the commerce in the arctic ocean as well as providing us with the ability to compete with russia. i would like to propose that that be discussed and part of the process as we move the ndaa through the committees in the two houses. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. larsen: thank you.
i'd encourage folks to vote for en bloc 7 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i urge colleagues to do the same thing. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the en bloc amendments offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. thopeds. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it -- those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. mr. thornberry: pursuant to h.res. 260 i provide further amendments en bloc, en bloc 8. the clerk: en bloc number 8 consisting of amendments 122 123, 124, 128 129, 1 30,131 132, 133 134 135 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the
gentleman from washington, mr. smith, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. mr. thornberry: this en bloc package consists of 11 amendments, generally to our nuclear weapons, our icbm's missile defense against those sort of weapons against other countries. in other words, they touch on very important issues that are central to our country's security. they have been sponsored by both republicans and democrats and i hope members of this house will support this en bloc package. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, support this en bloc package. hope members will support it. i rise to claim time in opposition though i am not opposed. and -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is further recognized. mr. smith: i support the en bloc package. i hope members will support it.
with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers at this point so i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. we have no further speakers on our side either so i'll simply close. i'll yield myself the balance of our time to once again say i want to first of all thank the chairman, i want to thank all the members of the committee and the staff for the hard work that they do and have done on this bill. every year this is a very very difficult process, starting with the committee markup which this year, probably didn't set a record. set a record for my time in terms of one day going until 4:45 in the morning. i want to take one brief moment to recognize the staff that does just an unbelievable amount of work throughout this process. we see the amendments both in committee and on the floor that survive that process. the staff has to sift through
literally hundreds more to try to boil them down to try to find compromises to, you know, basically try to work out whatever they can work out. and i don't think there's too many members of the staff on either side that have slept more than two or three hours a night for the last few weeks. so i thank them for their hard work and i thank the committee members for their hard work as well. it's the largest committee in congress. we have excellent members on it during the course of the debate, during the course of this bill, every single one of those members contributed greatly to the product. and as i've said before, there's a lot of good things in this bill. the reform package that mr. thornberry has made a particular priority i think is a good first step trying to get more efficiency out of the military in a variety of different places and, of course, you know, we fund a lot of very necessary programs. but we have one overarching problem that we've had since 2011. starting with the fact that we couldn't pass a budget for 2011
-- sorry. couldn't pass the appropriations bills and most have forgotten this but at the end of march of 2011 we were looking at a government shutdown. we had a marathon four-day every amendment you can imagine on the appropriations bill and actually i think did go pass the moment when the government was supposed to shut down before passing a c.r. which pushed us then up against the debt ceiling in 2011 which wasn't going to be raised and we were facing a situation where chunks of the government was shut down in ways we couldn't even predict. i want everyone to understand the impact this has on the department of defense. i vividly remember a dinner that i had in march of 2011 with then-vice chief of staff of the army and was asking him, you know, about how all of the budget uncertainty impacts the department of defense. he said, well, we've got several hundred programs and every day we try to figure out which ones we're allowed to fund, which ones were not
allowed to fund, where we can get the money, how we can move it around. they didn't know, and for the last four years-plus, that's what the department of defense has had to do. as we've gone from c.r. to government shutdown to occasionally getting a spending bill, living with sequestration and the budget caps and the one thing that this bill doesn't do is it doesn't resolve that issue. . it goes to the overseas concontinue againcy operation fund while leaving the budget caps in place. secretary carter has said the overseas contingency operation fund does very little to remove that uncertainty that i just described. i want everyone to understand when i talk about the fact that i'm opposing this bill because of its impact on the overall budget that is also very much about the department of defense.
the department of defense is left in that uncertainty and then stuck with o.c.o. funding which is unpredictable one-year money, that makes it very difficult for them to plan. this bill's reliance on the o.c.o. funding is a problem for the department of defense. leaving those budget caps in place is something that i am opposed to. so it is an issue directly related to the department of defense. it's also related to the rest of the budget. we have caps that impact the department of homeland security that impact the department of justice, that impact those other areas that by the way are very important. i had some folks mention isil and our fight against them those departments are incredibly important to that fight. they are still under the budget caps, which is, i believe jeopardizing our national security. and then there are other issues infrastructure being the biggest one, that those budget caps continue to hamper and continue, i believe, to make our country less safe.
so the fact that this bill locks in place and keeps the budget caps, relies on the overseas contingency operation fund, and most importantly does not lift the budget cap for defense is the reason i am opposing it and urging other democrats and republicans as well to oppose it. it doesn't lift the budget caps. i believe that is harmful to the department of defense. so this is a defense issue. i also point out to my conservative colleagues who are so concerned about keeping those budget caps that the o.c.o. goes right around them. i wouldn't think that a conservative who wants to keep government spending under control would encourage the government deciding they can create free money. the o.c.o. doesn't count against the budget caps. so it's like the money isn't really being spent. only of course the money something spent. it's $38 million that we are just choosing not to count. it doesn't fix the problem.
and lastly, the president has promised to veto all of the appropriations bills and the defense bill that are based on this flawed approach to the budget. so what we are doing here is ultimately not going to be successful until we come up with a better long-term solution to dealing with the budget caps. i will simply emphasize one more time, that has a profoundly neglect effect -- negative effect on the department of defense our obligation to i believe properly fund and support our men and women in the military. while there is a lot of good in this bill, the ongoing budget uncertainty that it continues, i believe, is the fatal flaw in the bill. i urge people to vote no. i do appreciate all the work and effort that went into it. i will also emphasize this is but one step in the process. we have a long way to go. and i am completely confident by the time we get to the end of it we'll have a national defense
authorizing act. it will be difficult. we got to work with the president. we got to work with the senate. and people have a lot of different opinions but this is but the first step in the process. so i urge us to continue working to hopefully get a better product that can get the support of the house and senate and the president and fulfill our duty to pass this bill and support our troops. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized to close. mr. thornberry: let me just start with where the gentleman from washington left off. that this is one step in the process. that's kind of what i have been saying all along. earlier the gentleman said he's opposed to this bill because it locks in this o.c.o. approach. no, it doesn't lock anything in. if there is a better way to deal with our budget issues and the appropriation bills, there's lots of time this year to do that. but the question is, here for the house, will we vote against
a defense authorization bill, not an appropriation bill, the defense authorization bill and prevent it from being a step ahead. as a matter of fact mr. chairman, i hope all members had a chance to read the editorial in this morning's "washington post." let me just read the last sentence of it, far better for him, by which it means the president, and his party's leadership in congress to help an adequate defense budget keep moving through congress rather than perpetuate a fight, all americans, whether republican or democrat, may later regret. that's what we are asking here today. keep this adequate defense budget moving by voting for it. now, that doesn't solve all the problems. the gentleman is exactly right. there's all sorts of appropriation bills and other things to come in this brosssess, but -- process, but
to try to use this important bill and the authorities it gives as political leverage to somehow make that happen, i think, is not fair to the men and women who serve or to our country's security. mr. chairman, there are lots of things that affect the military that this bill does not solve. i admit t and i don't try to solve all of them. when you try to solve all the problems, you usually end up making a mess. but that should not take away from the good that is in this bill. and so i want to just emphasize the good that is in this bill has come from both sides of the aisle. and i am incredibly grateful for the contributions the democratic members of the committee made something like 110 of the provisions were suggested by democrats. in the committee 96 of them democrats. 57 amendments offered by democrats made in order under the rule. we don't know how they are all
going to come out yet, but the point is a substantial part of this measure has been written contributed to, by members on the democratic side of the aisle as well as members on the republican side of the aisle. and the truth is, it's a better product as a result. and the truth is that is consistent with the bipartisan tradition of this committee. so i want to end--- end actually where mr. smith started. that is to express appreciation to him for being a terrific partner to work with and formulating this bill and dealing with very complex, rapidly changing subjects which as the world is swirling around us and as he pointed out, we are the largest committee in congress, 63 members. but each of those members on both sides of the aisle have made important contributions to this bill. and i'd like him also -- i, like him, also want to thank the staff.
i think we are unique in congress. we have an integrated staff. i can grab someone on the democratic side or democratic member can grab someone who works on the republican side, they are all integrated. working on the same issues. i think that makes us stronger as a committee. so there is an important bipartisan tradition of this committee. it's because national security is so important. let me go back to the "washington post" editorial, read the first sentence. there isn't much bipartisan governance left in washington, but if anything still fits that description, it's probably the annual defense authorization act. i'm pleased about that. i think that's what the american people are wanting to hear because national security is so important. so for the suggestion to come that we are going to put national security on the back burner while we try to solve all the budget problems of all the agencies and all the government, that's discouraging. mr. chairman i hope that members will not agree with that
tactic. that they will listen to the better angels of their nature as far as supporting this bill because it is a bipartisan bill that is so important for our troops and national security. i hope they'll support this en bloc amendment, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question sont amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-112 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 23 by mr. rohrabacher of california. amendment 27 by mr. lamborn of colorado. amendment number 32 mr. blumenauer of oregon. amendment number 38 by mr. lucas of oklahoma. amendment number 41 by mr. nadler of new york. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on
amendment number 23 printed in house report 114-112 by the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23, printed in house report number 114-112, offered by mr. rohrabacher of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for 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 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.]
the clrk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27, printed in house report number 114-112, offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. 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.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 182. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-112, by the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes -- noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32, printed in house report number 114-112, offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. 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.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 43. the nays are 375. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 38 printed in house report 114-112, by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38, printed in house report number 114-112 offered by mr. lucas of oklahoma. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.
house report 114-112 by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this 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.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 178. the nays are 242. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1735 and pursuant to house resolution 260 i report the bill back to the house with the amendment adopted by the committee of the whole. 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. 1735, and pursuant to house resolution 260 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. in a separate vote -- is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> yes, i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies and the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mr. gallego reports the bill back to the committee on armed services account following amendment. at the end of the subtitle a of
title 6 add the new section. section 6 guaranteeing a pay increase for members of the uninformed -- uniformed services and noble acts and pay caused by a government shut down. a, increase in basic pay. as provided in section 1009 of titles 37 united states code, and effective january 1 2016, the rates of monthly basic pay authorized for members of the uniformed services shall be 2.3%. b, response to lapse in appropriations. the secretary of defense shall take all steps necessary to enforce that members of the army navy, air force and marine corps continue to receive compensation for their service in defense of the ullings despite any lapse in appropriation -- united states despite any lappings in propeses after january 1, 2016 -- lapse in appropriations after 2016.
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, would you take your conversations from the floor, clear the aisle? the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not delay the bill, kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended. as members of congress, we must
always honor our promises to the men and women who serve in our military. unfortunately i know firsthand what happens when washington fails our troops on the battlefield and when we come home. i fought the iraq war on the ground. i was shot at and experienced i.e.d. attacks. but because congress didn't follow through on its promises, our vehicles didn't have the proper armor they needed. this fail our cost my friends their lives. later when i got home, my friends and i suffered needlessly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. gallego: later when i got home -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. please members remove your conversations from the floor and clear the aisle.
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. and once again, i implore members of the chamber to remove their conversations from the floor clear the aisle. the gentleman from arizona may continue. mr. gallego: when my friends and i got home, we suffered needlessly because of veterans health care system that was shortchanged and mismanaged. these failures of leadership are what encouraged me to run for office, to ensure that my generation of leaders take better care of our troops than we were taken care of. that's why i'm offering this amendment. to make good on congress' promise to give our military men and women a raise. the amendment will lock in a
2.3% increase for all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. last year one in four members of our military had to rely on food pantries and other charities just to make ends meet. that is a disgrace. mr. speaker, our troops deserve a raise. my amendment does something else that's just as important. it ensures even if congress shuts down the federal government, all of our brave men and women in uniform will still get paid. why should i -- our service men and women miss their paychecks because we can't do our jobs? why am i offering this amendment now? because republicans don't appear to have learned the lessons of the chaos and confusion they caused by shutting down the government in 2013. today, my republican friends are risking another government shutdown by resorting to budget gimmicks, relying on war funding to pay for routine operations and maintenance. that's completely irresponsible. my republican friends are fond
of comparing the federal government to a family budget. mr. speaker working families military families can't rely on a special slush fund to pay for their daily expenses, and congress should not either. we must protect our troops from the consequences of this republican leadership's refusal to confront the realities of sequestration. that's why this amendment is so critical. yesterday, speaker boehner said voting against this bill would be shameful and we would be turning our backs on our troops. as a marine and a combat veteran, i can tell you that the speaker is wrong. there is no shame against voting against a bill that creates uncertainty for our military and risks another dangerous government shutdown. mr. speaker the real shame would be to vote against the amendment that gives our men and women the raise and certainty they deserve. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, to oppose the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, let me start by saying i very much appreciate the service of mr. gallego and all the veterans on both sides of the aisle who have served our nation. and i appreciate all of the contributions mr. gallego and all the other 62 members of the committee have made in to producing this national defense authorization act. it has been a bipartisan product in the tradition of this committee. you know, if you think about it, for 53 straight years, congresses of both parties have passed and presidents of both parties have signed into law a defense authorization act, and that's been true through vietnam and the cold war and 9/11. it's been true through watergate and race riots and
economic recessions and bitter political feuds, and yet through all those things, somehow the parties could come together to do what was needed for our troops and for our country's security. i think that that strong tradition of bipartisanship is something that we should not walk away from lightly. . we have heard some discussion, complaints really on both sides of the aisle using o.c.o. to get up to the president's level. if you look at this chart, this is the president's budget. this is the congressional budget, which this bill is compliant with. there is a little difference in where the light blue and dark blue start and stop. but the net effect when you add it all together is exactly the same $612 billion. that's what the president asked for. that's what this bill provides. there is no difference between the two. i agree that we ought to find a better way to have fiscal
discipline without the arbitrary caps and sequestration that's in the budget control act, but this bill can't do that. this bill is a defense authorization bill. it's not a budget bill. it's not an immigration bill. it's not even a defense appropriation bill. so if this bill fails then how does that get us closer to fixing our budget problems? the truth is we could all find an excuse to vote against every bill every day for what's not in it, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. what's important is what is in it and what is in it is really important for our troops and for our national security. as much as i appreciate congressman gallego's service i find it ironic that he would offer an amendment that tries to make sure our troops get paid even in the event of a government shutdown, yet by voting against this bill the troops don't get paid. how does that fit together?
let me just mention two of the things in this bill for our troops. one is a new retirement system for people who sign up for the military. right now 83% of the people who serve come away with no retirement. under this bill, they can put some money aside the government will match t. and they can have a nest egg. you vote against this bill, that doesn't happen. one of the complaints we have all heard so many times is that transition from active duty to d.a. is problematic because you can't stay on the same drugs. one of the things this bill does is they have to have a joint formulary so you stay on the same drug, so you can take better care of the people as they transition doesn't that make sense? i hope all members had a chance to read "the washington post" editorial today. let me just read the last sentence. far better for the president and his party's leadership in congress to help an adequate
defense budget keep moving through congress rather than perpetuate a fight all americans, whether republican or democrat, may later regret. i think that's the bottom line. this doesn't solve all the problems, it doesn't try to solve all the problems. i know we got more debate, more discussion to come. but this is a step on what has been a very bipartisan bill. mr. speaker, here's the bottom line, we are incredibly privileged to have these jobs, to live in this country, but those privileges only come because brave men and women are willing to volunteer to serve and sacrifice for our country. now, we can never match their courage and dedication and sacrifice but surely the goodness we can do better than use them as pawns for some sort of attempt to apply political pressure on issues that have nothing to do with this bill. surely we can do better than that, and the way to do better than that is to vote against this motion and for final passage. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mr. gallego: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring roareded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 1735, if ordered, and agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a five-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.]
ayes have it. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-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.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 269. the nays are 151. the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of h.r. 1735, including corrections in spelling,
punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles and the insertion of appropriate headings. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from georgia. >> i ask to be removed as a co-sponsor h.r. 1247. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet on monday, may 18, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 606 an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to exclude certain compensation received by public service safety officers and their dependents from gross income.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appoint judgment ruent to 22 u.s.c. 6913 and the order of the house of january 6, 2015, of the following members on the part of the house to the congressional executive committee on the people's republic of china. the clerk: mr. franks of arizona. mr. pittenger of north carolina. mr. hultgren of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 3003 and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the following members on the part of the house to the commission of security and cooperation in europe. the clerk: mr. aderholt of alabama. mr. pitts of pennsylvania. mr. hultgren of illinois. and mr. burgess of texas.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas -- arizona rise? arkansas rise, excuse me. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, with this being national infrastructure week, i want to call attention to the crisis facing the federal highway trust fund in my home state of arkansas, the highway department has cancelled several projects due to the depletion of the trust fund. we need to finance the trust fund for a long term and keeps our roads and highways safe for
travel and commerce. this is why next week i plan to file legislation to plug the $15 billion deficit in the trust fund without raising taxes. mr. westerman: it will be commonsense legislation that members on both sides of the aisle should get behind in order to prioritize funding for our critical infrastructure, construction and maintenance and to avoid these crisis deadlines in the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: mr. speaker among the world's leader in quality infrastructure that was the united states, but now we rank just 16th, according to the world economic forum. and according to the american society of engineers, the overall assessment of our nation's infrastructure rates the united states at a whooping
d-plus. we have just four legislative days until the highway trust fund expires, and as we wait for the majority party to end their dysfunction and come to some, any kind of agreement on extending the highway trust fund 660,000 jobs hang in the balance. i know now that in maryland 5,305 bridges are in complete disrepair. that's nearly 27% of the bridges in our state. just a few months ago, a woman was driving down the highway, minding her own business when a chunk of cement fell down because it's in disrepair. i'm not really sure how many lives the majority party is prepared to lose to dysfunctional and underfunded infrastructure. i'm not sure how much economic insecurity we're willing to cause the american people, but it's time for us to invest in our nation's infrastructure, create good-paying jobs one
billion jobs -- $1 billion, 35,000 jobs all across the economy. let's get moving, extend the highway trust fund invest in our infrastructure our long-term infrastructure, create jobs for the 21st century and i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the newsome high school softball team with a 5-1 victory over coral reef on saturday, the wolves security a first -- their first state title in history of newsom high. in the championship game the wolves were locked down by pitching and power hitting by cassidy davis, a clutch performance and relief from claire and runs from maddy, hannah and olivia.
the wolves worked hard all year playing a tough schedule in hillsborough county. that helped them prepare for the playoffs and it showed them and their opponents that they had what it takes to win it all. i'm proud to represent these great student athletes in florida, and i look forward to watching them repeat again next year. congratulations. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. aguilar: thank you, mr. speaker. we have just four legislative days until the highway and transit trust fund expires on may 31. once again we've been pushed to the brink because of republican leadership choosing to continue small short-term patches rather than comprehensive and decisive planning a document. we cannot gamble with our infrastructure and transportation network. our streets, our roads our
bridges and railways are crumble and not up to par. we can't wait any longer for a long-term plan. the highway trust fund supports critical projects in our communities. in my district in san bernardino county, it would help the interchange one of three routes in and out of california improving transportation and increasing efficiency for channeling goods in and out of the region. the american people deserve better. they deserve dependable transit to get to and from work and the opportunity for local businesses to grow and expaneled. without a long-term plan, congress is part of the problem, not part of the solution. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota -- from idaho seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. labrador: mr. speaker, i
come to the floor today on peace officers memorial day to honor and acknowledge the life of greg moore. sergeant moore was shot and killed in the line of duty on may 5 2015. sergeant moore's 12-year-old son, dillon, wrote these words to honor his father. my dad was the best. he would tell me anything and was always there for me. all the time i was sad or lonely, he would be right by my side to comfort me. dad would also reassure me that he was ok going to work by telling me he was batman because he worked at night, had lots of gadgets, was skilled and charming. also wherever we went, he would know someone that was there. i would always wonder how and why he knew those people. dad's favorite place to eat was quidoba. it ended up being my favorite place as well. he was a boston fan and he's gone to a couple of games but i know he would have liked to see more. every day, though almost like tradition we would wrestle on the ground and try to beat each
other. i've only won once but i have learned so many things from him. i love him so much because he was a good dad, always helping people and i want everyone to know that he is the best. he was the best and sergeant moore, rest in peace. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, thank you. on this day that we honor the fallen who have been given the duty and obligation to protect and serve the -- the nation's law enforcement officers i stand here to mourn those marines and those nepal rescue workers who died on the side of a nepal mountain attempting to bring help and food and
opportunity and survival to those who've been struck by this horrific earthquake and one that has followed. many have died and it is only the kind of integrity of americans that whenever there is need, we answer the call. the same today as thousands of law enforcement officers gather on the west step, we know that throughout our communities where there is a need they will come. earlier this week i submitted into the record the numbers of houston police officers who died in the line of duty. i honor them and i honor those who have fallen and those who serve. as i end this one minute, i end it with a moment of silence. in honor of all of those who have fallen our soldiers and our law enforcement officers, we thank you for your service. god bless you and god bless the
united states of america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> well, mr. speaker, i rise to speak on an issue that i hear more and more about each and every day and that's how regulations are crushing our small community banks. mr. paulsen: i met with a group of small and independent community bankers who shared some pretty striking stories. a set of regulations issued as a result of the dodd-frank financial reform law have now led to a more than 100% increase in the length of the quarterly financial status report that they must file each quarter. one banker said it took a c.f.o. four full working days just to finish the report this year earlier. this is a c.p.a. with multiple degrees and advanced degrees. he has to pay the accountant firm $25,000 just to review the reports for its accuracy. mr. speaker, these crushing dodd-frank regulations are having the direct opposite effect as their intention.
they're hurting small community banks. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection. mr. blumenauer: in four legislative days, the funding expires for transportation. i predicted would be in this same spot. nothing changed. there are three things to do to fix it. the president ought to issue an absolute deadline that he will not sign any extension that passes september 30. 4 1/2 months is time for congress to work. second, the ways and means committee can get down to work with a series of hearings involving the people that actually do this out in the world, contractors businesses,
unions, local governments. for the first time in 55 months, let's have those hearings. and finally, let's have action on legislation that i've introduced a gas tax increase for the first time in 22 years that is similar to what's happened in georgia, utah idaho iowa, south dakota republican-red states. if they can step up and take their responsibility maybe congress can do that in the months ahead. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the house yesterday passed with overwhelming bipartisan support h.r. 1191, the iran nuclear
agreement review act which will allow congress to review any deal on iran's nuclear deal negotiated by the obama administration. a nuclear iran would not only destabilize the middle east but have serious repercussions here in america and across the world. the united states must stand with israel to do everything in our power to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. and this legislation allows congress to have approval and oversight over any agreement by the administration. mr. speaker president obama should take a clear message from these overwhelming bipartisan votes and both the house and the senate as negotiations move forward, the administration must listen to the american people and representatives in congress. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition?
mr. welch: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. welch: as you know in four days our transportation fund will expire. this will be the 34th time in the past six years that congress has failed to pass a long-term transportation funding bill. we all know that our highways, our bridges, our airports, our railroads are being neglected, we have a 20th century infrastructure. it is irresponsible for the house of representatives to fail to pass a long-term transportation fund. and we have potholes in red states and blue states. we also have good hard working americans who could be put to work if we could give that long-term funding. you know, you can't build a bridge with two-month funding
increments. there is a lack of certainty. it's not because there aren't solutions. we have good proposals from democrats and republicans. we aren't grasping for a new policy and the thing that is unacceptable is congress not to have a discussion about the source of that funding. we should not extend another short-term highway fund and do our jobs and fully fund it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: address the house, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker the thrill is gone. legged legendary king b.b. king passed away last night. he lived a phenomenal life.
he was born into poverty and was a share cropper in mississippi, moved to memphis and went on w.d.a. radio, first african-american-owned station in america. became a disc jockey and learned and performed on beal street. taught a lot of guitarists to play. he was there metropolitanor. memphis was his adopted hometown. he was a very, very nice man and talented individual who rose to get the presidential medal of freedom and kennedy center honors. his art will be living on forever and will be greatly missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.
the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. doyle of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. mr. rohrabacher: i would yield to my very good friend mr. conaway, what time he would consume. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding quickly. may not be on the topic he is going to talk about but i appreciate to talk about something that is important to the folks of west texas. i rise today to bring attention to an important issue that is gathering nationwide support and
that is the export ban on crude oil. while the amendment did not make it into the final bill i would like to talk about the importance of lifting that ban. let's remember why the export ban was placed into law to begin with. because of the opec oil embargo of 1973, congress enacted the energy policy and conservation act directing the president to ban crude oil exports. the ban served the purpose to keep our oil at home to reduce our exposure to widely fluctuating markets at the time. it is an old policy that is only serving to punish americans and harm americans and punish the domestic production. for example right now, we allow iran to export more oil from their own country than our own domestic producers. this is wrong-headed and long overdid you. the ban should be lifted and allow the president to act in an
emergency and while preserving our strategic petroleum preserve. some claim oil prices would increase, but that is incorrect. prices will fall and reducing prices, which is another reason to support lifting the ban. in 2013, the united states was the number one oil producing nation in the world surpassing saudi arabia and russia, many found it impossible a decade ago. taking advantage by lifting the ban will lower gasoline prices, create long-lasting jobs and increase our energy supply making our nation more energy independent. i urge my colleagues to listen to the american people. time to lift the export ban on crude oil. i thank the gentleman from california. and i yield back. mr. rohrabacher: mr. chairman, i rise today to warn my colleagues
and the american people of several threats to their safety and their prosperity. these threats are observeable from washington, d.c. but not observeable to the american people. i ask my colleagues to pay attention to what we're doing here but i would ask the american people to pay attention to what we are doing here. there are changes being maneuvered through our legislative branch and being mandated by executive orders from president obama that will undermine the economic well-being of hardworking americans and put us in jeopardy as a nation, both economically and in terms of our national security. those pursuing these egregious policy initiatives are fulfilling president obama's pledge to change america.
and what most americans believe was a commitment to make our country better to change america was in reality an elitist and arrogant pledge to dramatically alter the basic and fundamental institutions and values that have been thought of by our patriots as essential elements in defining our country. and of course, ensuring our freedom security and prosperity. what are these threets that i talk about -- threats that i talk about? they are not coming from one political party. not from the republicans or democrats. you can see support across the board on both sides of the aisle on various sides of these issues. it is also not a threat just coming from one person or one
political leader or -- but it is of course, what we're talking about. this threat is coming from a very powerful coalition seeking profit for themselves even if it impoverishes the people or diminishes the economic well-being of the people of the united states. ironically. people who are enjoying their freedom and people who are enjoying their relative prosperity don't pay attention to some of the very intricate matters that have come before us in congress. but i can assure all of the americans that there are powerful interests who are paying attention and doing what they best can do to manipulate the law in a way that will enhance their profits even if it is being done at the expense of the well-being of the american people.
and we can see this in dramatic changes that are being suggested in something that probable is very boring and tame to most americans when they even hear that someone is going to talk about patent law, patent law which is the legal structure of what enforces an inventor's right to own and control the product of his or her genius labor and investment for a given period of time. so i say of course, that sounds pretty mundane, patent law. detailed incry indicate regulation and control of this area of economic life of jobs and things we do in america. well, it's more than that. it may sound mundane but in reality, patent law and the
patent rights of our people, the right of our people to own the technology they've created for a specific period of time has been a significant determine ant in our country's way of life, our country's quality of life and the security of our nation. this intellectual property right, the right of ownership of a patent through 17 years of control, not only 17 years of control, but also profit from one's own inventions has been vital to our well-being as a nation and essential part of the american dream. let's note that this was a right that was written into the constitution by our founding fathers. people know about the bill of rights, but the word right was only used in the body of the constitution once, and that was a section that guaranteed that americans what congress should
do is make sure americans were guaranteed the right to control their own creations if they are inventors or writers, for a given period of time to profit from it so they would have incentives so they would be the most creative people in the world. our founding fathers believed that technology and freedom would uplift ordinary americans and they were right. they wrote that into the constitution. it's right there. i believe it was probably under the influence of my favorite, benjamin franklin. but what we have to recognize over the years of our country, what has made us a great nation is our freedom and technology. . black americans if you take a look at the history of our
patent system are dispours portionately inventive. -- disproportionately inventive. as a proportion of their population, our black americans have been more inventive than any other group in our country. and why is that? because patent law and property law were considered a constitutional right -- and this was in the one area in which black americans were not discriminated against once they were freed in 1860 to 1865 when our black citizens were freed. after that we found that more patents proportionately went to that community because they needed an opportunity to uplift themselves, free from outside forces beating down on them and denying them their rights. and our patent system and the patents granted by washington thus respected the rights of
all of our citizens including our north citizens so thus making sure that it was patent protection has been one of the great booms to our north populations who otherwise suffered great discrimination and suffered from a lack of rights except for the property rights that come from inventions. we see this has been good, not just for north americans however, let me note that we have with technology enhanced the ability of our people to work hard and get the job done and thus create wealth that was then owned by a large number of people rather than an elite. there's always been, of course when people understand the importance of technology and business become more and more
understanding that it is new technology that will give them leverage and control over wealth. there's been an ongoing attempt in these last 20 years to dramatically diminish the patent protection enjoyed by americans the patent protection written right into our constitution and the fact is that for the last 20 years i have been personally engaged, along with a small group of people who believe that technology and freedom are essential to the well-being of our country, marcy kaptur of ohio and others, we have beat back many of these attempts to diminish the patent protection of our citizens. and america does have a strong patent system now. it's the strongest in the
world. it is the strongest patent system in the world. we have always been proud of that. when we've been proud it's resulted in the fact that ordinary people have high standards of living here and they earn a good living from work because their work is enhanced by a technological superiority over their competitors. by the way, people work hard all over the world. people -- everybody works hard. awful these countries, they work hard like our people work hard but they don't have the technology that enhances their work and amplifies their energy so -- and hard work so that more wealth is created. we have -- we have encouraged that since the day our constitution was ratified. that's why our people when they work hard end up living better because then there's -- and gives us a competitive edge over the slave and i say
oppressed labor in other countries. we in fact of course, know that the prosperity of average americans to us and to our founding fathers that was an important -- that was an important goal. it wasn't just we were going to have a country that worked but it was going to be a system of respect for rights that would lead to a good and decent living for all of us, for all -- for all the people and not just a small elite of businessmen. well, we have done this over the years. it has worked well. we have not -- we have not had to have our own people who do work hard having to compete on a -- in terms of muscular and use of physical -- their physiques in order to produce goods and services and wealth, they have had the technology
that permitted them to outcompete those other countries. also it is ensured we have a strong country. having a patent system to encourage people to invent new things and be innovative has given us the edge over people who would do harm to our country. it's important for our national security because we can't take on adversaries that don't respect human rights. if we try -- if america was trying to secure itself from threats, from groups of people around the world and leaders and gangsters who have no respect for human rights whatsoever we lose because they're willing to lose all of their people and they're willing to -- any amount of bloodshed to maintain control and power and, yes, to feed the united states of america and democratic countries. but instead, we have had
technology at work helping defend our country. technology that would not have existed had we not had the patent protection that has been traditional to our country. even look today look today what's happening. without drones, where would we be? without drones, fighting a good fight against isil we would have to have thousands of americans there to fight that threat to mankind and the freedom of the world. but instead, we have joined with the forces with the kurds in standing tough directly against this onslaught of radical islam and they are holding firm but without our drones there to help them, they would be overrun. so this property, this idea of property ownership of
technology of your technological developments has been heart and soul to a prosperous and secure america. and so when i say there are changes being proposed here in congress, they're trying to be manipulated through the system that will affect the prosperity of the average american and the security of our nation, the public and my fellow colleagues need to pay attention because we are in the -- again, facing a major onslaught, an attack on this fundamental right of technology ownership by those who create that technology, we are facing an onslaught that is being, what being mastermind, being mastermind and being pushed by megamultinational corporations who are not operating in the interest of the people of the united states. they could care less about all of that, but they're operating
after what they can do to enrich themselves even if it is not in the interest of the people of the united states and the interest of our security. these megamultinational corporations have pumped millions upon millions of dollars into lobbying for changes in our patent system that diminishes the rights of the inventor and enables these multinational corporations to steal the intellectual property of our inventors and use it without giving compensation to the owners. a direct contradiction to what the constitution meant to guarantee, why it was written directly into the body of the constitution that this was a right that americans should be concerned about. for the last 20 years, there has been a stealth attack on america's strong and effective patent system. and let us know that we have had the strongest and the most
effective and recognized fair patent system in the world. all other patent systems have been judged by us -- against us , and now we have had these last 20 years an insidious undermining and we are on the edge of a huge attack and perhaps successful destruction of fundamental patent rights that have been known -- that have been part of our people for many years. for example, 20 years ago shortly after i came here i found that in the gap -- that's a trade treaty that we had -- there were provisions that were snuck in the gap implementation legislation. that's legislation that we passed here in congress in order to implement a trade agreement. these big corporate interests had put into the gap
implementation legislation without telling anybody two provisions that would have dramatically hurt the small inventors of this country. the first one that they were proposing was that -- up until now, the constitution actually says that the inventors and the writers are guaranteed a specific time where they will control. they will be granted a specific time where they will control their patent -- the rights to their patents and the rights of their creative genius. well it's traditionally been once you file, as soon as the patent is actually granted to the inventor then the clock starts ticking and you get 17 years of protection. in different parts of the world, that's not what the -- what the law has been.
in japan in europe it's been, oh, no, once you apply, after 20 years even if it takes you 10 or 15 years to get your patent or 19 years no, the clock is ticking then. and if you -- and you may not -- you might not be granted your patent for 19 years and you have one year left and that's no patent protection at all. they tried to foist that on us and by the way, that would give people, knowing the clock is ticking, those small inventors in other countries are faced by people who are trying to pressure them to accept lesser claims to the legitimacy of their patent in order to basically prevent these guys -- men and women -- from being compensated the way they would be if they had a guaranteed term which is part of our constitution. and the other provision that
was there 20 years ago was an 18-month publication demand, and that is after 18 months when someone applies for a patent, now it is that once someone applies for a patent that patent is -- that patent application is absolutely secret until that -- the patent is granted. then it's published for the world so -- because their ownership has been established. well, that's been traditionally what our patent office and what our patent protection has been. you basically have a secret and you've developed it you give it to the patent office. in fact, if anybody leaked that information, up until this point, it's been a felony for anybody to tell anybody else until that patent is actually -- is actually granted to the inventor. well, they want to change this and say, if you haven't been
granted your patent within 18 months, it will be published for the whole world. now, think about that. think about what i'm saying. before up until -- our entire country's history, we have made sure that an application is secret so nobody could get ahead of the inventor himself. the inventor won't be put in a bad spot. we've made sure until that patent is granted it's made secret, and they want to change that so after 18 months it's published. what if that patent takes 10 years to issue? that means the guy who invented, the man or woman who invented this piece of technology our competitors overseas will be able to use it for all of that time because the patent -- they'll know all about it but the patent hasn't been granted to the inventor yet. i called that the steal
american technologies act. that's what they were trying to do. that's what it would result in and keep that in mind. the large multinationals sought to weaken the ability of our inventors to enforce patent rights. why? why do they want these big companies here in the united states? well, mostly they're multinational companies now and they're big guys and what they want to do is steal from the little guy. surprise, surprise. . they tried to manipulate law here to enable them to take something from some person who has less economic power than themselves. our constitutional rights are supposed to protect the little guys' rights. yeah. we believe newspapers should be able to publish and little guys
should print a piece of information themselves and distribute it or to gather -- actually what's hard for me to imagine is that if these big guys were actually trying to diminish the rights of religion or speech in this country or assembly, there would be an outcry. but because it's the rights to own technology that you've created for a given period of time, it sounds too confusing and they've let this feeling that maybe the people don't understand it and don't pay attention. they let that lack of attention give them an opening to destroy and undermine the rights of americans and i think this right is as every bit of importance as religion speech, et cetera. what they have set up in the
last 20 years is ongoing david versus goliath because the biggest corporations of the world are behind the effort to change the patent law. there is a coalition of us, democrat and republican, marcy kaptur and good support from the black caucus recognizing how important inventions have been to the black community. we have beat them back and it was a bipartisan coalition and we have had to, over the years, compromise and negotiate certain things, but they have not gotten their way. but every time they've tried, they have tried to overwhelm those of us who are preventing the diminishing of patent rights. had to use scar tactics and claiming there is a booingy man out there and that's why we have to attack the inventor because
there is something out there that is really threatening and it's sinister and has to be defeated. that's why we have to take away the rights of the inventors over here because they have now tried to tell the story in a way and equivalent of saying we are going to take the rights of every american to sue someone or a company or anyone else who has caused them damage because there are frivolous lawsuits. yes, there are frivolous lawsuits and there are some people who misuse our legal system, but the last thing you want to do is eliminate the rights of americans to use the court system and protect their rights, and that's basically what's going on here. our own cherished patent rights to own what you have created. and this constitutional right that was given to americans is on the verge of being
dramatically altered and diminished and destroyed. the first boogey man that was used in order to gain support for these -- two items they snuck in, the boogey was called the submarine patents. that's all you heard about before. and every person who is filing for a patent was a submarine patent. everybody has to lose their patent rights. and what was the submarine patenter? their definition, someone who files for a patent and does everything they can do delay the patent from being issued and then after years and years the patent is granted and they got all this leverage on the people who have used the technology in
the meantime. well, i'm sorry, there were very few submarine patenters. there were some. but the fact was, that most inventors were struggling to get their patents issued to them as soon as possible because they needed the money especially the little guys needed the money and they were struggling to please, give us the patent so we can move forward. no, they were being presented as if they were trying to slow down the process. well, we finally after really fighting for 10 years on this, reached the compromise, which my chief of staff and myself negotiated, along with marcy kaptur negotiated this agreement with us that if indeed there is a patent applicant who uses his
abilities or uses various powers that he has in the bureaucratic process to delay the issue of the patent, well, if that happens, then indeed then that patent, the clock has to start ticking against that guy so he is using his own time when it has not been issued. well solved the problem. there it was, without diminishing the rights of those people who are struggling to get their patents out and took 10 years or 15 years to get the patent issued. that wasn't a hard thing to negotiate or hard thing to do. but it was a hard thing to accomplish because the people who were pushing submarine patents are trying to diminish the patent rights of all americans so they could steal from little guys and take away their patent rights just
basically as soon as possible. well, now the current boogey man is the patent troll. now there are some people who misuse and have frivolous lawsuits that use the patent system. there's no doubt about it. and i might add this idea that people will be sent -- you are violating my patent and give me $5,000 or i'm going to sue you and small businesses go look along with it. court cases have taken care of that. obviously, that's a swindle and something we can't put up with. and that was happening, to a agree. but there is no excuse to eliminate the rights of all americans because somebody abuses a right. that is not what's acceptable. but the patent troll is being
used as a straw man. we are going to have legislation that will get this guy who has these frivolous lawsuits and is creating such havoc among small businessmen and ripping them off. well, just like submarine patents, that can be taken care of without eliminating the patent rights of our people. what we have now, this straw man, the patent troll. when you hear debate on this issue all you'll hear is patent troll, patent troll, patent troll not recognizing that every provision in this bill diminishes, it's h.r. 9 that is before our committee, every provision makes it more difficult for the small inventor to enforce his patent against infringement by huge mega corporations. and guess who's pushing this
legislation? huge mega corporations who want that little guy not to be able to sue a corporation that stole his intellectual property rights. they say oh, no it's the troll we're after. well, as i say, there have been frivolous lawsuits and there have been changes made in the judicial system itself of how to handle that. but there is no excuse for a troll, this word troll, a straw man to be used to damage and destroy the rights of the 95% of the technology creators in our country, take away their rights to get this straw man. well, let me tell you how the word troll came about. the word patent troll and that's the reason you are hearing it and every time you hear someone say this, a group of corporate
elitists got in a circle in a room, and i know because one of the people in that meeting switched sides and came over and disclosed that these corporate executives -- what can we do to make it sound so sinister that we can get this passed? what words can we come up with that will basically create such a bad feeling that the american feeling that the american people will not recognize that we are trying to get the small inventor and cannot sue us for things we are using. they went around the room. the fellow who told me about this meeting said i came up with the word patent pirate and by the time it got around the circle, someone came up with the words patent control and they said that's it, it sounds so horrible we can use everybody's
attention using that. that sounds so evil that we can make sure going into battle using that in front of us instead of we want to diminish the patent rights of honest hard working inventors who deserve to have a profit from their creation or technology. that is just how cynical this debate has been. every provision of h.r. 9, sitting in the judiciary committee prevents, makes it more difficult for an inventor to actually enforce his rights and sue a cow that is trying to steal, use his intellectual property rights without compensating him. let me give you an example of -- in the bill of the changes they are proposing.
they are changing to loser pays legal fees. if you have a small inventor and you now -- if he sues that company and it's a huge company using what he has created and making profit from it and sues them and loses, he will have to pay the legal fees for that huge company. for a huge company, that's almost nothing, taking on a case of one guy nothing in their expense account because they have 100 lawyers in a stable waiting to help and being paid for. well that inventor loses, that's it for him. that alone is wrong. but in this legislation, h.r. 9 they have added another little proviso to destroy the small inventor and that is if someone invests in his invention, if
someone invests in the invention and he manages to be successful and comes up with a new piece of technology and granted the patent and some mega corporation comes along and incorporates and refuses to give this guy even a small payment and payment for using the technology that he created his intellectual property rights, if someone has invested in that inventor to help him make the invention, let's say when that inventor goes up to battle the goliath and even though he's right, he loses because that happens in our country, many times where people with great sophisticated lawyers, the little guy sometimes loses. what's going to happen that
anyone who has invested in the inventor is going to have to be liable for the legal fees that come out of that suit. who is going to give an investment to an inventor if that may open them up to liability and it's a liability i might add, to some mega corporation, mega multinational corporation. well this provision just demonstrates what's the purpose of that provision? the provision is to beat down the little guy so the big guys can steel and that's -- steal, and that's evident. this bill is moving forward. h.r. 9, it is in the judiciary committee now. and as i say h.r. 9 is equivalent of saying that because there are frivolous
lawsuits, we're going to do everything we can to diminish the power of ordinary citizens to use the law and legal lawsuits for compensation and damages done to them. every provision of the bill weakens the rights of inventors to enforce his or her own patents. and this bill actually passed the house last year. . 90% of the people here in this body are so busy it is hard to pay attention to something that seems mundane like a patent law. they just can't get themselves to focus on it, and the american people also, they think this issue's -- issues like this is so complicated they can't get involved. that leaves the whole playing field to huge corporations who are out to enrich themselves by basically structuring law in a
way that the power and the wealth will glow to them. we have a system that is supposedly our founding fathers they wanted is the wealth to flow broadly across our country so that every american could benefit from new technologies and new wealth that was being created. now they want to coral that wealth. they want to diminish our rights in order to enrich themselves and these companies are not companies that are loyal to the united states, they are being loyal to the profit of their own -- their own profit, and some of them are multinational corporations who have actually no ties, real ties, to the united states. let me just suggest that this bill did pass the house last year, but it was stopped in the senate because by then we had made so much noise here, as i said a bipartisan group, led by myself and marcy kaptur from ohio, just -- mr. massie from
kentucky and other very strong activists got together and we made so much noise that the american universities finally paid attention. because that bill that lets people steal patent rights was a huge threat to our university system. it would have dramatically, had it been signed into law, the value of patents would have gone down dramatically. let me go back to how that works. remember they are talking about a troll. well, what their definition of troll is is anybody who buys the patent rights from someone who has invented something and has a patent, but doesn't have the money to enforce it anybody who actually buys the patent rights but is not aiming at commercializing it themselves but going to enforce that and make a profit from it, that that
is going to be what they are stamping out. well, you know, the universities are not there to commercialize what they are doing. they are there to basically have new discoveries, and they realize they've got a lot of patents that they own as part of their portfolio, and the rights -- the actual value of that patent collection by a university would have dramatically gone down. as well as of course, the patent value of any american would have gone down at that point. also other industries that are really important industries to our well-being the phrma and others that are biotech industries, where they struggle hard to come up with one patent that they then can sell on the market, well, those people are totally undermined by this effort. and the effort to weaken our patent system. we manage to mobilize those
people and stopped it last time around. but this bill, the multinational corporations behind this legislation are so arrogant that this bill is now going to be shoved through again and -- but this time i think that with the american people we can actually stop it here in the house. and we can certainly stop it in the senate. we need the american people to mobilize and to call their congressman and say how do you stand on this terrible patent bill h.r. 9? we need people who are going to stand up for the little guy in america not some megacorporation trying to permit the theft of american intellectual property rights by multinational corporations. so this is whether or not we succeed this time around is
going to depend on, yes the people here who understand the issue being as aggressive as we can, and the american people mobilizing to make sure we protect our sacred rights granted in the constitution, one of the most important, i believe, to be the right of technology ownership to people who create that technology. as i say, there are powerful interest groups in this city and in our country and in the world that try to change policy and are manipulating government. that's clear. that's fine. we have a democratic process, we just need to make sure that we are all being held accountable. all the members of the house, the senate are accountable for their votes. and that we know and the public has at least a chance to know what we are voting on.
well, actually there's something happening right now where that's not true at all. i sure hope the american people are paying attention to what's going on here. here in washington concerning what they call t.p.p., the trade promotion pact. and the -- then there's the t.p.a., which gives trade promotion authority to the transpacific pact. what we've got transpacific pact which is a -- which is basically a treaty -- trade treaty with the nations around the pacific. the sinister nature of this can be seen in what is in the -- what is in this trade treaty with the pacific nations is secret. the american people are not allowed -- it's been declared classified.
right now if i had gone down and read what now exists in this trade treaty and i announced it here on the floor, i would be violating secrecy restrictions that they have declared -- declared, how about this, a policy with major countries of the world that will have enormous impact on our well-being it's being kept totally secret from the american people. how is -- then they say, well, members of congress can go down and look at it if they want to. well, of course, what they have done is they have said, you only can do it within a certain time. they have regulated the time we can go down. we are so busy that almost no members of congress have gone down and read the actual documents that put -- what that trade policy is that they are trying to foist on us. please i hope the american people understand that members
of congress should not be voting on things that they had, number one, that they don't have access to, but, we should not be voting on something if we have not permitted the american people to know what that is. i mean you remember the famous statement by ms. pelosi about obamacare which is, we had to pass it in order to find out what's in it. that is totally unacceptable. and in trade treaties, these things will now pass rules and regulations based on this treaty that will impact on our way of life here. now, we have been briefed on it. i am on the foreign affairs committee, and we were briefed on this the other day. and we had the two main administration guys there people who had been ambassadors currently with the state department, briefing us and every one -- it's just like the boogie words over here, the scare words in terms of patents.
this is all being used, just the opposite every glorious word, higher income for our people, competitive for america all the trade will come in our direction, but i was talking -- when i asked them, i asked these people, have you read this treaty? neither one of them had read it. the people advocating this treaty have not even, have not even read the treaty themselves. and i found a provision in that -- in the treaty, at least i understand it's in there, i have not verified it yet because we are -- all this trouble to go through to verify what we are being asked to support that says, get into this, that patents in the united states will basically have to be published after 18 months, if a patent application is made, after 18 months, if patent's not granted, the patent will be
published for the whole world to see. does that sound familiar? they tried to put that over on us 20 years ago. we managed to thwart it then. now they want to sneak it into a treaty in which the american people are not permitted to know what's in the treaty. now will that hurt us in some way? it will only make all of our technological discoveries available for our competitors overseas to be using long before the patent is even granted to the american inventor. you see what type of sinister forces we are up against. who can sit down here and say how wonderful this treaty's going to be with the american -- where the american people aren't allowed to see it and almost all of us have not read it and our briefers who come here haven't even read it. i asked them, these briefers, yesterday, well, is this in the treaty?
they didn't know. they didn't know whether or not this provision on patents that would undermine our rights to control our own creations here, not to have our opponents and our competitors overseas have the -- all the information about our technology even before the patent's granted. they didn't even know that was in there. they didn't know if it was or wasn't. by the way, had i gone down and finally got through the maze and read the actual wording, in the treaty, i would have been required not to mention it today on the house floor. because we are being restricted because it's been declared secret from the american people. this is outrageous. we need -- we don't need to have a trade promotion authority that will keep things from the american people. and we don't need to have a trade treaty with the pacific
and all these nations in asia that will open up us to having our technology stolen, but also we don't know the other parts of it either. we keep hearing how the great things are in it that are going to benefit the american workers. we know what's happened in china. in china we were told if we opened up our trade with china, that china would modernize and they would become a liberal democratic country over the years. i call it the hug-a-nazi-make-a-labor bra they'rery. basically we were told china would become a benevolent force. as we know now china is becoming a threat to world peace and the american people have not benefited from china trade. our people have lost their -- when we had good-paying jobs have gone to china. we don't want that for the rest of the world, we need to know what's in these trade treaties
because they might have a major impact in bringing our working people salary down even more. whether it's immigration or trade or patent law our criteria should be what is in the interest of the people of the united states? and whether it's trade, where we have basically been having trade for the benefit of some megamultinational corporations, or patent law for the same click well, guess what they also want? they want cheap labor. and that's why you see today this push to bring 11 million people amnesty who have come here illegally toes not 11 million. it's a 10-year-old figure. by the time they get done they bring 50 million people into our country who wouldn't be here otherwise. what is that going to do to our wage base? to americans out looking for work right now? what's that going to do to our schools? to the money we have for our
veterans' benefits? what's that going to do? we are undermining the well-being of the american people in order for the profit of some megamultinational corporations. that's wrong. i'm a republican, i believe in free enterprise. the i believe in private property. i -- i believe in private property. i believe in the profit motive. we have to have a congress working for the benefit of protecting the rights. american people. they need to mobilize to make sure we are doing that whether it's supporting them to make sure that our communities are not overrun with illegal immigrants -- by the way grant amnesty to 25 million illegals, there will be a huge incourage from people around the world knowing all they have to do is outlast us. they'll get their am necessary tifment we need -- amnesty. we need to make sure these desists, immigration polcy, trade polcy, and yes intellectual property protection polcy, those things are done in a way that will benefit us and
not benefit our competitors. when i say us, us, united states it's us u.s., us, the american people, that should be the basis of our criteria. what is going to be in the interest of the american people? not bring down their wages not let people steal our technology and use it to compete against us. i ask my colleagues please pay attention to h.r. 9 and these issues. join with me in supporting the cause of the american people of us instead of the big corporations. thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection
>> we honor those law enforcement officers who have lost their lives while protecting and providing for the safety and protection of our communities. an important part of these ceremonies we see here today, we honor the city of wapitaw and honor officer hanson an army veteran who paid the ultimate sacrifice when he died in the line of duty. over his 15-year career as a police officer officer hanson demonstrated exemplary service. he served as an instructor and school crossing guard and wrote numerous grants related to school safety and served as a
volunteer in his community. as derek's name is added to the list of heroes we lost last year, we also recognize his family and his son colt. i urge my colleagues to join me in honoring officer hanson and his family for his dedicated service and for their sacrifice. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair puts before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1191, an act to provide for congressional review and oversight of agreements relating to iran's nuclear program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from texas mr. green is recognized for 60 minutes as
the designee of the minority leader. mr. green: mr. speaker today i'm on a mission of mercy a mission of mercy mr. speaker, because a u.s. military helicopter has gone down in nepal on tuesday, may 12. they were on a mission of mercy. the united states of america always responds to those who are in need, those who are in harm's way. this was no exception. our very finest volunteers to serve in our military. many of them would go to different places and some of them will not always return home the same way they left. some will not return at all.
and i'm honored to say that we should be proud of those who serve. and regardless as to how we feel about conflicts around the world we ought to appreciate the service of those who are in our military and we ought to want every one of them to return home safely. so today, i stand in the well of the house on a mission of mercy for our military persons who have lost their lives in distant places, but more specifically, in nepal. we are there because ruth mel tzer is right. passion and tears but the shurest mission under god's sun
is what have you done for others. we in the united states of america are doing things for others in the lifetime of people in this country. currently and we do it in the lifetime of our nation. we want it said that we were there to help those in times of need. so, mr. speaker there's a time of need for those in nepal. on may 25 -- excuse me, april 25 a 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit nepal. 7.8. thereafter on may 12, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake hit. these earthquakes have devastated this country.
lives have been lost more than 8,000 lives, people have been injured, more than 17000. millions have been displaced, millions have been affected. more than 8. four americans lost their lives. the united states moved quickly. we committed the sum of approximately $10 million initially but that has now grown to $32 million. the relief efforts from the united states are growing. not only are we placing dollars into the relief effort we are placing our military equipment into these efforts.
that's why the helicopter was there in nepal, to help in this time of need. i'm proud to say we are there to help. the need is to be approximately $415 million. the number could go up. but if it is that amount we can do as much as we can and we should do as much as we can to help the people of nepal. and i want you to know the people of nepal and the community in america are pitching in. in my district, ninth congressional district of houston, texas, may 2, 2015, we held a meeting. that meeting was to discuss how we can be of service. the congressional office and how the community can come together to provide assistance for those in need in nepal.
and at that meeting, i'm proud to say we had a good many persons in attendance. it was a community meeting. and in the true spirit of community that has the word unity in it, there was unity in this community meeting. the members of the nepalese were present and the president gave a report. and the secretary was there, he gave a report. the building that we were in was at the international center owned by mr. whaley and we are honored that he opened the doors of his facility for this purpose. it is important to know that the community was in unity to help those in nepal. some of the members of the community in attendance, the butaneses community was there
the latino community was in attendance, the pakistani community the vietnamese community all in attendance. asian realtors were there, the southwest community was there. those of the buddhist faith. the filipino community was there. different ethnicities were in attendance. the jewish community was there and a report was given in terms of how israel has been involved. the turkish community was there. the indian community. the lions club was represented the chinese community was in attendance and the african-american community was there as well as a representative from the naacp. we had a cross-section of all people all there becoming a part of the mission of mercy, for the purpose of making sure that we fulfill our obligation to help
those in times of need. and i'm proud to say that a goal of $100,000 was set for the purpose of aiding those in nepal . just from that meeting. there are many others that have other goals, some higher, some lower, but i believe this goal would be met because it was indicated that approximately $60,000 was committed. i'm proud to know that the community and spirit of unity has come together. and we announced at that meeting that our congressional office working with other members of congress, working with other members of congress, we have filed a bill h.r. 2033 to accord to provide temporary protective status for the nepalese community in texas, in the united states of america if you are a citizen of nepal.
if you are a citizen of nepal and find yourself here on some sort of visa, if you are here lawfully in the country, temporary protected status would extend the stay for those who are lawfully in the country. i will will not change the immigration status of any person. it will extend the stay. this is the american way. it's not the first time we have done this. this is the american way. when people are here and their visas expire and they are subject to going back in to harm's way or going back to their country that would place them in harm's way, we have done the right thing. we have allowed them on many occasions to stay here. this is what this bill would do, h.r. 2033. it would permit them to stay in this country and not return to a
country that was devastated by not one but two earthquakes, a 7.8 and 7.8. these two earthquakes have left many damage across the country. the country is recovering. we need to make sure that we do all that we can to help the people of nepal. this is why the people was introduced. and i'm proud to say that a good many persons have joined this mission of mercy. the honorable mike honda is an orange co-sponsors but there are others that are co-sponsors and in our tradition we like to thank people, it is the tradition of the house to thank people who are a part of a process that is helping someone. when you have people of goodwill who have put their names on the line, you ought to acknowledge that they are doing it. so i'm proud to acknowledge of
goodwill members of the united states house of representatives who are a part of this mission of mercy who have signed on to h.r. 2033. i want to mention each and every name. there are others who will sign on. this is not an all inclusive list, but as of today, honorable honda, honorable ashford the honorable ashford, the honorable car i don't know bass, the honorable mike capuano, the honorable tony car dean as. the honorable judy chu, the honorable clarke honorable cleaver, honor clyburn, honorable cohen honorable cohen -- these are the people on the mission of mercy. these are the people who are on h.r. 2033, a bill designed to
help people stay in this country and not go back into harm's way to nepal. and by the way, this bill would impact about 10,000 to 25,000 people. it is difficult to count but estimate at best, the number of people who might benefit. i said the honorable conyers. honorable joseph scrollly, the honorable danny davis, the honorable delaney, the honorable delbene, the honorable duckworth. honorable ellison honorable fudge, honorable grayson, honorable gene green, honorable gridge -- grijalva. this is not the first time that we have had temporary status granted to other countries. it was done under the clinton
administration and for nicaragua following a hurricane as well as in honduras. it was done with the bush administration for el salvador, done for the obama administration for those who suffered from an earthquake in haiti. these are some of the people who are part of the mission of mercy. . the honorable louis gutierrez the lonyorble denny heck, the honorable sheila jackson lee the honorable hakim jefferies the honorable hank jon the honorable daniel kildee, the honorable barbara lee the honorable john lewis the honorable zoe lofgren, the honorable jim mcdermott the honorable grace message, the hon yornl gwynn moore, the honorable grace napolitano, the honorable jere rhett polis the -- jared
polis the honorable derek richmond the honorable bobby rush the honorable linda sanchez the honorable loretta sanchez, the honorable bobby scott, the hon yorbling who are day serrano, the honorable brapped sherman the honorable chris smith, the honorable jackie spehr -- speier, the honorable maxine waters the honorable bonnie watson coleman, and i might add this is bipartisan. it's always a wonderful thing to have bipartisan legislation. this legislation is bipartisan in nature. i want you to know that in sponsoring this legislation it is our hope that the united states house of representatives will take it up. that it will come to the floor of the house for a vote. so that we can do more than say we support the people of nepal. this is a way for the congress of the united states of america
to go beyond endorsing aid, it is a way to provide aid, because the people who are here will have an opportunity to continue to work. and as they continue to work, they will be permitted to return funds to their home country. this is a way for us to not only keep people out of harm's way, but to let those -- allow those who are here to spend money to those who are in harm's way. they can send dollars back to nepal to help their country in a time of need. when we had the circumstance in honduras that required temporary protected status, persons were allowed to stay, and since that has occurred, approximately $31 billion have been sent back to honduras from those in the diaspora.
with reference to nicaragua, for those who are in the diaspora, i want to commend you because you have sent approximately $10 billion home. for those in el salvador, i want to commend you because you have sent approximately $45 billion home. for those in haiti in the diaspora, you have sent approximately $6 billion home. people in the diaspora from these various countries want to do what they can to be of assistance to their people at home. this is a way of providing them an opportunity to be of assistance to those that they love those who find themselves in harm's way, those who are in their homeland. well we hope that this piece of legislation will pass. if this piece of legislation passes it will give those persons who are here the opportunity to continue to be a part of the mission of mercy by sending dollars to those who are
in harm's way. it is nothing unique, but it is something very much needed for those who are in nepal. i'm proud to tell you that as we go forward with this effort we will extend the reach to the united states senate. we will ask that the senators please become a part of this. this is an effort that we all, in my opinion, can embrace. and we can do this, and we can do it without it costing us, meaning the government, any money. the government of the united states of america is already sending tens of millions of dollars by way of aid and equipment, a and we are doing a lot. but this is another way for the government to be of assistance without spending additional money to be of assistance to the people who are here by not putting them back in harm's way but at the same time to allow them those who are here, to be of benefit to their country by sending dollars back in the form of remittances.
i believe that the house of representatives and the senate of the united states of america can get this done. so i'm going to ask my colleagues to please give consideration to h.r. 2033 and let us join hands together those in the house and those in the senate, let us be on this mission of mercy to see if we can do something to provide aid and comfort for those who are in nepal by passing legislation to allow those who are in this country to stay in the united states of america. we are also on this mission of mercy because dr. king is right. i mentioned ruth smeltser. dr. king reminded us that life is an inescapable network of mutualities tied to a single garment of destiny, what impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. meaning what's happening to those in impact will have an impact on us. it may not be a direct impact,
but there will be an indirect impact. and there it will happen in ways that we may not be able to measure, but it will. it will impact because there are people who are going to try to migrate, people try to get out of harm's way. they'll try to get to other countries. my hope is that we will do our share to help those who are trying to get out of harm's way and do our share to keep those who are here prevent them from going back into harm's way. but dr. king is right. life is an inescapable network of mutualities, we are bonded together. this is one island we are all stranded on, the island we know as earth. if we are going to live together as brothers and sisters, we have to treat each other as touch. this is a time for us to be responsive to our brothers and our sisters in nepal. because there's another comment that i hear quite regularly when we hear of disasters like these. people will mention that but for
the grace of god there go i. we have had our share of mishaps in the united states of america, and when we have had our share of mishaps, people have always sent their best wishes and aid to us. people have been of assistance to us throughout the years, the decades. the centuries. people have been assistance -- of assistance to us. but for the grace of god there go i. i am so proud of the response that we had in this country after we suffered 9/11. there were people who showed us a great amount of sympathy and empathy, people who wanted to do all that they can to let us know that they cared and that they were concerned and that they did not support, in fact, condemned the dastardly deeds that were perpetrated. it was a time for the world to come together. this is another such occasion, not the same, no two unpleasant
circumstances are the same. but this one in nepal is one that we can emprace. this is a time for -- embrace. this is a time for us to show the world that we understand that there are things that we can do and will do and we are, by the way, we are. we have sent millions of dollars . we have our aid in the form of heavy equipment, our helpers are there. -- helicopters are there. as i mentioned earlier we did loose a helicopter and we lost some lives. but we are stepping up to the plate. the united states of america is doing its part. i want us to continue to do our part. i want us to do all that we can to make sure that every person knows where we stand. in so doing, i want to mention, that we in the united states have been blessed to have this melting pot of people who come from all over the world, all over the world to be a part of
this great american dream, the great american ideal. and the people who have come here from the country of nepal are no exception. they are hardworking people. they have shown their desire to be a part of the fiber and fabric of the united states of america t they have been people of good -- america. they have been people of good will. and i ask that we extend the hand of friendship to these people of good will, especially during this month, which is a month that we are to give honor and show respect to those of asian heritage, if you will. this is an asian pacific islander heritage month, and this is a great time for us, during this month, to show our concern for the asian population that is in nepal. we have the opportunity to pass h.r. 2033 and make a difference
in the lives of a good many people in this country. i do want to mention again for fear that some may not have heard, that the community in houston is well organized. immediately after the first earthquake hit, we had a meeting and we had scores of people in attendance. these were nepalese persons. they were there to show their unity with each other. but they also had a plan of action. their plan of action included raising money so that they could send it to their homeland to be of assistance, and they want to send this money directly there themselves. i admire them for their lofty goals and their efforts. they want to send the money themselves to their homeland. they want to make sure that there is no question that they have done their part. but the beautiful thing about this effort is that it became in effectous -- ineffect eweous,
and other people thought here is my opportunity to be of assistance. here's my opportunity to unify. it was an amazing sight to see on may 2 when we had all of these various organizations and groups coming together, all of them pledging their support, all of them pledging their desire to be of assistance to the nepalese community in houston, texas, across the length and breadth of this country, but also those who are actually in nepal at a time of need. i am so honored that they have a lofty goal that they i believe will meet. i plan to do my part, but i'm also honored that they decided that this was something that we can all embrace. they have reached out to the entire community and the community has responded. so i beg my friends across all
sides of the aisle this is not a republican or a democraticle resolution bill bill if -- bill if you will, this is a bill that already has bipartisan support. it's not about which part of the country you're from. it's not about how many people you happen to represent from a certain community. it is about helping somebody. in a country that is in need of help. and i beg that my colleagues would sign on to h.r. 2033, those who have not, many have indicated they will, so that we can bring this bill to the floor of the united states house of representatives. it is not going to cost us any additional money to bring it to the house of representatives. it will not in any way grant nip status to persons that they don't already have. it will simply extend the period of time that they will be allowed to stay in this country without having to return to harm's way.
i am grateful for the time today, mr. speaker. i do believe that this is time that has been well spent. and i do want to, as i close, let those families who are -- who have friends and relatives who are serving in our military, who are in nepal especially those who have family members that were associated with the military and the loss related to that helicopter crash but also those who are with usaid, also those who are there with various other organizations that are in service and doing what they can to make a difference. i want to close by thanking all of them for being there on the ground. and i also heard someone representing our military this morning when speaking of those who were there as a part of that military effort and those who lost their lives, there was a
request for prayers. there was a request that we would pray for those who are injured and those who have lost their lives. i believe in prayer. i do believe that it has a positive impact. i believe it can make a difference. i believe that there are times when there are no answers available to people. when you cannot explain what has happened. when the inexplicable is confronting you. at those times many people turn to prayer. because prayer can provide what words cannot explain. prayer can give you the hope that you need to go forward. prayer can give you the sense of i can, the believe that i will, the believe that i will go on and continue to make a difference. that it is expected that i go
on. sometimes people think that they just -- there's no more hope and they should just give up right here and right now but prayer can do marvelous things. so i'm going toped with a prayer because -- end with a prayer because -- going to end with a prayer because i believe the request should be honored from the military person who made the request without knowing the name, i want you to know that i appreciate that you indicated that we should pray for our people in harm's way. . i will give this prayer from my heart and not my head. it has been written across my heart for a time such as this and i pray as i give this prayer that it will be received with the intention atlanta that i will send it. it is a prayer for all. i will lower my head to give
this prayer and i will close my eyes. most gracious creator, we know you by many names, but we also know that by any name, you are the creator of all that was is and ever shall be. and we know that we are your children. and as your children, you have given us the greatest gifts that we could ever receive, the gift of life. and regardless as to what we think of ourselves, we know many of us in our hearts that we are blessed beyond measure to simply have the gift of life. we know that we are better than we deserve simply because we have the gift of life, because we cannot earn the gift of life. there is nothing that we could have done to earn it or merit the gift of life. it is something that we get
because of grace. and by your grace, i stand here as your servant asking your mercy for those who are in harm's way in the nation of nepal. i ask your mercy, i ask your blessing for those who are reaching out and trying to do what they can to help someone in a time of need. i ask that you please help those who are there who tonight find they do not have shelter. but please, give them some sense of belief that help is on the way. help them to believe that there are people in a distant place called the united states of america. who are people of goodwill, who are going to do what they can to make sure that they get the shelter that they need. please help those who may be
suffering the pains associated with having been a part of a tragic circumstance and having been hurt physically. help those who are suffering to know that help is on the way that we plan to make sure that they get the medical aid that they need and the treatment that they need, because you have given us so much and those who have so much as we should do as much as we can to help people who have little. and i ask gracious creator, that you strengthen all of us in this house of representatives so that we may continue to go forward to do your will to make your world a better place. we were given the precious gift of life for a reason. there may be many reasons cited but i believe we have been blessed with the gift of life so we may be a blessing to others.
this is our opportunity to be a blessing to others and i beg and i pray that we who have received the precious gift of life when we finally one day have the opportunity to look back upon all that our lives stand for, perhaps we will at some point in time have an opportunity to see the omnipresent and we will have the opportunity to tell and go over the record of our lives and on that day, i hope we will be able to say that we did all that we could to help the people of nepal. we thank you for the gift of life and pray that we will use it wisely and well and make a difference in the live of others. thank you, mr. speaker. god bless united states house of
representatives and god bless united states of america. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's a-- announced policy of january 6 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. and it's an honor and pleasure to follow my friend and former fellow judge from texas when he talks about praying. i know him to be a praying man and i know his heart is a big heart. we can disagree on issues but he is a brother a christian and a very good friend. and i appreciate his perspective very much. mr. green: i thank the gentleman, friend from the great state of texas. he and i happy to share more
than members of congress. we are members of congress from the same state and i'm honored that you have not only worked hard in congress but you've also been a part of activities outside of congress and i'm honored to work with you on at least one project and we hope to do some good for the great state of texas on this project together. i'm grateful to you and grateful for your kind words. mr. gohmert: i would never question the heart or motivation of my friend al green. it's bigger than most of washington. it's an honor to serve with you. there is so much that's gone on this week. one of the things that's happened here in washington and continues to happen today is a tribute, memorial to law
enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty doing what? serving and protecting. after the horrors and evil of 9/11 2001 it was encouraging to me to see so many people once again come to appreciate that the vast majority of law enforcement, the vast majority of first responders, they're serving and trying to protect for the good of others and willing to lay down their lives as jesus said no greater love is this than a man lay down his life for friends. and we have seen that in the hundreds of people i think 273 lost their lives this year over 40 this year in the line of duty. and just like in any walk of
life there are bad apples, people who don't have the best motivation, but i would humbly submit that when it comes to law enforcement, the percentage of those who are not properly motivated is far, far less than in the general population. so we do owe them so much. some people say ah, well we ought to live and let live and they say i'm a christian and believe inletting live but if you note, if you believe the bible, then jesus was commenting -- of course his ultimate point was we will be judged by what's in your heart.
if you say an offense back in that day, you will answer to the courts. he understood that you need a government, you need governing officials to which people will be responsible if they violate the law. that was also true in romans 13 in participating in an orderly society, you need a government with a sword to punish those who do evil. if you do evil, be afraid because god doesn't give the sword in vain and some people start freaking out when i quote the most quoted book in the history of the country as quoted here in the house of representatives and in the senate floor. it's part of our history. the bible is the most quoted book in congressional history. was, is and i hope will be in the future.
so we owe so much to the police who risk their lives. right out of law school, i was an assist ant -- assistant d.a. in east texas and very early on, i went to law enforcement to execute a warrant and the individual, the subject of the warrant for arrest had made clear that when he saw any law enforcement officer, he was going to start shooting, he would kill any law enforcement officer that came out there. and i don't forget the feelings that all of us had, even though some were very seasonned law officers, when you're approaching a dangerous building, this case, a home where somebody in there is
threatening to kill anybody like you, you do have a little hair stand up on the back of your neck. you do realize you're putting your life at risk in trying to maintain order and civility by one -- by approaching someone who is a threat to society. and that was quite a lesson that these law officers, whether they are new or been working for a long time, they are constantly in a situation where they don't know if 10 minutes later they may be dead in the service of their community but they're serving any way. we do owe them so much for what they do and what they risk on our behalf. so we're just grateful to all
law enforcement officers willing to serve and to protect all of us. we have a report here back in february and this is an article from "the hill" entitled f.b.i. investigating isis suspects in all 50 states. and the article is quoting the f.b.i. director, he revealed wednesday that his agency is investigating suspected supporters of the islamic state in iraq and syria in every state across the united states. further down, it said earlier, the director said that the f.b.i. was investigating isis supporters in every state, except alaska, but at the time of this article, the end of february, he was saying, we are investigating isis suspects in all 50 states.
the director said, we have investigation of people in various stages of radicalization in all 50 states. he said this isn't a new york phenomenon or washington phenomenon, this is in all 50 states and in ways that are very hard to see. he said isil in particular is putting out a song with their slick propaganda through social immediatea. he said the message resonates with troubled souls in a horribly misguided way and those people exist in every state. that should be his pronouncement in february should have a song for americans to understand there are people who live among us who want to destroy us and our way of life.
then it was rather interesting, that was february 25 less than two months later, there was an article put out, judicial watch indicated that isis camp was a few miles from texas, that mexican authorities confirmed that, and the article said isis operating a camp just a few miles from el paso texas according to judicial watch sources that includes a mexican army field officer and a mexican police inspector. exact location where the terrorist group has established its base is around eight miles from the u.s. border situated just west of jaurez.
and another isil cell to the west targets the new mexico towns of columbus and demming for easy access to the united states. so, any way, after this article came after this article came out in april, i quoted from that, brought it up on the floor, and let's say this article two days later from fox news that the islamic state fighters are operating training bases near the u.s. southern border and being aided by violent drug cartels to smuggle terrorists into states like texas. the report published tuse by a watchdog group. so -- tuesday by a watchdog group. so any way i brought that up and this report seems to get even more legs after the federal
government denying that any such thing like that was occurring apparently sent f.b.i. officials to mexico to meet with their counterterrorism experts. seemed to give some credence that there is something to be concerned about in the way of training of violent radical islamists across our united states border. the irony here is pretty profound. people all across the united states of america just accepted when the f.b.i. director says -- there are isis suspects in every state in the union. people said wow. that's amazing. man, they are here. saw a headline of a survey just moments ago on fox news saying,
six out of 10 americans believe that there may be terrorists or there are terrorists in their community. so how ironic that even the far left that turns a blind eye to radical islam could be so accepting that, yes, there are radical islamists -- islamist terrorists in every state in the union and when judicial watch and louie gohmert quotes from their material quotes other things going on, point out that there is a report that there is an isis camp across our border, the left went nuts saying how crazy judicial watch was. how crazy i am for even mentioning this. there couldn't possibly be an
isis camp in mexico. mr. speaker, i hope you see the irony here. they are saying, yeah, we believe there are radical islamist terrorists in every state in the united states, but there couldn't possibly be isis across the border where the drug cartels are and i haven't gotten a good explanation do they have so much faith and trust in the drug cartels' integrity that they would never associate with radical islamists? is that what they are saying by their cynicism about isis being in mexico? because it's a bit intriguing. but then again some on the far left are educated way beyond their means. their mental capacity at least. so they have information they
just can't process it effectively. because anyone who can readily accept when an f.b.i. director says there is isis in every state in the union, we are investigating in every state in the union radical islamists, he doesn't use those terms because this administration doesn't want to offend any radical islamists that want to kill us. so we don't use that term if you're in this administration. but i use them because they are accurate. there are radical islamists. anyway just a great irony here and then this article this week by a minnesota man, a.p. story, minnesota man accused of trying to join islamic state ordered -- there may be other options and us that because u.s. district judge, michael davis who wears
a dark robe to match his intellect he is the same guy that previously -- this is also a may 12 article by patrick poole, this is the same judge, michael j. davis chief judge of the district of minnesota this article from patrick poole says, terror deradicalization program established in the ground zero of terror recruitment, minnesota's twin cities, has already failed after just a few months. the program was established after a federal court released 19-year-old terror suspect yousef to a halfway house earlier this year. federal prosecutors thank god, they opposed his release, but they were overruled by this big
hearted, caring federal judge, at least big hearted and caring about radical islam, not so much about victims of radical islam, but michael j. davis cares deeply about those who want to kill us, and so as the article says remarkably judge davis said today in a separate case of six men charged with trying to join islamic state, that he would be willing to consider quote, less restrictive options, unquote, than detaining these men just a day after ewesive's -- ewes i have's arrest -- yousef's arrest that's because he decided he was smarter an more capable than anybody else in america he could deradicalize people who want to kill americans, by just sending them through this program that he had helped with or proved, gee, we are going to get you reading good material that really helps you see the wonder
and glory of this country and then, of course i, judge, michael j. davis, will be a hero to all my leftist friends because i cared more for the criminal radical islamist than i did for the victims, the left loves that kind of thing. so anyway, last may yousef the article points out was arrested in minneapolis at the airport while on his way to syria by way of turkey to join the islamic state. one of his accomplices did make it to syria and he now serves as an effective recruiter for that terror group. just last week the "wall street journal" reported on the program with an article entitled, a test case for deradicalization. the path of reform for yousef, u.s. teenager who tried to become a radical islamic
soldier, passes through writings of martin luther king jr. readings of the u.s. constitution. discussions about life and literature with fellow somali american named amin. mr. yousef's attempt to travel to the middle east last year helped lead authorities to six minnesota men who were charged last month in connection with plan to join the islamic state. but the 19-year-old has become a test case for whether americans lured by islamic extremism can be deradicalized. i think they can. but i sure wouldn't trust them to judge michael j. davis if that's what we want. but see here again, that was -- this is once again, pointing out the ingenuity of the founders in creating three branches. we have the executive branch that's supposed to carry out the laws that the congress elected by the people pass, and we have
two houses of congress to make it more difficult to pass laws. they wanted some obstacles and problems to passing legislation too quickly. and then we have the judicial branch that will handle criminal cases, handle civil cases, handle review of actions to ensure their constitutionality. and then we also have this part of the judicial branch like five of the justices on the supreme court that decided that they wanted to micromanage enemy combatants at guantanamo. i thought it would have been a good idea to let them live over at the supreme court if they wanted to micromanage them. then also this judge like michael j. davis in minnesota who decides? actually he's not just judiciary he's clairvoyant.
he is a rehabilitative agent. he is everything to everybody. just the kind of judge you want. god in a robe. so anyway, he put mr. yousef through these reading materials and i wonder though, if he was a bit surprised when yousef was arrested because he is not following the program and he has not reformed, but even that does not prevent god in a robe from saying, you know what, but these new terrorists that you have arrested, they are just a little misguided. i hate to have them in jail because if they are in jail then the american people will be protected, but they won't be
able to come to see how wonderful people like i am. so i want them to develop warm and loving fuzzy feelings for people on the left like me. so i want to find some way we don't have to keep him in jail. anyway another article about that, but it's just amazing to me when people exceed the bounds of their job in government because they think they are wiser than the founders, they think they are wiser than anyone that's gone on before. we hear people in recent days on the issue of marriage talking in terms of how much smarter and how much more we know today than the ignoramuses of the past and
the ignorance that displays is pretty astounding. solomon, for those who believe the bible indicate -- solomon, considered to be until he got sidetracked by having too many wives, the wisest man in the world. and solomon credited for writing some of the things in the old testament, old testament as we call it but in what we call ecclesiastes he points out there is nothing new under the sun. you think socialism, communism is a new idea? it's not new. it's been around forever. and every time it's been tried it leads to totalitarianism. it leads to the loss of freedom
t and then it fails. because as margaret thatcher once said, eventually you find out -- you run out of or people's money to spend. it doesn't work, it won't work. now, that's different from socialized medicine like obamacare. government control. have friends on the republican side of the aisle that say, lou we don't have to worry obamacare will fall on its own weight. the trouble is government health care, socialized medicine, it never falls of its own weight. socialism does. it can't survive because when you're paying people to not work the same amount you're paying people to work, eventually you destroy the society. and we are in the process of doing that here in america. paying people to do things that are destructive to their well-being. we ought to be incentivizing
good conduct not rewarding conduct destructive to the individual and to the nation. but we continue down this path that has not been working for 50 years. so hopefully people are going to eventually get the message but amis-- amidst, this the same week "wall street journal" article that deadly mexican cartel rises as a new threat. it should be noticed, carlos the jackal probably the most notorious famous assassin, it commented that he believed the only way to really bring down the united states would be for socialists and islamists to join
forces. and that couldn't successful force to bring down the united states. interesting observation from an an arcists like d.n.a. an,ist like carlos the jackal. interesting. this article talks about the rise of mexican cartel and it says this second page of the article, the new generation cartel is perhaps mexico's most audacious and vicious criminal enterprise. after the government captured or killed most leaders of the gang based in northeastern mexico officials and security analysts. like the ones originally formed by army desserters, the new generation gang favors paramilitary methods and received tacticle training from mexican and foreign mercenaries, these people say, including the use of rocket propelled grenades against the helicopter. .
so let's see columnist said the helicopter incident was a declaration of war. coming months will be very hard in ha liss coe. -- in ha lease coe. -- in jalisco. you've got violence building on the southern border, but don't worry our justice department has been very helpful. we can't get documents because the justice department becomes an injustice department quite often in obfuscating hiding documents, preventing people from getting at the truth, won't provide the documents to me that they provided to convicted terrorism supporters in the holy land foundation trial. they sent me a couple of websites i could visit, very nice, gracious of them. but basically covering up their tracks, being the most muddy
not transparent, justice department in my lifetime. and that includes going back to the lack of transparency under j. edgar hoover when he became too enthralled with his power again, using f.b.i. agents to investigate people, not for information to introduce in court but just to use apparently, persuade them to do what the f.b.i. director wanted. information like that is dangerous. the founders knew that. then there's another "wall street journal" article from may 14 that the f.b.i. says a texas man lied about his links to syria. imagine that, mr. speaker. they catch somebody who is -- who they have evidence to show he's got links to terrorism and syria, and lo and behold, they found out, not only does he have links to terrorism but he may have actually lied to the f.b.i.
imagine that. the article points out that bilal abood of mesquite was arrested thursday after a two-year game of cat and mouse with federal agents who questioned him repeatedly before and after he allegedly traveled to syria in 2013. but anyway, the -- let's see, it says a week later, agents interviewed him again he admitted he planned to go to syria to fight with the free syrian army. according to the complaint, unlike terror groups like the islam exstate, the modern free syrian army has received backing from the united states. they've received backing from this administration is what the bottom line is, not from all of us here. because some of us have been saying that this administration is providing weapons to the islamic state.
they were providing weapons to the so-called vetted moderate free syrian army. and remarkably weapons that the obama administration was providing to the vetted moderate syrian army kept ending up in islamic state hands. they were oh, gee, you know they raided, they took this stuff took the weapons, send us more. well the obama administration wised up for about four months they suspended weapons shipments to the vetted moderate free syrian army. but then, not to worry, they eventually started back sending weapons to the vetted moderate free syrian army even after their leaders were saying, yeah, we may disagree with islamic state on the leader, assad the lead for the syria, but we are brothers and we do line up on most issues.
so it is important to note, strism alive and well in the world and this administration has done very little to stop it has turned a blind eye to it and we have got to do all we can to help them wake up and smell the gunpowder coming from radical islamists. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday for morning hour debate.
>> taking -- taking a look at our standards, we need to look not just at the financial rules but electronic communications and other rules. the world sfer changing and we need to constantly look at existing rules and see whether they satisfy the growing need. the $10,000 rule for leaving the united states or whether we're talking about stored cards or other methodologies by which people are able to easily move money. we need to constantly look at the existing rules and try to adapt.
>> we have a question here in the front. >> my name is ron taylor, i'm with the -- i'm a senior fellow at the george washington center for cyber and homeland security. i have i guess a couple of thoughts. one is that the financial enterprise is a global enterprise. for me, using amounts of money as a filter, there's a disconnect right there. i want to know what the money is doing. i don't necessarily want to know how much money there is. that goes back to what you said your mission was, which is you know and i'll put it in slightly different terms and then ask the question. so i'll change your mission, but the mission to me seems to be identify and disrupt the sources of money that enable sustaining the ongoing violent behavior. we want to eliminate that violent behavior. we've got to find the money
sources, got to disrupt them, hopefully eliminate them. so that seems like the mission. so the question is, what about russia? what about putin? what about legitimate financial sources that come out of there indirectly sustaining the violent behavior or directly? what about the criminal elements that operate out of russia? and what about the umbrella countries around russia that also support that kind of activity? who is following it, who is tracking it, who is identifying it who is disrupting it? >> great question. appreciate that. so again, just to clarify my earlier statement or statements with regards to the money and the financial intelligence, it's one aspect of it right. we're not simply looking at a wire transfer or a.t.m. withdrawal or a transfer between two different bank accounts. mr. roberts: it's a combination of that intelligence with other intelligence we have and not just focusing on the dollar
amount bus focusing on what it's used for. or maybe not on what it's used for but time and distance. if we look at financial transactions overlaid with travel or perhaps we don't have travel information that's financial path -- that financial path can provide us that in the case of a foreign fighter, can provide us with travel. just by tracking the money system of it's not necessarily a focus on the dollar amounts per se. but it's telling a story. the dollar amounts are telling a story. i think that's what helps us paint the picture that we have. with regards to russia or the elements in and around russia, again as i mentioned earlier our focus, our sole focus is not necessarily iraq and syria. we need to focus as the gentleman talked about, their concern with the european foreign fighters system of our concern, obviously is not just iraq not just europe, not just
australia. we need to take a large look at every threat and every potential threat and then with regard to, as you mentioned, you made a great point with regards to criminal organizations, right. it's not to say that criminal organizations are necessarily funding terrorism or not. i think we can probably talk for a long time about that, right? but there's certainly avenues by which they overlap. they're certainly facilitated by things where they overlap they can allow for that to happen whether they're ideologically together or not. >> let's go to the back, please. >> kyle with the brain corporation. in regards to the technological sophistication you touched on, social media campaign, have you considered given attention to crip toe currencies as a mean -- crypto currencies as a meens of financing. >> yes. just kidding. absolutely.
you know, we're much like -- much like matt talked about a moment ago about prepaid card, the crypto-currency we as the united states government are starting to really take a look at the crypto currencies. i won't say starting to take a look but we're taking a look. any source of fund, isil or any other terrorism group, whether it's a criminal organization, international or domestic, we want to see how they're funding and any avenues whether it's a cash courier or traditional financial institutions as well as the crypto-currencies. crypto currencies allow a great avenue to transfer funds internationally with little or no oversight in many cases. so we are aware of that. we're tracking that. any support that anybody here can give us is more than welcome.
i'll just touch on matt's point earlier with regards to prepaid cards. that's obviously another avenue as well that we need to take a look at. it's very difficult to track. it's very easy to buy one of these prepaid cards, load money on it, you don't have to physically move that. you can email, call or contact someone in another country or halfway across the world and provide them with the pin numbers on that prepaid card and easily move hundreds or thousands of dollars without any effort whatsoever. >> saudi arabia offered a concrete example of individuals related to isis solicitting funds on twitter, moving the conversation to skype instructing people to buy prepaid cards, get back on skype, provide people in the region, the isil associated people work those numbers, tremendous amounts of value moves, not a dime moves, nothing to the formal financial system,
it's a tremendous vulnerability. >> quick question. you just talked -- excuse me. you just touched on the idea of charitable donations and as we saw with al qaeda, do we see funds being transferred through charitable donations with isis? is that a big thing? small? what are we seeing on that line? mr. roberts: i think whenever we talk about charities i hate to broad brush the answer, right. so i think what we need to look at is hundreds of thousands of legitimate charities but much like any other international organization, it allows for the avenue for people to fund not
just terrorist activity but also criminal activity. so obviously, we're cautious when we -- with regards to looking at charities because we don't want to necessarily paint a broad brush. but any avenue as i mentioned numerous times already any avenue by which individuals are able to move money whether it be by charity, business, front companies, etc., other money exchanges, would be an avenue for us to look at. but provided the intelligence takes us there, i guess i would caveat it. >> as a former government sfirble i can be more blunt. there's no doubt there's an increase in the abuse of charity in the past few years. i would say a boomerang effect post-9/11. we did so much work not only cracking down on bad charities and abuse of charities but working with the charitable sector, the vast majority of which is not only legitimate but
praise worthy. mr. levitt: if you track the cases in the u.k., france, here in the u.s., there's no question we're seeing a rise in the abuse of charity. it's logical. off massive humanitarian catastrophe happening in the middle east. there were people want to do good. that gives an opportunity for people to use that as cover for not good things. it creates a vulnerability. it brings us back, not in 2001 but just a few years ago, working with the charitable sector again, kind of as we were discussing with the banks, trying to improve their filters working with charities again to protect them from being easily abused in the context of a real humanitarian catastrophe. which brings me to -- here we go. right over there in the back. behind the pillar or in front of the pillar. >> hi, western union
intelligence unit. western union is moving more toward a qualitative analysis of data and doing less with thresholds and taking large swaths of data and trying to see what's happening with it with what has been discussed already. my question is, you mentioned having fewer czars, more quality czars, but if we're seeing activity that appears legitimate like in the opening statement we talked about how these self-funded and smaller dollar amounts look legitimate and can look legitimate. if we're working with large sets of data and don't have the intelligence that you do have, how can we provide you fewer more quality czars without that intelligence for us? mr. roberts: that's a great point. i saw an amazing presentation by western union the other day at treasury. my goal is not to have fewer czars, it's to have more quality czars. so whether that means we still
have 800 czars but they're of higher quality then that's a great goal to have. i was just using it as an example that rather than having more that are maybe based on less intelligence and less information that's out there, it does not approach, does not give us the greater picture than having less that are more directed. so my goal is not to have less czars, i'd like more, but the goal is really necessarily that they're of higher quality, that we're able to push the information to western union and other folks what to look out for and i commend western union for how proactive they are in their financial analysis. mr. levitt: yes. >> good afternoon, thanks for the presentation, agent roberts. agent kain with homeland security investigations. one for you.
following up with mr. romano said and asked a conundrum is, try to counter the financing of isis what is touchable? with al qaeda it was a different structure. you could touch them around the world through our partner commercial sector, banking sector. what do you think is touchable out of the total assets they have? do you have a frame of reference? sit 10%? is it 50%? mr. roberts: that's a great question. i don't have a specific answer for you. with regard to the must be that they have within their holdings. i'm former i.n.s. so we kind of reversed roles here i guess. i don't necessarily have a distinct number for you as far as what we can tackle and again as i mentioned earlier, i think what it comes down to is really that whole of government, whole partnership approach to using every tool we have in the toolbox, whether it be through d.o.d. authorities, to tackle
their oil and other things, whether through sanctions as well to go after that. but i think the -- much like in other, whether we talk about transactional organized crime, the money they keep within their area of control it's very difficult to break that, right. it's when, as matt mentioned earlier, it's when the money starts to seep out and go outside. that's our avenue in which we can tackle it. mr. levitt: yes. >> thank you very much. do you have an estimation about the proportion that other sources of financing for hezbollah are in this compound of money that is flowing through isil? mr. roberts: i don't have a
specific number to give you on the use of hawallahs. i can tell you it's an avenue, as it historiccally has been. but as we touched on prepaid cards and virtual currencies, the gentleman in the back talked about, i think it now becomes just one avenue which they're able to fund -- transfer that money versus the lot of newer avenues. essentially what we're having is your traditional hawallahs but now also the introduction of almost electronic hawallahs. >> we don't know what you're -- what are those? mr. levitt: a prepaid card is a card where you go to c.v.s. a a visa card, amazon, and there's value on that card and you can
then either move the card or give someone the number on the card and go on -- they can go online and use it anywhere in the world. this is, you go to a store, you buy -- you give money and get this card, that card now has value on it. you can give someone on the other side of the world on a phone call or email that number and they can use it as cash. anywhere in the world. you go to c.v.s., there's probably 30 different types of prepaid cards, including cards that aren't tied to a particular store, they just have a little visa symbol on it that you can use anywhere. hawallah is a form of moving money without the money actually movement. an informal value system. very very old. plays an important role in the international economy but it's there to be abused. it involves trust between two people on two different sides of the world. it's been used for a lot of good purposes and it's there to be abused by other purposes. there's a lot of new there's a
lot of old. let me ask you this. there's a lot of talk about crowd sourcing or to use a variation of the term, crowd funding. again, the financial action task force report cited this as a concern. it's a great quote so i'll read it to you. isil has manipulated social media, physical and virtual social networks, encourages donations and conducted a marketing campaign in a manner that is consistent with industry standards established by major crowd funding companies. most people read that and hear vulnerability. i'm former f.b.i. former treasury intelligence, i hear opportunity. in what way does something like that present us an opportunity? mr. he -- mr. roberts: -- mr. roberts: crowd fund, crowd sourcing, used by legitimate charitable organizations or any other organization you may see that would do a marking campaign in order to raise funds for their organization, isil is used
through social media. they've used it and if you don't want to travel or you are not in a position to travel or not in a position to join the fight, that you are to do what you can to help the organization. by doing so, they cashed out this basically mass marketing campaign by which they are asking folks to fund them through the social media sites. i agree with you, much like they're not very similar to their other social media campaigns, and their communications, spreading their prop dwan da gives us an opportunity to identify and target other individuals. mr. levitt: excellent. yes, sir. >> i have a question about your private sector partnerships with banks. i understand the primary mode of communication is suspicious
activity reports which often take a fair amount of time to compile and get to your -- to you guy system of when you're dealing with financial fraud it may be less urgent than terrorist attacks. can you comment on the urgent matters like that with banks? mr. roberts: sure. the world is flat, there's a lot of information out there. our banks, i can talk about western union and our banks partnerships are very proactive in what they do. if -- in the cases of an attack, when an attack occurs, charlie hebdo, for example the banks are proactive in examining what's in their holdings and quickly pushing out the sars. our relationships with the bank, obviously, you know, we need to
obtain records, file subpoenas or other information but we have a very good relationship with our partners. they understand the urgency. they are able to prioritize and get us the information as quickly as they feasibly can. i have absolutely no complaints when it comes to an urgent matter and the ways and the time in which they get us that information. that's really part of this whole campaign of why we're doing this outreach, in order to allow them to understand what the current and emerging terrorism threat picture is, so they understand that sense of urgency. mr. levitt: followup here in front. >> thank you. just a comment on that if i may. i think it's important to point out, when we hear a lot of sharing the same threats that u.s. treasury, through our tftp
program which pablo and i run here in d.c., would in one hour and 40 minutes provide 60 leads to the frenching authorities while the hostages were still held in the supermarket. that's a matter of public record, it's not a classified matter. i think it's in evidence we stand together on the same threat and compliments to the u.s. authorities and treasury in particular. cases are so much facilitated not every case but in that program. mr. roberts -- mr. levitt: that's an amazing statistic, glad you added that. let me ask you a thought question. we were asking about the c.v.e. concepts here. i wonder if there's a parallel we can draw here to the cftp finance areas. with our c.v.e., we don't have a single approach across the country. the three pilot programs are
very, very different, on the west coast, minneapolis and boston. because there's different types of activities that we see in these areas, even though so much of the radicalization is happening online, that knows no borders. geography still matters in some way. we see these phenomenon manifesting themselves differently in different places. a lot of this is happening online. the world is flat. but i wonder do we see different types of activities, different types of groups being more prominent in different places in the country -- country? mr. roberts: sure, that's a great question. before i answer that i want to make a point, when we talk about our partnerships and the outreach we do, the bureau has numerous outreach programs, not just in the counterterrorism field but across all our programs. c.v.e. being one of them. the domestic alliance council and several other fine programs which we're table to share
information. this is not a one way f.b.i. stands up here and provides information and then everybody leaves at the end of the day and we move on. this is a dialogue and every session i've been at since i got to fo -- tfos, we learned from them. as the lady at western union mentioned, we learn from them as well. i want to clarify that point. we do this outreach as much to learn as we do to teach. so i think that's a good lead into your question. so much like we talked about, we've talked about it for a few years now, there's no one picture, right. whether we're talking about c.v.e., counterthreat finance there's isn't necessarily one model. i think we need -- we get caught in a trap looking at one model we might miss another. i think the uniqueness of the
threat of radicalization, the threat of funding terrorist groups, we need to have a broad based view and we need to look at all the options. so we're not seeing necessarily a particular community doing it one way and particular community doing it another way. it's a across the board as the example we gave earlier sometimes people will borrow money from friends and family, not telling them why they need that money to fund their travel. sometimes they take money from their parents to fund their travel. mr. levitt: meanwhile, we're all focused on the islamic state on isil or others for all the right reasons. but if you think about what's going on in yemen, as we're focused on the collapse of that state and the hutsi takeover, reports of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula is take advantage of our focus elsewhere to consolidate there.
i wonder if there's a concern in this area, as we're so supremely focus on isil that this is, or could be an opportunity for traditional al qaeda groups to be under the radar and take advantage of the opportunity in a finance area to their benefit. mr. roberts: that's a great question. that's something, matt, you know, from being in the bureau before, having worked terrorism before 9/11, through the present, the threats have changed, obviously through the years. so i can tell you that we are constantly making sure that just because we're looking at the threat in front of us that we're not necessarily looking at the threat to the left of us and the right of us. so as our deputy director when he was here last year touch on a little bit how we do that. he touched on our threat review prioritization process by which we take a look at all the threats, all the international terrorism and domestic terrorism threats. we take a look at those groups,
take a look at the threat they pose, take a look at their potential to act and we combine those and come up with a banding or prioritization of those threats. just because necessarily the primary focus of isil for this conversation and isil financing doesn't necessarily mean we're taking our eye off the ball, we need to be alert to that. often as a lot of our focus of al qaeda after 9/11, we did take our attention off other groups system of i think we need to, luckily we have individuals that are threat-based within the f.b.i. that necessarily look at all the threats and their particular focus or particular portfolio or the other threats as well. mr. levitt: and where do we put in that prioritization groups that are considered terrorist threats that have raised funds in the united states but don't
traditionally target us? if we could take a break for a moment from the cutting edge isil, what about the old school? what about hamas, the hezbollahs, which do have presences here. what's the status on their activities here and what we're doing about them? mr. roberts: we continue to look at all our groups. i can tell you having worked those groups in the past myself, although primary part of my career obviously has been al qaeda and now isil, but we haven't taken our eye off the ball there. we obviously realize in particular we're talking about hezbollah, we've seen in the last few years their attacks they have successfully conducted as well as plotting overseas. so it stale raise -- it still raises a real threat to us, and to our sit zepps overseas. by all means we need to continue our eye not just on isil. mr. levitt: i promised you an
individual in jerry roberts who has not only tremendous expertise but tremendous knowledge and i think we delivered. please gin me in thanking jerry for taking time to be with us here today. [applause] . mr. levitt: thank you all for taking the time and have a great weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]
>> if you missed any of this discussion on isis financing, you can see it in its entirety at our website, go to c-span.org and check the c-span video library. the 34th annual national peace officers memorial service is continuing this afternoon here in washington, d.c. president obama was among those paying tribute to fallen police officers. we'll have his remarks and the entire event for you tonight starting at 8:00 eastern right here on c-span. you can see the remainder of the event right now on our companion network c-span2. one of the issues taking center stage on capitol hill this week was the trade promotion authority bill which gives president obama fast track
negotiating authority. the senate is yet consider that legislation. we spoke with house ways and means committee chair paul ryan about what's ahead for the trade bill in the house. host: as the trade bill has moved through the senate, expected to be in the house after memorial day, why do you think these measures are good for american workers? guest: i think getting a level playing field for american workers so we can make and grow more things in america and send them overseas is very important for jobs. the reason basically is, 95% of the world's consumers don't live in our country they live in other countries system of it's vitally important we open up markets for our products because after cull awl up with in five jobs in america is tied to trade. most of these jobs pay more on average than nontrade based jobs system of it's really a function of getting more economic growth, more job creation, better wages
and the fact of the matter is, as we -- is we already give many of these countries decent access to our market bus they don't give the same access to their markets. that's why you need trade agreements to open up the markets and get those countries to play by our rules so we can have free and fair tried and more jobs. it's really all about that the last point i guess i would make is, the global economy is here, it's always constantly changing. the question is, do we lead and fwide that change or do others write the rule book? right now it's a race for whether or not america and our allies run and write the rules of the global economy or does china? and for -- i for one don't want to see china writing the rules of the global economy because i don't think that's in our interests. i think it's important for america to be in the front seat, leading and guiding this, so we can have more american jobs and higher wages. host: you said china is rigging the rules in its favor, how so? guest: it take ours intellectual
property rights, does cybertheft subsidizes corporations from china to unfairly compete against american workers. for a whole host of reasons, china doesn't play by the ordinary rules and what we get with trade agreements is getting other countries around china to play by our rules so we can set the standards. the goal is not to lower american standards, the goal is to get other countries to come and trade by american standards and you can't do that if you don't get trade agreements. host: a big part of the debate what this means for organized labor and workers in general. thele of coy is claiming the trade bills allow you and others to go after demands of deregulation. they say it's going to give tax breaks an financial advantages to big businesses and hurt the average worker. guest: i fundamentlally disagree. trade-based jobs pay almost 18% more on average. one in five jobs in america is tied to trade. by the way if we're not getting trade agreements that means other countries are going around
the world, getting better agreements for their countries an freezing americans out. we can't just make and sell things to ourselves, we have to make and sell things overseas. without trade air greements, what companies have to do is manufacture in foreign markets to sell in those foreign markets. by getting a trade agreement to lower the barrier well, can make things here in america and send them overseas because those barriers have been lifted. this is why it's bipartisan. this is why you have president barack obama pushing for trade along with republicans in congress because we know in the final analysis when you strip out all the uncertainties and all the misperceptions, it's really in america's interest to do this and with trade promotion authority, we're saying we need to have high standards, we need to have transparency, and we want to make sure that the american people can read a trade agreement. 60 days before a president can even sign an ayeement and then send it to congress for congress' consideration. we think we are getting it right with transparency, we're getting it right by putting congress in
the driver's seat, by making sure that people's voices are heard, to get good quality trade agreements and again if you're not getting trade agreements, that means other countries are and americans will lose. host: we learned from senator rand paul that the text of these agreements are not available to the public, in fact, it's 800 pages long. he's saying that it should be made available to everyone. why isn't it? guest: it's not finalized gentleman. the agreements are being finalized. there isn't an agreement yet to look at and release. what trade promotion authority does under the bill we've written a bipartisan bill moving through congress, is when these agreements are done, when the negotiations are completed, then the whole entire agreement should be made completely public for at least 60 days before any president can sign an agreement and then send it to congress for congress' consideration. so we don't have a trade agreement yet. we don't have a trade -- transpacific partnership or european trade agreement yet. you need t.p.a., trade promotion
authority, in order to get a trade agreement. what we're saying with t.p.a. is, we want more transparency, we want to be able to have people read negotiations and members of congress like rand paul if he wants to, under t.p.a., can negotiate in the negotiations. he can attend the negotiations. but once those negotiations are concluded, then you make it public. we don't have yet a trade agreement to make public because the negotiations are ongoing because we have not yet completed t.p.a. host: as you well know there are many in the house republican conference who don't support these trade bills in large part because they don't trust this president. will you and speaker boehner be able to get the votes you need to get this through house? guest: i think we will get the votes and i think this will be a bipartisan bill, just like it's going to be a bipartisan bill in the senate. to my friends who are very suspicious or untrusting of this administration, and i share many of those concerns, trade promotion authority binds the administration to congress' will. trade promotion authority puts congress in charge of the
process. because there's nothing that stops a president from going out and negotiating an agreement and then just sending it to congress. what we're saying is, we're putting out the guidelines for what agreements need to include. 150 guidelines that congress is imposing on the administration. new transparency requirements. making sure that the text is made available to the public before we vote on it. those are the kinds of things we're insisting upon in trade promotion authority. i would very much argue that by passing trade promotion authority you have congress asserting its prerogatives, asserting its crolve the process at the front end instead of sitting back, waiting for the president to negotiate something in secret and then send it to congress. host: finally, congressman, what's a bigger challenge, chairing the house budget committee or the ways and means committee? guest: i think the ways and means committee, because it's jurisdiction is so much wider. it's in charge of trade laws, health care laws, welfare laws and oversees our vital entitlement programs like medicare and social security. host: congressman paul ryan
joining us on capitol hill. thank you for being with us. guest: thanks for having me, steve. >> ways and means committee chair paul ryan on what's ahead for the trade bill in the u.s. house. also this week former house speaker jim wright passed away. the texas democrat served his district from 1955 to 1989. he was majority leader from 1977 to 1987, a point at which he was elected speaker of the house. he re-signed the speakership and his seat in 1989 amid an ethics investigation. former house members martin frost and bill alexander who both served with where wright, spoke at the funeral, as did former wright aid paul driscoll. here's a look at those remarks. >> in the words of president john f. kennedy about jim wright, no city in america was better represented in congress
than fort worth. i am here today to speak on behalf of the scores of people, many of whom, texans, that jim wright helped along the way with their careers. he was our mentor, our colleague, and our friend and we were better public servants because of jim wright. and many of those members past and present, democrat and republican, are here with us today to honor jim. mr. frost: in a minute, i'm going to speak about what jim did for my career. but it really speaks volumes for what he did for a lot of others too. jim wright was an extraordinary leader both for the people of fort worth and for our nation. he always remembered the people who sent him to washington and worked tirelessly to make our country even better every day he was in office. few congressmen in recent times have had a greater impact than
our friend jim wright. i met jim wright 57 years ago in 1958 when he was a young congressman, then in his second term, and i was a 16-year-old. jim was the guest speaker at the temple bethel youth group in the basement of the old synagogue building on west broad bayh near downtown. i had never met a national politician before and he made a deep impression on me that day. i remember to this day some of what he said and more of that later. seven years later, in 1965, i showed up in washington as a young reporter covering congress for a magazine. the first thing did i was go see my hometown congressman, jim wright. jim and his chief of staff were very helpful to this young reporter suggesting who i should get to know on congressional committee staffs. three years later, in the summer of 1968, jim helped me
get a job on hubert humphrey's national presidential campaign staff. while i was a student at georgetown law school. the last two people i saw before i headed back to texas following graduation in 1970 were jim and marsha -- marshall. i told them i hoped to come back to d.c. someday as a congressman. in a neighboring district. i had no intention of ever running against jim wright. [laughter] fast forward to 1976. the carter campaign wanted to come to texas the weekend before the general election, when carrying texas was still in doubt. they wanted to only stop in dallas. as a fort worth boy, i told them they also had to come to cow town and i knew the local congressman, jim wright, would put on one hell of a show for them. and that's exactly what jim did. he filled the downtown convention center with more than 10,000 people, early in
the afternoon that sunday. it made great television and carter became the last democrat -- democratic presidential candidate to carry texas. shortly after that election, jim wright became house majority leader by one vote in a hotly contested secret ballot election. he certainly knew how to count. [laughter] two years later i was elected to congress from the 24th district which in fact adjoined the 1th district -- 12th district that jim represented. jim went to speaker tip o'neill and made sure i was named to a house committee, a position that almost never went to a freshman member. since then jim wright and i became both colleagues and friends. he was my mentor during the 11 years we served together and i learned an enormous amount just watching him in action. and when i inherited the black community in southeast fort worth following the 1991 redistricting, i only used one
picture in my mailing. a photo of jim wright and me. there wasn't anything else in the voters in that part of the district neat kneaded to know. they continued to be my base for the remainder of my 26 years in congress. just to make sure people in fort worth knew that i had strong ties to fort worth, even though i now lived in dallas he used to tell anyone who would listen that i went to high school in his district in fort worth and he went to high school in my district in dallas. [laughter] when jim taught a course at t.c.u. on congress for 20 years, after leaving the congress, i was proud to be a guest lecturer for him every single year. the last time i saw jim was in the spring of 2014 when i was working on a book about congress. we visited for about an hour in his office at t.c.u. his body was frail but his mind was as sharp as ever. i learned how to be an effective congressman by observing jim as a colleague and as a junior partner on a
variety of matters that helped fort worth. he never forgot the people that sent him to washington. he was a stalwart in his work on behalf of defense workers and what is now lockheed martin and was general dynamics and bell helicopter in fort worth. he played a significant role in the decision by american airlines to move its corporate headquarters from new york to the metroplex and he was a strong supporter of d.f.w. airport. the jobs magnet for this part of the state. we worked together and by the way he did the heavy lifting, to convince the railroad to make its right of way available for the trinity express connecting fort worth and dallas. no request from anyone in tar ant county was too small -- tarran county was too small to win jim's help. also, jim's role in promoting the careers of promising african-americans from fort worth was of great significance. he brought lorraine miller, a young woman from the southeast side of fort worth, to washington to work on his staff . years later she became the
first african-american to serve as clerk of the u.s. house. and recently served as interim national president of the naacp. and just a few years ago jim played a key role in the election of marc veasey who became the first black congressman from fort worth. one of jim's greatest strengths was molding a disparity group of democrats into an effective majority when he became speaker. during his first year as speaker in 1987 tony and steny, you will remember this congressman asked all 13 -- congress passed all 13 appropriation bills before the start of the year on october 1. something that is almost never done today. i remember his response to a question from the audience as that speech in 1958. he was asked what a congressman does when he feels one way about an issue and his district feels the other way. he responded that the job of a congressman was to reflect the
views of his district as often as he could. he then added that he reserved a small percentage of votes, perhaps 10% to vote against the majority of his district if he felt something was vital in the national interest. and he then added that it was his responsibility to go back to his constituents to explain his vote and hopefully convince them that he was right and they were wrong. he added that if a congressman couldn't successfully do that, he wouldn't be re-elected and that was as it should be. he did a very good job following his own advice. i did the same and found that he was exactly correct. fort worth is a great city today because of jim wright. we all owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. we will never see his like again.
>> jimmy and ginger kay, lisa and all the wright family, i feel that we're akin. and to all of his friends who are here today i join you in tribute to one of my dearest friends. i kept up with jim through the years even after he left washington and returned to texas and following his recovery from surgery. i gave him a call one day and he invited me to come to fort worth. so my son and i, alex, who is here with his sister ashley, who came to t.c.u. at a later time boarded our plane and came to d.f.w.
in those days jim was driving. and so he met us at the airport. i'd never been outside of d.f.w. before so i didn't know what to expect. as we left the terminal i noticed all of the concrete infrastructure that had supported -- supports the airport. the entrance ramps, the exit ramps, the overhead the overhead bridges, the long ride to the interstate. i never saw so much concrete in all my life. so i turned to jim who had once said at one time, as most of you know, was chairman of the public works committee, and i said to him, jim, how much
money did the public works committee spend on this airport? and he looked at me and rolled his brow and lifted his bushy eyebrows and said to me, not a penny more than the law allowed. [laughter] jim was probably one of the most successful chairmen in congress. and with that success people encouraged him and he ran for majority leader. as all of you probably followed in the news, he was a very contentious -- it was a very contentious race. on the day of the vote i was appointed to be a judge. so after the votes were cast, i adjourned with the other
members of the election group and counted the votes. we counted them twice. and jim won by one vote. i got up from the chair in the speaker's lounge, the speaker's lobby, we call it, rushed through the door to the house chamber and jim was sitting on the second row on the democratic side in the hall of the house. i rushed up to him and i said, jim, you won. he was surprised. because no one knew the outcome of that election. he looked at me and he said, are you sure? [laughter] and i said, jim, i counted the votes. and if you hadn't won, bill burton said he would send me to alaska.
[laughter] following in the footsteps of sam rayburn and lyndon johnson, jim asserted leadership in congress at a time of confusion in the senate and the white house. demonstrating a unique ability to command our nation's political resources to get things done. and this went across the aisle to the republicans and even down pennsylvania avenue to the white house, which is a million miles away if you serve in congress sometimes. jim wright had fought in world war ii to defend the values of the great estrogen ration -- greatest generation as tom brokaw describes his generation. a generation of men and women united in common purposes of
family, country, duty, honor, courage, service. during world war ii he flew many combat missions. i haven't really been able to discern exactly how many yet, there's such a debate over it. maybe somebody will tell me before i go back to washington. but he was awarded and he served as a bombadier and was awarded the distinguished flying cross for hire bravery. jim believed that government should serve the people as well as the economic interest which also must be represented. and provide federal assistance to communities and states like arkansas where i'm from. it's in need of capital development in order to provide infrastructure to try to
attract industry and jobs for our people. that was in his view providing building blocks for the foundation of the economic development that benefits all of us. all got to do is look around in texas a little bit to find out if it works. the criticism of speaker wright, which is in the news instead of all the accomplishments that we know he achieved from his strong leadership came from a changing congress. some of my former colleagues from congress are here today and they know what i'm talking about. beginning with the 1968 election, which was my first election to congress, the ideals and values of the great
estrogen ration began to evolve -- greatest generation began to evolve. the congress ran by southern democrats who chaired mostly of the important committees in the congress were gradually erased by a younger generation of congressmen and senators many of them in the other party. and when he left congress, even his political enemies often remarked that had he stayed in congress he would have been the greatest speaker since henry clay. his time as speaker laid down historic markers. he was the last great figure in congress to keep alive the idea of the development of -- that came from the new deal would
help our economy. after him came what we call reaganomics. and the title -- tidal wave of polarization of our two political parties and the continuing mindless cannibalism which we can still see evident today between the parties and even in the parties in congress. criticism of speaker wright's forceful leadership came from republicans and democrats alike. although at the time he stepped down the principle an tage nists came from -- an tag nists came within our own -- antagonists came within our own party. i was there and i know who they are. what followed was a profound change in the power structure in congress.
shifting away from the power and authority lodged in a handful of key southern committee chairmen to a dispersion of power among proliferating committees and subcommittees, encouraging intensifying rivalries and even political fratry side throughout the house -- fratricide throughout the house. his departure marked the end of an era when southern democrats dominated in both the house and the senate along with a gradual evolution of the congress toward social issues. it marked the transition from southern leadership of congress to a growing concentration of power of the democratic party in our nation's biggest cities. many of them in the north, operating a widening rift
between our nation's smalltowns and rural areas -- small towns and rural areas and the political interests of the inner cities. the way was open for lobbyists to shift attention away from schools and roads and bridges and water systems that helped our people, to special interests of wall street, banks and a commercial agenda. a fluent speaker of spanish, he took the initiative to intervene in the political crisis in nicaragua and crafted peace talks that laid the foundation for elections. when i assisted him in this so-called junk et -- junket in his endeavor i found that we tried to do what we -- what we
tried to do generated much consternation among president reagan's white house staff. later another great texan, james baker, observed that what jim wright did with his intervention in nicaragua turned the corner for that nation and helped the u.s. and nicaragua to come to better terms with one another. jim wright was not only a master of the political structure and the rules in congress, he also was an author a professor, he lectured at texas christian university with eagerness to inspire and guide our nation's youth. in the tradition of sam houston and sam rayburn, jim wright was a giant.
i was his chief deputy whip in the congress. the worst job in the house of representatives. [laughter] but it was worth all the knocks and the cuts and the bruises and the criticism that i endured to fight for the values established by the great estrogen ration until the ideals were changed -- greatest generation until the ideals were changed by a new breed of voter who believes that washington is not a solution, rather washington is the problem. he was my dear friend and i stood with him in every fight. for the values that won world war i and -- i and provided the building blocks and foundation
for the greatest economy on earth. god bless jim wright. >> martin, bill betsy mike, kenneth mr. leader, steny hoyer, the one man in this sanctuary today that knows the full weight and measure of the responsibilities of the job this prince of peace executed so beautifully for so many years. dear steny, thank you for your presence today.
how very honored he would be, how much he'd love this congregation today. this is a delegation of community builders. mr. wright loved sam rayburn dearly and he often quoted him. of course many people wondered why mr. rayburn went back to bottom, texas, after announcing he was going to leave the house . his answer was simple. bottom, texas, the people there know when you're sick and they care when you die. you have validated jim wright's recitation of that quote, all of you today by honoring him in coming here. you knew he was ill and you care that he died. oh, how he would celebrate you. oh, how he must be enjoying this.
he loved people of accomplishment. he loved people who contributed and built. mr. rayburn, you see, a jack ass can kick a barn down, it takes a carpenter to build one. it's no accident that our lord was fathered by a carpenter and parented by a carpenter in his early years. i'd like to give you a sense of speaker wright and jim wright as my friend may be very, very unique. as i've thought about him so much and as i visited him in those final days, things came to me i would have never imagined. he was a gifted multitasker. if you know anything about jim, he despised trying to work with
technology but he was a multitasker. let me explain what i mean. february 7 1985, 11:00 in the morning, after about 30 days, some of the people in this room , tony john, had been working diligently because mr. o'neill had told us privately he was going to retire. so we were trying to collect the requisite number of votes for him to become speaker of the house two years out. february 7, 1985 11:00 in the morning, national press conference was held in the office of steny hoyer. the day he met the national press, he was surrounded by his colleagues, he was vounleded by people who loved him and wished well for him and he made the announcement that he'd achieved the requisite number of votes to capture his dream to be speaker of the house. he put a piece, if will you, in
a body that's not given to -- a peace, if you will, in a body that's not given to peace easily about the next years and how things would follow. 15 minutes later he grabbed me by the arm and escorted me in my -- and my wife, donna, up the back stairs with 31 other people to the house chaplain's office where chaplain ford married us at henry clay's desk, the great compromiser. and then he walked back downstairs with us we had a reception in the office and he pulled donna and i asaid and said -- aside and said, i only have two things to tell 2000. paul, always hold her hand and never go to bed mad.
mr. speaker, sometimes you set the bar too high. [laughter] i have removed pillows from my bed so as not to elevate the temptation for donna to smother me. [laughter] there are so many things privately that i love about him that we share. he had a passionate love for boxing. he knew boxing, he knew boxing like the famous author who recorded almost everything of significance about american heavyweight boxing. we went to a fight, we went to golden gloves, we went to the olympic trials we went to tons of professional fights. it was like going to that fight with ned flasher. he'd be sitting there and reciting to you the ring scores of the fight. he knew every -- like every
hobby and interest he had he wanted to know everything there was to know about it. if you ever saw the roses that he cultivated, you'd understand that in spades. he was a gifted horticulturist. he was a great teacher. kay, you and i sat just about where steny was sitting two years ago, 2 1/2 years ago, and you told me how he taught you and ginger and jimmy and lisa about god. in fact, he used a wagon wheel and said that the universe and god was indeed the hub and the spokes represented the people. of course the rim where all the damage and impact takes place is the furthest from god. he admonished you that it was your job it was your responsibility it was the tentment of your faith to move
closer down those spokes because you'd be closer to more people. and as you were closer to more people, you'd be closer to god. what a gift. i've often wondered, and i think everyone in this sanctuary today wonders why god lets us see certain things at certain times. last week, just a day before his passing, and only a few days after my last visit with him, there was a documentary on about george foreman. i happened to turn it on in the middle of the night. george foreman, the famous heavyweight, struck fear and terror in everyone's heart, undefeated knocked poor joe frazier down eight times. in the interview they asked him a question, they said, who was the greatest champion of all time in your estimation?
and george foreman didn't hesitate. he said, muhammad ali. that stunned the interviewer. muhammad ali had defeated george foreman in africa and usually when a boxer loses to another one, it was a lucky punch or he was just a little better that not. not the greatest champion after that lived. he didn't hesitate. he said, muhammad ali. the interviewer said why, why did you choose him? he said, well, if you saw the fight in the eighth round, he hit me twice in the face. george foreman began to cartwheel. he began to turn and fall to the floor and as he was falling , muhammad ali, as all boxers are trained all their life to do congressed his arm to hit
him -- cocked his arm to hit him with what is called the killing punch. george foreman said, i looked up at him just partially conscious, knowing i was going to the floor and he never threw that punch. so for me he's not the greatest champion that ever lived for the punches he threw, it's for what he didn't do. it's the punch he didn't throw. the very people who besmirched this prince of peace, at the end of his public career when they fell on hard times and they fell by the sword they had so recklessly wielded, not once in private and certainly never
in public did jim wright throw that punch. he could not retaliate. he didn't just talk christian forgiveness. he lived it. his higher calling at that time was to find a way to inspire students at t.c.u. to engage public service. and to think about the possibilities of what they could build, like the beautiful people in this room today. he didn't throw that punch. i was 15 years old, standing in front of a black and white tv, when i watched robert kennedy say, when he shall die, take him and cut him up in little stars and he will make the face
of heaven so fine that all the world will fall in love with night and pay no worship to the garrish sun. i didn't know at 15 just what that meant. at 65 i marvel how bobby kennedy could have mustered the strength and the insight to say that about the brother he loved , in some ways his best friend, and oh by the way, in passing the president of the united states. i understood because of his church and because of my association with him that all of us have a spark ofdy vinity
-- of divinity. we are all made in god's image and that star is there. what i didn't understand is that there are a special few that possess a flame, a torch. it's bigger, it's more commit the -- committed, it's something we can appreciate, it's not necessarily something we readily understand. it's not by accident that there's an eternal flame that burns at john kennedy's grave. and why, for all the accomplishments, the peace corps, the space program all of those things no. that's part of it, that's why millions go there to pay respects. but part of it is that during the most sensitive time in our nation's history, when we were the closest to engaging in a
nuclear holocaust when every advisor that that president had was admonishing him to take advantage of the tactical and strategic position we occupied for those precious few days, and strike cuba with nuclear weapons, he didn't throw that punch. and we're all breathing good air and loving our friends and cucting our lives -- conducting our lives because of that divine torch. the thing i think i will miss most is a private passion that
jim had and i shared. he loved movies. the singular thing that we really appreciated together was we happened to think that robert duvall was the greatest american actor that's ever lived. [laughter] jim's favorite movie wags "tender mercies." my favorite film was "the natural." and in "the natural," there's a scene, of course all the lady in here know robert redford was the natural, he was the gifted baseball player, robert duvall was the cynical sports writer. willford grimly was the crusty old coach. and there's that beautiful soliloquy where the coach walks in and he says, i mean pardon me robert duvall walks in and
says to the coach, coach, who is this roy hobbs? and the coach turns on his heels and says, i don't know who roy hobbs is. i just know he's the best there is and the best there ever will be. jim wright you are the natural. there probably has never been a man in american history that i can recall to that so eloquently used the english language. he helped those of us who only have sparks appreciate the flame, with his application of our language. and it seems a shame that i
can't find words in my language to encompass all that he was and is. and will always be. only in spanish. [speaking spanish] go and be with god. light of our land. friend of my life. cred c.d. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> today here -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> today here in washington, d.c., the 34th annual national peace officers' memorial was held in front of the capitol.
president obama spoke at the event and expressed his thanks to those who gave their lives. here's more from the president. >> we cannot erase every darkins ordaininger from the duty that you've chosen. we can offer you the support you need to be safe. we can make the communities you care about and protect safer as well. we can make sure that you have the resources you need to do your job. we can do everything we have to do to combat the poverty that plagues too many communities in which you have to serve. we can work harder as a nation to heal the rifts that exist between law enforcement and the people you risk your lives to protect. we owe it to all of you who
wear the badge with honor and we owe it to your fellow officers who gave their last full measure of devotion. most of all we can say thank you. we can say we appreciate you. and we're grateful for the work that you do each and every day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> that was just a portion of what the president had to say earlier today at the 34th annual national peace officers' memorial service. which was held here in washington, d.c. you can see the president's entire remarks plus other speakers tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks.
>> congress returns to session on monday and later next week the house will turn to several items including work on the highway trust fund which is set to expire at the end of may and 2016 spending for the legislative branch. you can see the house live on c-span. the senate also returns monday with continued work on trade promotion authority, with votes on a couple of amendments scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern. that measure authorizes president obama to enter into trade agreements by july of 2018 and would need congressional oversight and approval. senators can also amend provisions for the patriot act that would end the n.s.a.'s collection of americans' phone records. see the senate live on our
companion network, c-span2. a new report issued by the department of homeland security's inspector general says two senior secret service agents were, quote, more likely than not impaired by alcohol when they drove into a white house barricade back on march 4. inspector general john roth testified on capitol hill yesterday where he outlined findings of his report on the recent secret service incident held by the house oversight committee. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. rep. chaffetz: committee on oversight and government reform will come to order without objection of the chair as authorized to declare a recess at anytime. we are meeting to talk about the united states secret service and the accountability for the march 14, 2015 incident.
on march 14, 2 senior secret service special agents -- one has the title of deputy special agent in charge, a presidential protective detail, mr. conley. the other had the title of assistant to the special agent in charge, mr. george ogilvie. the allegation was that they drove through a criminal investigation of a potential bomb at the white house be following the incident, there were allegations that the agents were intoxicated after being at a bar found -- downtown. nor were the agents reprimanded in any way. part of the concern was what happened and what did they do about it. how did they report it up the chain of command. instead, everyone involved was told to go home and pretend
nothing happens. ranking member cummings and i met with director clancy. he could not answer our questions. clancy said he could not answer the questions. instead, he deferred to the department of homeland security office of the inspector general, who was investigating the matter. that investigation is now complete. we are pleased to have mr. rob here with us today to talk about the conclusions of that investigation. it is time for accountability. the inspector general determined it was more likely than not that the agents' judgment was impaired i'll call. since a sobriety test was not given, the inspector general came to the conclusion based on these facts -- both spent five hours in a bar running up a bar tab that included 14 drinks after two hours of an open
bar. and the objective behavior of the experience secret service agents who should have known better. the impaired judgment resulted in them driving "into a crime scene inches from what rest of the secret service was treating as a potential explosive device and which, under different circumstances," -- let me read that again. "the agents'impaired judgment resulted in them driving into a crime scene inches from what the rest of the secret service was treating as a potential explosive device and which under different circumstances, could have endangered their own lives and those of the officers
responding." if it had been a real bomb these agents would have been lucky to be alive. they were endangering the lives of too many people by doing what they had done. the incident began making its way up the chain of command, where it eventually reached mr. connolly himself. though retired to report -- required to report what happened, he chose not to. he was required to meet with his boss. on march 6, he talked about a suspicious package incident but made no mention of being involved with the instant himself. mr. ogilvie had a duty to self-report and chose not to. as the inspector general found their failure to report reflects either poor judgment or an affirmative desire to hide their activities. relying on the honor system for reporting this type of egregious misconduct does not
work when agents do not act honorably. senior uniformed division leaders also violated their duty to report by failing to inform mr. connolly's boss, the head of the presidential protective division. perhaps the situation would have been dealt with earlier if the agents were given breathalyzer tests that night. an officer on the scene told the inspector general they decided not to administer a breathalyzer because they were worried to do so would be a"career-killer." the watch commander was probably right. his decision was likely influenced by "secret service's reputation for punishing or ignoring those who would report violations," such as drunk driving. that is why the problem that led to this incident extends well beyond march 4, 2015. it is a deep-seated problem within the secret service. we have thousands of good men and women who serve this country honorably and
patriotically. we appreciate them, but they are not above the law. the secret service has to abide by the law as well. we have heard over and over again the source of morel problems within the secret service is that senior personnel are treated differently from the rank and file and that the uniform division is treated differently from the agents. we have little doubt that because of this treatment, connolly and ogilvie believed they could act in a way where they would be able to get away with it. the culture of special treatment forcing your agents must stop. it is an embarrassing and highly concerning pattern of misconduct and security incidents that need to end. the secret service mission is to important. i want to commend mr. roth and his team for their good work on this report. they acted quickly and put a lot of work into it and it has produced a very worthwhile result. that is why we are here
today. we look forward to hearing from director clancy on this incident and hearing whether the agency plans to take disciplinary action against individuals involved. i have a concern that just retiring and stepping aside does not solve the problem. that they do not truly have the consequences that would be associated with such egregious behavior. the job of the secret service is too important not to reprimand those who exercise shockingly poor judgment that put the president and his family at risk. one of the other things we are going to explore is how, within the department of homeland security, there are different penalties within the department itself. there is a standard for the department of homeland security. there seems to be a different standard within the secret service and other agencies themselves. this is the very reason we formed the department of homeland security, to make sure that they got best practices
and management together so they could have this uniform across, but it is not. one of the things the inspector general found is that even the most senior people did not understand what the alcohol policy was. sort of an important thing to understand. certainly an important thing to understand. we appreciate the good work of mr. roth and look forward to a good, vibrant discussion today about his findings. with that, i will now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. rep. cummings: thank you very much, history chairman. thank you, general roth, and your team, for your hard work. you have worked with us and met with us and we took your guidance and we really appreciate all that you have done. you started immediately after receiving these allegations on march 12 and finish them in eight weeks. that says a lot. in that time, they conducted an impressive number of interviews
and obtained a wide variety of documents and materials. the inspector general confirms key allegations, such as the claim that to agents, -- two agents, mr. connelly and mr. ogilvie, had been driving -- drinking before driving a government vehicle to the white house. it also includes that there is "no evidence that the video of the incident was intentionally deleted." this was a model of how an investigation should be conducted. and a demonstration why congress and this community relies so heavily on -- unfortunately, this report
makes clear that there is still much work to be done to improve the culture at the secret service. at a previous hearing, september 30 of last year, i expressed grave concern that the secret service punishes those who raise concerns. employees are afraid to report incidents up the chain of command. at the time, we were discussing an incident where multiple shots were fired at the white house. one officer on the scene believed bullets had hit the white house, but she feared the consequences of disputing her superiors. as a result, it was not discovered until four days later that the white house had been struck. the inspector general indicates that the cultural problem is indeed widespread. the report highlights "the
secret service is reputation for punishing or ignoring those who further investigate or report such violations." according to the report, some officers relayed that the watch commander at the scene raised concerns. according to one officer, the watch commander told his colleagues that the agents who drove into the american -- into the barricade were "hammer." -- "hammered." instead of ordering a sobriety test, he called it a "career killer." nose riding test was done. both agents drove their vehicles home after a night of drinking. the inspector general's says
"the watch commander's actions must be considered in the disparity --" i am also concerned because just two days ago, we conducted a key interview that further corroborates this view. alfonso dison, the deputy chief of the uniform division, manages more than 600 officers. he admitted to our committee staff that he had to telephone calls with mr. connelly -- connolly the night of the incident. one as he was at the scene and another as he was driving home later that night. in those calls, he informed mr. conolly was going to make it a problem. he also told mr. connelly -- connolly that the watch
commander might cause trouble for him. "he was going to spread the rumors. he was going to get the guys riled up. that is what i believe and that is what i relayed." this is simply unacceptable based on the report. the watch commander should have done more that night, not less. it is appalling that senior secret service officials would disparage junior officers from doing the right thing. the agents and officers of the secret service will never have the full trust of their
colleagues while the fear of retaliation continues. finally, let me conclude by thanking director clancy for his cooperation and quick action and the inspector general report concludes "director clancy acted appropriately upon receiving information about the misconduct." the inspector general also informed our committee that he received "outstanding" cooperation from director clancy and the secret service during the entire investigation. although we hope to the director clancy would be available today, this is police week and he is attending several events to honor officers for acts of valor and the families of those who have fallen in the line of duty. he called personally the chairman and yours truly to express his concern and regrets that he could not be with us at his hearing. -- at this hearing. i know the chairman understood that and i understood it.
i want to thank him for all he has done. he has offered to reschedule for another day. i look forward to hearing from him. with that, i yield back. rep. chaffetz: it is true that i really do believe that director clancy has been more than responsive to requests from congress and his availability is very much appreciated. we may disagree on some points but his accessibility has been one of the best that we have seen. i also want to highlight -- at this moment, the secret service is evidently engaged in apprehending someone who was trying to fly a drone -- i am basing this solely on media reports, but every day, these men and women are dealing with exceptionally difficult situations. something could go wrong at any given time.
they do far more than we your or see. we appreciate that. it is not enough to say we appreciate it. they need to know we love and care for them and we pray for them. they have a no fail mission. that is why when something goes so terribly wrong, we have got to learn from it and make sure that we fix the problem. some of this egregious behavior is unacceptable. i would also note that, just literally happening here today the secretary award for valor was given to one of the secret service agents, william from scranton, pennsylvania. he kept duty at the station in washington, d.c. "while out to work, the u.s. secret service technician came upon a motor vehicle accident in the baltimore washington parkway and was the first to respond. after notifying 911, he went to the scene to offer
assistance. when he noticed flames originating from underneath the hood of the vehicle, he removed the occupant, who was determined to have a broken pelvis and was unable to walk. people like that, who do this great work, we cannot thank them enough. but we expect a lot. we expect that people will make mistakes, but not of such egregious consequences that it puts the mission in danger puts others in danger. and it certainly can never put the president in danger. he is our president. i do not care, republican or democrat, how you feel about the president. he is our president and he has to stay safe. that is why it is so pivotal that we continue to investigate that. i will hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a written statement. i would like to recognize the witnesses here today, who represent a large group of people who did a lot of work to come to this meeting today.
it is with pleasure that we welcome inspector general john roth. he has been inspector general of the department of homeland security. he previously served as director of the office of criminal investigation at the fda. before that, he had a long and distinguished career with the department of justice. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. if you would please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? that the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. mr. roth we will now recognize you. do not even bother starting the clock. we will hear your report and after you are done, we will ask questions. mr. roth: thank you, chairman j katz -- chaffetz, ranking member cummings, and all the others.
we have made public our report concerning the incident at the white house complex on the evening of march 4. our objective was to conduct a factual inquiry and assess the reasonableness of the actions of those involved. we conducted the investigation from march 12 until april 30. this inquiry was centered this inquiry was centered around two senior secret service services, mark connolly. deputy special agent in charge of the presidential protective division, a position he's held for the last two years. connolly's duties include all aspects of white house security. george ogilvie is the assistant to the officer in charge. at the washington field office. he's previously worked in the presidential protection division. the report that we wrote is a summary of the investigation. it is attached to my written testimony. the materials of our investigation that we produced are reports of interviews, the physical evidence, and the documents we found, have been turned over to the secret service in a