Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business  CSPAN  July 7, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT

2:00 pm
mrs. watson coleman, for the poumps a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. watson coleman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background check legislation, and this is to honor the memory of carl beatty a former mercer county corrections officer, who havest who was an innocent bystander killed in a hail of gunfire in gang related fight in the city of trenton in my district. i do this to honor mr. beatty d i do this so that we -- he never received a moment of silence and he's never received a moment of action on this house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentlewoman from new jersey's time will be deducted from the gentleman from colorado's time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: the definition of obstruction in the dictionary is, quote, a thing that impedes or prevents passage or progress, an obstacle or blockage, end
2:01 pm
quote. the only obstruction here is the failure of the republicans to simply remove that blockage or that thing that prevents passage of this commonsense measure to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, and prevent terrorists from quietly assembling carsal -- arsenals to conduct their terrorist acts. i hope that now that my colleague from new york, mr. engel, has joined us he'll be making a very important unanimous consent motion in just moments that will finally allow this body an opportunity to break through this obstruction, move to consideration of both bills under this rule and move to consideration of the bill, the bipartisan bill that will prevent convicted felons from acquiring weapons and therefore i'm proud to yield to the gentleman from new york.
2:02 pm
mr. engel: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation in honor of the soldier, this brave captain antonio brown. i also want to honor the memory of people in my district who were victims of gun violence, brandon lawrence, charles smith, mount verne none, new york, wilbert francis, mount vernon, new york, kevin shaw, mount vernon new york. we want to honor their memories. they are all victims of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor. we ought to be passing sensible gun control legislation in a bipartisan fashion. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot e entertained. the gentleman from new york's time will be deducted from the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from colorado virginia tech. mr. polis: i would like to yield to the gentlelady from
2:03 pm
washington state, ms.delbene, for purposes of a very important unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington state is recognized. ms.delbene: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation in honor of the ol veterans da day, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertoday. mr. polis: i would like to yield to the gentleman from washington. the speaker pro tempore: washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous nsent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation. it's really to honor the memory of paul terrell henry. he's a victim of gun violence in orlando who never received a
2:04 pm
moment of silence on this house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from california who has a motion that will break through this republican obstruction and save lives. i'm honored to yield to the gentlelady from california -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. brownley: i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation in onor of the memory of landon dooley, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of ilence on the house floor. enough is enough. put this commonsense legislation forward today. the speaker pro tempore: as
2:05 pm
previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: point of parliament inquiry. it's a new speaker, pro tem, and i was wondering if the new speaker frome would be willing to pose the unanimous consent request to the gentleman from alabama. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has been informed that the gentlelady from alabama will not yield for the speaker's request. mr. polis: very well, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from new york, who has a very important unanimous consent request, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york virginia tech. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation in honor of the iii, of albert l. marek, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as
2:06 pm
previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire of the gentleman from alabama how many more unanimous consent requests we need to make until he agrees to allow for consideration of this bill? happy to yield for an answer. mr. byrne: i reserve. mr. polis: sadly, the gentleman from alabama is unable to reserve or stop criminals from legally acquiring weapons or terrorists from silently assembling arsenals to conduct terrorist acts in our country. the only way the gentleman from alabama can prevent those acts is prevent the obstruction of this body is by granting this very simple unanimous consent request that is about to be made by the gentleman from florida. i'm proud to yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, for purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. deutch: i thank my friend. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217,
2:07 pm
the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation in honor of the memory of stanley, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot e entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. clark, for purposes of a very important and timely unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. clark: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation in honor of the memory of lawrie and brook dooley, a mother and daughter, victims of gun violence who never received legislative action on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot e entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for purposes of an important
2:08 pm
unanimous consent request to save lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts virginia tech. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation in honor of the a victim of eugene, gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from new york, m serrano, for purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks memory ion to honor the of eric ortiz rivera, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on or any action on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as
2:09 pm
previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, for purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks memory ion to honor the of luis, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from california, ms.chu, for purposes of a very important unanimous consent request that will save lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. chu: i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of brenda lee mccool, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor.
2:10 pm
the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire of the gentleman from alabama how many more requests we need to make until the republicans stop their obstructionism and allow a simple vote on the bill? mr. byrne: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. perlmutter, for the purposes of a very important unanimous consent request that would save lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you. i thank my friend from colorado. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous , sent to bring up h.r. 1217 the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation to honor the memory of daniel mowser, youngman who was the victim of gun violence at columbine high school and was the son of a friend of mine, tom. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized.
2:11 pm
mr. polis: mr. speaker, in a just breaking "politico" article, it says that, quote, house leader infighting has forced g.o.p. leaders to indefinitely postpone a vote on an anti-terrorism package, end quote. you know i don't know who is going to tell the terrorist that is we're postponing a vote on an anti-terrorism package. i would hope that the republicans would join us democrats in trying to prevent terrorists from quietly assembling arsenals of explosives and guns and weapons to conduct coordinated attacks on the people of our country. that's what we're hoping to do and break through this republican obstructionism on this issue. and hopefully there will be a new breaking story based on the acceptance of a unanimous consent request that is forthcoming from my colleague from ohio. i would like to yield to the
2:12 pm
gentlelady, ms. kaptur, for purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank congressman polis very much and ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks to honor the memory of juan ramon guerrero, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on of ouse floor or a moment action on this house floor. we ask speaker ryan to allow the vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, for purposes of a unanimous consent request. ms. waters: thank you very much. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks in honor of the
2:13 pm
memory of darell r. byrd, ii, who's ther black man loves his life to senseless violence and he never received a moment of silence on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. time will be deducted from the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. the chairman has stated the last several times that the unanimous consent request cannot be accepted. is it that it cannot be accepted or that it is willfully not accepted by the gentleman from alabama? the speaker pro tempore: all time has been yielded for the purpose of debate. mr. polis: further parliament inquiry. when the unanimous consent request made is it not at the digs discretion of the gentleman controlling the time, the gentleman from alabama, to agree to that request?
2:14 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama only yielded time for debate. mr. polis: further parliamentary inquiry. can the gentleman from alabama accept a unanimous consent request to yield for the purposes of a bill being brought forth? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has not yielded for that purpose. mr. polis: point of parliamentary inquiry, does the gentleman from alabama have the ability to yield for that purpose? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has control of the time on his side. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. again, the gentleman from alabama can agree to these unanimous consent requests. the way that the answer has been framed he has not agreed to them. the gentleman from alabama and the republicans are obstructing this body and preventing us from going about our business and getting to these bills, but it is certainly well within the authority under this rule for a
2:15 pm
unanimous consent -- unanimous consent request to be accepted. with that i'm actually glad to say we have a unanimous consent request. i would like to yield to the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps, for purposes of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, i respectfully ask unanimous consent to bring up house resolution 1217, it is a bipartisan piece of legislation called the expanded background check bill. and i do so today in honor of a particular person who was a victim in the orlando massacre. marisol. s mercedes a young woman would never -- never received her own moment of silence on this house floor. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. time will be deducted by the
2:16 pm
gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, they can be entertained if the gentleman from alabama would simply agree to them. so i would hope that we actually have a forthcoming unanimous consent request. i would home, mr. chairman, you'll pose it to the gentleman from alabama to see if he'll agree to bring forward a bipartisan bill. i'm glad to yield to the gentlelady from new jersey, mrs. watson coleman, for the purpose of such a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new jersey. mrs. watson coleman: i thank my colleague for yielding to me. i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background check legislation, to honor the memory of edward sotomayor jr., a victim of gun violence in orlando, at the pulse nightclub, who never ever has received a moment of action on this floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized.
2:17 pm
mr. polis: mr. chairman, would you be willing to pose the question of whether that unanimous consent request is accepted to the gentleman ontrolling the time? the speaker pro tempore: the chair understands the gentleman from alabama will not yield for any such request. mr. polis: well, mr. chair, again, i know that the previous chairman protemperature posed that -- pro tem posed that some time ago. i am not going to ask every single time but i would appreciate if the gentleman would pose that question to the gentleman whether he was willing to accept the most unanimous consent from mrs. bonnie watson coleman from new jersey to save lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado may yield to the gentleman from alabama. mr. polis: i would be happy to yield if the gentleman from alabama would be willing to accept the unanimous consent request from mrs. bonnie watson
2:18 pm
coleman. mr. byrne: all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. mr. polis: i take that as a no. sadly, we are not going to run out of victims, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, the democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background check legislation, to honor once again the memory of carolyn ann sanders, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentlelady from guam, ms. bordallo, for purposes of a unanimous consent
2:19 pm
request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from guam is recognized. ms. bordallo: thank you, i ask unanimous consent to bring up h.r. 1217, the bipartisan background check legislation, honor the memory of eddie justice, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: as previously announced, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: you know, mr. speaker, so many of us have made unanimous consent requests. i've ask the gentleman from alabama how many times we have to make this motion until the republicans end their obstructionism. i've not received an adequate answer. i was hopeful the gentleman from alabama would have accepted this unanimous request by now. i was hopeful that the chair would oppose the question to him multiple times rather than accept his very first answer. now that democratic leaders,
2:20 pm
rank and file members have all come forward in support of bringing forward this bill and breaking through the republican obstructionism. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we've been trying all day to convince the republican leadership to bring up h.r. 1217. the reason being is that for the last 3 1/2 years we've been trying to get a vote on this bipartisan, pro-second amendment bill, and in the course of that 3 1/2 years, 34,000 people have been killed in our country by someone using a gun. 34,000. that's someone's child, someone's brother, someone's loved one, someone's wife, someone's husband, someone's partner. it is absolutely shameful. we heard yesterday on the steps
2:21 pm
of the capitol a terrifying story from a woman whose 10-year-old daughter was murdered by someone with a gun, someone who couldn't legally buy a gun because he couldn't pass a background check. he was a felon, but he got around that law because he went online. he found the same gun that he could have bought -- that you could buy in a gun store online but without the requirement to pass a background check. he bought that gun, he shot that brave woman and he murdered her daughter. we can take a step today to do something about that. we can bring up the background check bill, bipartisan, pro-second amendment, 186 co-authors in this house. we can bring it up for a vote and we can pass it. that will provide the first line of defense against people who shouldn't be able to buy guns from buying guns. who are these people?
2:22 pm
criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists, those who are dangerously mentally ill. they should not be able to get their hands on a gun. now, can we stop it in every instance? no. but we know that background checks work. we know we can make a real difference. every day, every day in the united states of america, 170 felons are stopped from buying guns because of the background check program. every day in the united states of america, 50 domestic abusers are stopped from buying a gun because of the background check system. it works. we know it works. why won't we bring that bill up for a vote? that woman stood on the steps of the capitol yesterday, that was a courageous stand she took. lost her daughter, watched her daughter murdered right in front of her eyes. she herself shot, but she's out
2:23 pm
advocating for sensible, pro-second amendment, reasonable gun laws that will protect people. that's brave. what's brave about avoiding a vote on this bill? a bipartisan bill. a bill that supports the second amendment. a bill that has both democrats and republicans as co-authors. 186 co-authors. background check bill. perfectly constitutional, perfectly reasonable, supported by gun owners, both democrats and republicans, supported by 90% of the american people. 90% of the people that we collectively represent are asking us, do something about this tragedy that's taking place over 30 times a day in the streets of america. 90%. that is unbelievable support, and what has the republican
2:24 pm
leadership done? nothing. 34,000 deaths in the last 3 1/2 years that we've been trying to take up this bill. 1,182 mass shootings since we've tried to take up this bill. 30 moments of silence on the floor of this house. zero. zero votes to protect the people that we represent. zero votes to do anything second responsible amendment gun laws that will protect the people that we represent. mr. speaker, we're not asking for a lot. we're asking for a vote. we know that background checks work. your side knows it and our side knows it. one of the previous speakers on the underlying bill today said it's time to put politics aside and look at the policy.
2:25 pm
what in the world is going on with background checks? the policy is solid. they work. 170 felons a day are stopped from getting a gun because of background checks. 50 domestic abusers a day are stopped from getting a gun because of background checks. sounds like pretty solid policy to me, mr. speaker. it must be the politics on the other side that are getting in the way, and the american people do not want that to continue. 90% of the people that we represent are with us. they say criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill should not be able to get guns and that the congress, the men and women that they send to the congress of the united states of america should take responsible action to stop that from happening.
2:26 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. thompson: please, give us a vote on the background check bill. help keep our constituents afe. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order.
2:27 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, we're here on house resolution 809, house resolution 809 deals with two underlying bills. the first one is a conference report related to efforts to combat the opioid crisis that is wreaking havoc in communities across the united states. 46,000 people die. >> mr. speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from alabama yield for a parliamentary inquiry? mr. byrne: i do not. >> mr. speaker, i'm asking for a point of parliamentary
2:28 pm
inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is under recognition. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: as i was saying, 46,000 people die every year of drug overdose. that's one of the things that's covered in the bills that are underlying this resolution, and we just had over two hours of obstruction to try to keep us from considering that bill. it also contains the effort to get us to a conference on the national defense authorization act, which is the policy that defends the united states of america. if we want to keep terrorists from murdering people in the united states, we need to defeat them over there so that they don't come over here. so i would ask everybody in this house to get back focused on what this resolution is about, trying to save people who are tragically dying from drug overdose and protecting the people of the united states
2:29 pm
of america, the number one thing that we in this congress are here to do. so i'm glad we're back to that because that is important business for this house. mr. speaker, i, again, urge my colleagues to support house resolution 809 and the underlying bills. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: oh, mr. speaker. on that i request the yeas and nays. mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
2:30 pm
2:31 pm
2:32 pm
2:33 pm
2:34 pm
2:35 pm
2:36 pm
2:37 pm
2:38 pm
2:39 pm
>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of house resolution 5485, and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 794 and rule 18 rblingts the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 548. will the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ribble, kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5485 which the clerk will report
2:40 pm
the title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2017, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, july 7, 2016, a request for recorded vote on amendment number 25 printed in house report 114-639, offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, had been postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26, printed in house report number 114-639, offered by mr. duffy of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, and the member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
2:41 pm
gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment that deals with an issue that quite often comes up on the floor. it's an issue about regulation and overregulation. what this amendment would do would prohibit the administration from using any of these funds to implement a rule that would cost the economy $100 million or more. this is kind of like the rains act. the rule doesn't come back for a vote, it's just prohibited. the reason is there has been so many new rules and regulations that our economy is having a hard time keeping up. just last year alone there were 3,400 new rules. administrative rules. not from congress but from agencies. there were 80,000-plus pages of rules and regulations last year alone, and over a half a million regulation pages over this president's administration.
2:42 pm
so this is having real impact on the american economy. we have businesses that are having a more difficult time accessing loans to expand their businesses, to grow their innovation, to invest in innovation, and good paying jobs within our communities. we have an increased cost of financing business expansions and home financing because of the compliance cost of our whole financial sector. the costs have increased so much because the rules are now so complex and so many that it is trickling down to the business community and to our families that is impacting our economy. so i think it is time, at least right now, for a year, let's take a pause. let's just take a break on all the regulation. let's stop, let's reflect, let's review, and then we can have a discussion about how we move forward. this is a pause on the big
2:43 pm
regulation. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from new york. any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from new york is recognized. surprised that we still have six months to go in this congress and administration. i rise to oppose the amendment. this amendment would limit the administration's ability to propose or finalize important rules or regulations. the administration issues rules because congress has conveyed a specific responsibility to them. rather than enact every contingency into law, we rely on public comment and technical advice to make sure the laws are implemented efficiently. taking a myopic view of our nation's regulatory practices is nothing new for the majority. time and time again we have seen appropriations, riders, and authorizing legislation that
2:44 pm
only looks at the costs associated with agency rules and completely ignores the associated benefits. this amendment is no different. these proposals overlook the extensive review process that already exists for rules. for example, every new rule is already scrutinized up and down by numerous federal agencies as well as key stakeholders and the public. for economically significant rules, an agency must provide the office of management and budget with an assessment and to the extent possible quantification of the benefits and costs of the proposed rule. in accordance with executive order 12866, the agency has to justify the costs associated with the rule, and these costs are justified with benefits. something this amendment appears -- thinks does not exist.
2:45 pm
that's just false. for example, in 2015 analysis of the estimated costs and bin fits -- benefits of significant federal regulations are estimated over the last decade the benefits of these rules outweighed the economic costs by up to 9-1. this amendment would upend years of precedent and prohibit agencies from revising rules and regulations in response to changes in technology, the economy, or public demand. republicans should stop ignoring the real-world benefits of these rules to society. i oppose this amendment very strongly. i urge a nay vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chair. i would yield one minute to our chairman, mr. crenshaw. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of this and
2:46 pm
thank the gentleman for bringing this before the house. we got an administration that just loves to regulate, loves to regulate. they got rules for everything. they have no regard for the cost of the regulations, small businesses, government, states, they're all hard pressed to do this stuff and the administration tries to sidestep us by going through executive orders and presidential memorandums. all this amendment does is force the administration to seek congressional approval on the most significant of the new regulations. so it's a great amendment. i urge all the members to support it. i yield back. mr. duffy: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. mr. serrano: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from new york has the right to close. mr. duffy: ok. so thank you, mr. chair. i find it interesting that my good friend across the aisle talks about the great review process that we have by federal
2:47 pm
agencies. these are the faceless, nameless bureaucrats who make rules who have huge impacts on our families, on our businesses, on our economy. i don't know about you but people come to say and say this is a horrible rule. can you help me out, my member of congress? what i do is write a letter. we disenfranchise the american people because we don't make he laws anymore. reresource that to the regulators. let's take the power back. when we empower the congress we empower the american people to have a say in their government on the rules that have a huge impact on their lives. let's have the backbone to take tough votes, to say yes or no to these kind of rules but let's not outsource it to an agency that has no relationship to the american people, no accountability to the american people. this is saying no. let's take a stop and re-empower the congress to have
2:48 pm
a say which, again, empowers the american people. with that i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. serrano: it's amazing. i think it could be december 31 of this year and we would still be trying to find a way to make a president look like and that's what this is about. it's about this president having an administration. if it was up to some on the other side, there would be no federal agencies, there would be no federal employees, they might invent a new computer that would run a whole government and the rest of us would sit around. be careful. then somebody will suggest there should not be a congress. this should be left alone. we have agencies. we have secretaries. these agencies carry out, and when they don't carry out to our understanding, we look at the appropriations bills. there were riders upon riders upon riders to try to undo hat's being done which in many cases is excellent work.
2:49 pm
this is more of the same. it may come as a shock to you. the president is still around for six more months and we're around for six more months and those administers are around for six more months so -- administrators are around for six more months so we better get along for six more months. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i rise pursuant to house resolution 794 to offer an amendment en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments enclock. the clerk: en bloc number 1 consisted of amendments 47, 48, 64, 6, 59, 60, 61, 6 , 63,
2:50 pm
, 66, 67 and 69 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. crenshaw of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw, and the gentleman from new york, mr. serrano, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. chairman. the majority and minority have agreed to these amendments en bloc. they are noncontroversial amendments that affect a variety of topics such as whistleblower protection, property disposal and reducing drug trafficking. additionally, the sponsors of the amendments have agreed to consideration of these amendments en bloc. i urge adoption of the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: ok. this is going to be an historic
2:51 pm
moment so let's pay attention. i rise in support of the en bloc amendments. i appreciate the chairman's inclusion of amendments with democratic members. i urge a yes vote on the en bloc amendment and i think it's a fine example of what we can do every so often, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i thank the chairman and the ranking member because i rise in support of a bipartisan amendment that i offered with my colleague, mrs. dingell of michigan, which helps combat the opioid and heroin epidemic by increasing funding for the high intensity drug trafficking programs by $2 million. across the country, officials are doing important work to curb trafficking and bring law enforcement and community stakeholders together to stem the tide of drugs like heroin
2:52 pm
and fentanyl. providing these additional resources will allow for even more local partnerships to fight drug trafficking. i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: mr. chairman, i have no further speakers, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields. the gentleman from new york is recognized. back.rrano: i yield the chair: the gentleman from new york yields. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i just wanted to only the question, the speaker we had showed up. the chair: the en bloc mendments are agreed to.
2:53 pm
it's now in order to consider amendment number 28 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. garrett: good afternoon. mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to prohibit a -- an amendment that would prohibit having agendas -- refocus the securities and exchange commission on its important three-fold policy mission, to protect investors, maintain orderly and fair markets and to facilitate capital formation. you see, strong and efficient communication between the boards and management of public
2:54 pm
companies and their shareholders is foundational to a healthy capital markets and to maintaining the ability of companies to innovate and to create jobs for everyone. fortunately, recent studies have shown that communications between the investors and the companies have actually improved over recent years and shareholders are now increasingly easily able to eeffectuate change. in -- effectuate change. it rose from 6% of the s&p 500 companies all the way up to 50% in 2015. in many ways this is a private market at work as investors demand the boards and management be more responsive to their requests for how to improve the company and their long-term performance. we know a number of regulatory hurdles still need to be overcome to improve the proxy of the hich remains one
2:55 pm
primary ways in which public companies communicate between the two. back in 2010, the s.e.c. put forth a number of ideas which is so-called proxy plumbing concept release which explored various ways to improve the transparency of corporate systems here in the united states. importantly, the proxy plumbing released also discussed at length the importance of getting retail investors more involved in the process. but for a variety of reasons, retail investors have for years been disenfranchised by the current proxy system and they rarely exercise the rights of shareholders to engage improving the way the companies work. and unfortunately, for nearly six years the s.e.c. has and maybe not surprisingly allowed this proxy plumbing release to languish, has chosen not to act on it on even some of the most basic and noncontroversial parts of it. but then last year out of the blue s.e.c. chair white has directed the s.e.c. staff to develop a rulemaking for what is known as universal proxy
2:56 pm
ballots. you ask what are universal proxy ballots? good question. put simply, while they sound quite benign, they are a means for special interest groups to easily then nominate their preferred candidates to a company's board and that would fundamentally change things. it would fundamentally change the way in which public companies' directors are elected here in the u.s. you see, this is an initiative that's been pushed for years by insiders and special interests. it's also been pushed by a number of activist pension funds many which have been horribly managed themselves and find themselves with unfunded liabilities that threaten the retirement security of the private sector workers over which they were responsible. the adoption of a universal proxy rule would only increase the likelihood of high-profile proxy fights at public companies which would serve to distract then the employees and management of these companies were carrying out the core mission. more importantly, it would make the vast majority of
2:57 pm
shareholders, including the smaller retail investor, they would have to pay the price for the costs associated for these big fights. and so finally, it's unfair to those investors who would not wish to carry the water for those special interests. side from policy concerns, the question has been how they've been handling. they recently missed the rulemaking deadline for yet again another congressional mandate that simplifies and modernizes our current corporate disclosures. this is an initiative that has bipartisan support and would help boost the confidence by making quarterly and annual reports more effective for the small investor by reducing some of the unnecessary and the not material disclosures within them. unfortunately, once again, the s.e.c. chose to ignore what congress mandated and instead prioritized rulemaking over things such things that universal proxy i mentioned i would with benefit a minority of insider special interests over a vast majority of public
2:58 pm
shareholders. so this rulemaking should be nowhere on the s.e.c.'s agenda, and my amendment would disallow the s.e.c. from using the finite resources and i urge all my colleagues to support -- mr. crenshaw: if the gentleman will yield? mr. garrett: i'll yield. mr. crenshaw: i just want to thank the gentleman for bringing this. this keeps the s.e.c. on track. it gets them focused on their core mission, investor protection, capital formation. i thank the gentleman for bringing this before us and say a yes vote. mr. garrett: you said it more succinctly than i did in the last four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: it's amazing to hear the other side protecting the right of the s.e.c. to do its work when the budget and the bill shows just the opposite. i claim the time in opposition and i rise in opposition to the amendment. this amendment is yet another attack on the independence and efficacy of the securities and
2:59 pm
exchange commission. it also represents an attack on shareholders. when special interests cannot win questions put to their shareholders, they seek protection from congress to change the rules of the game. specifically, this amendment would prohibit the s.e.c. from proposing, implementing or enforcing any regulatory action on the issue of universal proxy ballots. these universal proxy ballots would let shareholders vote for whomever they wish to represent them on the corporate boards. this is a vital consideration cases board some control -- in which in some cases board control is at stake. it would make for a cumbersome process. there is a two-tear system. shareholders in attendance have meetings, particularly in proxy contests, have the amendment to
3:00 pm
receive a legal ballot that allows them to pick and choose among all of the candidates who are duly nominated. shareholders who are not in attendance, who don't have that ability and typically can only choose from among nominees that are on a ballot but not both. this limits shareholders' choice. many advocates and investors, including the council of institutional investors, have written to the s.e.c. and asked them to address this issue. . likewise, the s.e.c. investor advisory committee tasked with the responsibility under dodd-frank to advise the s.e.c. on issues of investor protection called upon the s.e.c. to take action on this issue. corporate governance is only effective when boards are
3:01 pm
elected in a free and fair manner. the s.e.c. steps should take steps in cases where share holders have no ability to split their ticket and to vote for a combination of share holder and management nominees. this amendment would curtail the s.e.c.'s existing authority in this regard to the detriment of share holders and corporate accountability. i urge opposition. and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman has the only time remaining. the gentleman from new jersey, his time has expired. mr. serrano: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it.
3:02 pm
-- the yeas have it. mr. serrano: call for a vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 29 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. garrett: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from new jersey and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. . garrett: under dodd-frank,
3:03 pm
the financial stability oversight council has the power designate financial institutions and it doesn't mean too big to fail but there is no implicit guarantee. in the real world the federal government will never allow it to fail. it is nothing less than the government's stamp of approval. simply put, the designation is a guarantee that taxpayers will be on the hook for the bailouts of wall street. first mega banks designated as too big to fail, they are claiming that insurance companies and asset managers should be designated. thewords and actions belies true purpose so to grow the financial sector. so i'm offering this amendment to prevent the s.e.c. and the treasury and the chairman of the
3:04 pm
s.e.c. both voting members from designating additional nonbank companies. when they become this designation, they operate under a new system that spares them from the cost and consequences that other regular companies face. so over time the combination of this protective status will sap the energy and competitiveness of this company. government will corrupt the private sector which will corrupt the government. these companies serve an important counterbalance. you see, dodd-frank, was built on a foundation of sand, a foundation that mistakenly views the financial crisis caused by the greed of large financial institution and intrusive regulation would have prevented the crisis. so it should come as no
3:05 pm
surprise, dodd-frank has re-instilled the force of law. it is not working as it was intended and even with the absolute and unaccountable powers, it is a faulty premise. mr. chairman, we must prevent them from continuing to dig a deeper hole and get wall street off the backs and out of the pockets of the american taxpayer. i thank the chairman. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment and i urge everyone to support it. it is there to mitigate risk and not looking for people to designate. in our underlying bill before you can designate a nonbank, you have to give them the right to cure the problem. this takes it one step further and say why do we designate nonbanks as significantly important financial
3:06 pm
institutions? we ought to focus where the focus ought to be and just leave the nonbanks out of this. i urge support of this amendment. mr. garrett: i urge all members to support the legislation. reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition -- i'm sorry, for what purpose does the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: this is becoming a habit. we want to keep wall street in its place. i wish you would help us with empowering the s.e.c. to do so. i rise in opposition to the amendment. dodd-frank does not any institution as too big to fail. dodd-frank provides regulators with the tools to address the
3:07 pm
risk posed by large, complex financial institutions. both banks and nonbanks alike, this is crucial to addressing the regulatory gaps we witnessed leading up to the 2008 crisis. too many nonbanks were in the shadows and escaped critical regulation that could have prevented the crisis. for example, regulators have assigned a.i.g.. recall that the arm of a.i.g. was speculating in derivative products such as credit default swaps leading up to the 2008 crisis. by the fall of 2007, a.i.g. products had begun a tailspin that sparked the worst financial crisis. by may 2009, various programs of
3:08 pm
support from the federal reserve and the treasury amounted to more than 180 billion in bailouts to the company. other nonbank broker deals like lay man brothers were at the center of toxic assets central to the crisis and necessitated the need for a wall street bailout. the amendment would stop lay man brothers from regulation. hedge funds were key in the distribution and structuring of toxic assets again. the garrett amendment would stop our banking regulators from providing the heightened regulation of their operations. the garrett amendment is an amendment to roll back the critical rules of the road we passed in the wake of the debatest financial crisis since the great depression. large financial institutions are
3:09 pm
fighting the designation because they know that being identified as one means being subject to regulation above and beyond current requirements, including living wills that will help regulators plan how to wind down the funds in orderly fashion in the event they become insolvent. the heightened regulation includes the ability that regulation to stress test the entity to see if they can withstand financial distress, demand more capital. noted in c chairman congressional testimony after the passage of dodd-frank that quote, many institutions are vigorously lobbying against such a designation and that being designated will in no way confer a competitive advantage by
3:10 pm
annointing an institution as too big to fail. the capacity to designate nonbanks is critical to the u.s. financial system for appropriate regulatory oversight. the designation process already has in place multiple procedural safeguards and opportunities for appeal. therefore i urge my colleagues to oppose the garrett amendment, which does much more harm than we would think. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. minutes.eman has 1 1/2 mr. garrett: the harm that has curred by dodd-frank, one, giving the regulator to put
3:11 pm
financial institutions and nonfinancial institutions and their problems on the back of the american taxpayer and you and i may have to reach in our pocket and bail out wall street for their bad decisions. that should end now. the larger issue is the failure of dodd-frank, it has had a debilitating effect on the verall economy and has incentives in the marketplace which is bad for the economy, which translates to less job growth, less jobs for the american public and less jobs for my neighbor and yours as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from new york has one minute remaining. mr. serrano: the other side doesn't like obamacare, doesn't
3:12 pm
like dodd-frank, doesn't like the s.e.c. maybe i'm going to try an amendment on the bailout of the car industry, the automobile industry to see if they like that one because that helped a lot of folks. this amendment is misguided, the gentleman is a good man who honestly believes in what he is doing, but it's only going to hamper the ability of the s.e.c. to do its work and we do that enough in this bill to be left alone and i urge a vote against the amendment and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed.
3:13 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 30 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 30 printed in house report 114-639, offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise teed to offer an amendment with the intent of prohibiting the use of funds to pay performance award to any senior executive employee within the i.r.s. under the director, i.r.s. officials have led a coordinated effort about the targeting of innocent americans based on political beliefs rather than
3:14 pm
cleaning up this rogue agency, he has doubled down. under his watch, the i.r.s. destroyed 24,000 emails from lerner and failed to comply with the congressional subpoena. he made a series of false statements under oath at multiple hearings. cost kinen said it turned over the emails. the treasury inspector general uncovered more than 1,000 emails that the i.r.s. tried to hide. the recent transgression go perpetrated are not only disgraceful but border on corrupt. the trust americans once had has been destroyed. in july, 2013, acting commissioner of the i.r.s. sought to eliminate bonuses for union employees and executives, sending an email that stated and i quote, i do not believe there
3:15 pm
should be performance awards for employees, managers or directives. the director tried attempts and in february of 2014, he announced his decision to pay out bonuses in order to improve quote, employee morale. in april, 2014, the treasury inspector general reported 1,100 i.r.s. employees with delinquent tax returns received bonuses. the same investigation found and i quote 2,800 i.r.s. employees facing disciplinary actions received $2.8 million. the office of personnel management reported in fiscal year 2014, 61.5% of senior executives within the treasury department received performance awards. lawlessness should not be awarded. this amendment has if he can you
3:16 pm
tate of accountability and change by prohibiting bonuses for senior executive service employees within the i.r.s. it is unconnable that officials within the i.r.s. received $100,000, committing perjury and disposing of hard drives to stymie the investigation and roviding poor levels of. voting in favor of my amendment thats passed the house with strong bipartisan support. the council for citizens against government waste supports this amendment and freedom works is key voting in favor of this amendment. once the i.r.s. can prove it will hold rogue employees accountable, i'll cease my efforts to prohibit these awards. i thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on committee and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
3:17 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: i'd like to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: i'm going to start backwards here. we're not going to call for a vote on this. the reason for it is when people read your amendment, they're going to realize someone didn't write it wrect -- write it correctly. it doesn't speak to the i.r.s. it actually allows for this cut to be across the board on the whole bill. which would make our chairman not very happy. i want to -- i'm interested in my chairman's happiness. i rise to oppose the amendment. this amendment would prevent agencies under this bill from giving employees in the senior executive services bonuses. this seems to be ablee aimed at the i.r.s. -- aimed at the i.r.s.. but it would have the same effect across the board. no one is saying that poor performance should be rewarded. but this takes one class of
3:18 pm
employees and punishes all of of their rdless individual merits. it will cause us to lose good employees, which is not what we need. i realize members on the other side of the aisle are eager to get their kicks in against the i.r.s. they even put them in bills where they're not only ones in the bill. i argue that would be -- this amendment would have unintended consequences. rather than somehow making the i.r.s. or any other agency better, this is likely to make it worse. this amendment is going to simply ensure that we have less accomplished employees at the i.r.s. and at other government agencies. it would have a negative effect on recruitment and retention of highly talented senior executives necessary to ensure tax administration and other agency duties. it may also conflict with atutory requirements for s.e.s. bonuses that redesigned
3:19 pm
to reward strong performance. i owe poles the amendment, it is not well targeted or well thought out. i think we also should know that this is one agency that has been reduced in its employee number by the largest in the last few years. i'm really -- i really don't understand what this is trying to accomplish. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: let me now ask the gentleman a question. i will yield you 15 seconds to respond. if you disagree with my amendment and feel that it will have unintended consequences, name the agencies in the bill that you think should be allowed to doll out lavish bonuses to their senior executives. mr. serrano: i think that if -- mr. gosar: i'm asking the gentleman, name me an agency
3:20 pm
dowling should not be out -- mr. serrano: my -- with all due respect. i'm not answering your question. my role is not to tell what you you should have put in the bill. mr. gosar: reclaiming my time if he can't give me an answer. reclaiming my time. i think most hardworking americans would agree that senior bureaucrats with the bureau of customer financial protection, the federal labor relations authority, and the federal communications commission should not be the receiving -- be receiving lavish bonuses when we're $19 trillion in the hole. as i mentioned on the outset, the intent of this amendment is to prohibit the use of funds in this act to pay a performance award to any senior executive employee within the i.r.s. when the staff realized the actual language in the amendment could do -- be far more reaching than intended, we attempted to work with the committee to correct this owe curnls. one thing that this house agree -- occurrence. one thing this haas house agrees on is that senior executives within the i.r.s. should not be collecting bonuses and this amendment prohibits exactly that occurrence. i urge adoption of this
3:21 pm
amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. serrano: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from new york has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. serrano: ill be brief -- i'll be brief. i don't want to read into your statement, sir, that you were trying to get the chairman not to notice that you were writing the amendment he disease likes the most across -- dislikes the most, across the board, that we both dislike the most. i think that what you're talking about is something that in many cases has to be to be looked at -- has to be looked at. but also to keep good employees, you have to find ways to reward them. this agency, through the hits it takes, has lost the one you intend according to your comments. the i.r.s. has lost 18,000 in a couple of years. since 2010, i believe. 18,000 employees. now we go further here. secondly, i'm glad to see that
3:22 pm
you spoke about other agencies, which means you must have read the amendment a little closer. i still think it's not a good amendment. i still think it should be defeated and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the members on both sides are reminded to direct their comments directly to the chair and not to each other. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 31 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i have an amendment, 31, at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in house report 114-639
3:23 pm
offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer a commonsense amendment. the gosar-bridenstine-duncan-gohmer t amendment prohibits funds within this act from being used in contravention of federal immigration law for sanctuary city policies. the concept of sanctuary city policies is in direct opposition to the rule of law in our constitution. article 1, section , clause 4 gives congress clear jurisdiction on immigration matters. a nation of laws must enforce established law, not seek ways to skirt around it. sanctuary cities defy federal immigration statutes by harboring untold numbers of illegal immigrants and providing safe havens for criminals, many of whom are violent offenders. our amendment prohibits the use of funds which are appropriated by this act from being used in
3:24 pm
contravention of section 642-a of the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996. this federal law prohibits sanctuary policies that prevent or obstruct government and law enforcement officials from sharing information regarding a person's immigration status with the immigration and naturalization service. despite being the law of the land, more than 200 state and municipal injures dicks across the country have established -- jurisdictions across the country have established policies that directly violate the law. the shocking case of kate steinle in san francisco in twist revealed the danger sanctuary cities pose to our republic. just over a year ago on july 1, 015, she was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times. san francisco authorities were asked to detain sanchez until he could be turned over to immigration and customs enforcement officials. the city declined and held sanchez in jail for less than a month on a 20-year-old drug charge before releasing him on april 15, 2015.
3:25 pm
less than two months before he killed steinle. sadly, kate's tragic murder's not alone. between 2010 and 2014, criminal aliens were released by d.h.s., went on to commit 124 homicide-related offenses across the country. let's not forget the many others who have been killed by criminal aliens. jerry braswell sr. and jerry braswell jr. of north carolina. danny countryman of oregon. san dmbing ra leavey of washington, d.c. -- sandra levy of washington, d.c. kevin will of texas. christopher buddy roe of california. jamil shaw of california. albert john mike of utah and rant roddenbeck of california. the federation of american immigration reform supports this amendment stating, and i quote, gosar amendment 31 addresses a critical public safety problem and send as clear message to sanctuary city jurisdictions that their dangerous policies are unacceptable. end of quote.
3:26 pm
numbers u.s.a. key voting in support of this amendment and has stated, and i quote, the gosar amendment is a targeted approach to sanctuary policies, end of quote. i would like now to yield one minute to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the gosar amendment, to come off the funding to sanctuary cities through the financial appropriations bill. when i came to congress in 2011, i quickly co-sponsored the enforce the law for sanctuary cities act. and i've worked to hold these governments accountable ever since. here's why. we all know that for years now, congress has ceded more and more power to the executive branch. but less talked about is the fact that for just as long congress has allowed more than 200 state and municipal jurisdictions to do the same exact thing and this is just plain wrong. sanctuary cities thumb their nose at congress, they ignore federal law, and they endanger the lives of those of their
3:27 pm
citizens. while i urge passage of this amendment, i also believe that we must act by passing my bill to stop dangerous sanctuary cities act, which takes a broad-based approach to defunding sanctuary city policies once and for all. i thank my friend, mr. gosar, for his leadership on this issue. i support his amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gosar: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: mr. speaker, to speak against the bill, in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: thank you, mr. speaker. this is one of those moments where you realize that an amendment is put forth not to deal with an issue, but rather to put it on the floor so you can discuss it. first of all, this is not the place to discuss immigration policy. i can tell that you we would both agree that our immigration policy is broken, our program is broken, it has to be fixed. here's the problem and one that
3:28 pm
i've been arguing for years and a lot of other people are doing for years and lately, and that is that law enforcement officials for the most part will tell you that regardless of whether we deal with the immigration issue or not, they need to speak to the local people and get information so they can do their job. if they are seeing -- seen as agents of the immigration department, if you will, the people won't speak to them who are here undocumented. they won't speak to them. so they're faced with a very difficult situation. they're saying, you guys are supposed to handle -- you guys and ladies are supposed to handle immigration reform. do it. take care of it. do it in the way you want. take care of that. in the meantime, let me do my job. so a guy steals a car. and three people in the neighborhood know who stole it. they go up. if they think that that police officer is also enforcing
3:29 pm
immigration policy, they're not going to talk to them. that's just a fact of life. you may think you're doing a great thing, but you're actually hurting law enforcement and the job they have to do. what we need to do is have an immigration policy that speaks about all the issues that are covered by immigration policy. and secondly, a lot of this, we hear from the other side about local control. local control. local control. well, some cities have decided that they're sanctuary cities. that they're going to deal with the immigration issue different than other people deal in other places. less mean, less aggressive and being nasty, more understanding of a problem, rather than just saying that people come here to rip us off. we have to keep all those things in mind as we look at this amendment. and this amendment should be defeated. lastly, this bill, your
3:30 pm
amendment talks about cutting unds, the gentlewoman talked about cutting funds. to our knowledge there's nothing in here that funds anything having to do with sanctuary cities, for that matter, having to do with immigration. so wrong bill, wrong place, wrong time, wrong idea. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has no time remaining. mr. serrano: he has no time snr the chair: he has no time. question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. serrano: we would like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on
3:31 pm
the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guinta: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. guinta of new hampshire. the chair: the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. guinta and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new hampshire. egypt jint in march of 2013 the consumer financial protection burro issued flawed and inaccurate guidance for auto dealers to discount the vehicle purchases. whether a person seeks to buy an automobile, r.v. or motorcycle,
3:32 pm
consumers rely on their neighborhood auto dealer to provide them the best possible rate. however, this faulty and unstudied guidance could increase the cost for consumers ultimately make it -- making it more die to purchase an automobile. we introduced h.r. 1737 which passed the house with an overwhelming bipartisan and veto hoof proof vote, 332-96. my bill along with 13 bipartisan letters sent by congress over he last three years gave the cfpb to fix the faulty guidance but unfortunately they insist on a faulty and has refused to change course on the model of the department of justice consent order that is supported by auto dealers and lenders. congress has given the cfpb to
3:33 pm
correct and reissue their guidance and would take into account consumers. my amendment would leave no doubt that either the cfpb will fix this problem or congress will do it. i would like to thank chairman crenshaw and chairman hensarling for their support and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and i yield to the gentleman from, mr. crenshaw. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for bringing this before the body. this is another example of the cfpb trying to overregulating. i urge a yes vote. i yield back. mr. guinta: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: this amendment prohibits the cfpb for enforce
3:34 pm
ping any guidance related to indirect auto lending. this is met as a shot across the bow to the agency telling them not to bring fair lending cases against indirect automobile finance companies but on a practical level, the amendment will invite confusion into the industry. after all, this amendment does nothing to address lenders' obligation under the equal opportunity act. the amendment strikes guidance that the agency has provided to those lenders, providing clarity on how to meet their obligations under the law. discrimation in my finance market is unacceptable and we know that discrimation is still live and well in indirect auto lending. in the three settlements against al i'd, fifth thirt bank and
3:35 pm
honda motor, it secured $162 million in penalties finding that minority borrowers paid more than $200 over the life of a car -- more than borrowers even when controlling the credit worthyness. and the gipedance that this amendment nullifies helps lenders monitor and respond to potentially discriminatory auto lending practices. it is something that we should not be allowing and this amendment tries to undo a lot of work that we are doing and a lot of work should be done in the future and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized. mr. guinta: discrimation, there is no place for it. based on information from the
3:36 pm
cfpb, c.b.o. said it would not prepare a replacement bulletin. that's because the bill would not affect the underlining statutes or regulations, the bureau can continue to enforce the equal credit opportunity act and i remind the gentleman that the minority report also stated that this would not negatively impact the act. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york has three minutes. mr. serrano: i would like to minutes to ms. waters from california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: you just described as a shot across the bow to the
3:37 pm
consumer financial protection bureau and you are right. they are telling them not to bring fair lending cases against indirect automobile finance cases. this amendment is about protecting wrong doers who gouge ethnic minorities with high markups on car loans even when their credit scores and financial backgrounds are the same as whites. the amendment is about protecting companies like allied financial, fifth third bank, honda and toyota credit, all of whom had to enter settlements with the bureau over their indirect auto loan practices. the cfpb has secured $162 million in borrower relief and penalties. and in their investigations, the bureau found that minority borrowers pay more than $200
3:38 pm
over the life of a car loan than white borrowers even when controlling the borrower's credit worthiness. they are less likely to be aware of interest markups. according to the center for responsible lending, borrowers were unaware that dealers have the ability to mark up their interest rate and the car being sold, but nearly 75% of african- american were unaware. the guidance that this amendment seeks to nullify outline steps that lenders can take to protect borrowers from potentially discriminatory lending practices that occur without the borrower being aware of it occurring. we know what the intent of this amendment is, but on a practical level, the amendment will only invite confusion into the
3:39 pm
industry. a after all this amendment does nothing to address lenders' obligation under the equal opportunity and only strikes guidance that the cfpb has provided to those lenders providing clarity on how to meet obligations under the law. the issue has come up before, but no matter where you stood on h.r. 1737, a bill we considered last year, you should be against this amendment. to the members on the opposite of the aisle, you are supposed to have a poverty agenda and you claim you are taking a new direction and want to reduce poverty and deal with the problems of minorities and people in rural communities, et cetera. this is what keeps poverty in these communities. we have these slick dealers of all kinds, whether automobile lenders or payday loans or auto loans, all this stuff coming
3:40 pm
into these communities and taking advantage of the most vulnerable people. you say you want to help but then you come in and attack the consumer financial protection bureau. you hate the consumer financial protection bureau. you want to do everything to undermine their authority. so thank you very much, mr. speaker and members, please. the chair: members on both sides are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair, not each other. the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized. mr. guinta: the bureau's guidance was issued without public notice or comment or any study of its impact on consumers or small businesses and i want to thank the ranking member for authoring the minority report that states and i quote, h.r. 1737 does not regulate entities under the equal opportunity credit act or the cfpb's examination or enforcement
3:41 pm
active pursuant to ecoa. this is nothing more than a continuation of h.r. 1737. i also want to repeat my thanks to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, mr. perlmutter, for helping me with a successful vote in favor of that bill. amendment is almost identical to it and i would appreciate the ongoing support on behalf of consumers not just in new hampshire but all across the country and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york's time has expired. mr. guinta: i would thank the chair, mr. crenshaw, as well as mr. hensarling, those members who voted in favor, 332-96 on h.r. 1737 and i urge a yes vote on this amendment. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
3:42 pm
new hampshire. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new hampshire will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 33 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. hudson of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. hudson: thank you, mr. chairman. i urge my colleagues to support
3:43 pm
my amendment that prohibits future regulations on the obama administration. this is a commonsense step to system. regulatory one message i continue to hear, people are tired of an unaccountable government that oversteps its bounds. in april, i was successful for the e.p.a. to withdraw a regulation that would harm the auto racing. i spoke with one worker who told me if this one regulation would have gone through, he would have lost his entire livelihood. that is unacceptable. the problem is agencies have moved beyond their constitutional authority and washington bureaucrats are accountable to no one. they show little regard of the new rules on working families, on people looking for jobs and
3:44 pm
our economy in general. from regulatory gut punches like obamacare and ever expanding e.p.a. rules, stacking one on top of the other often before the previous rule is enacted, regulations under this president have would he haven a web so large.-- complex and it means lower wages and more families struggling. at its core, overregulation is a form of self-taxation. working families and working people are paying the price for every new rule that comes out of washington. i recognize some regulations are necessary, but we need a regulatory system that is transparent, one that balances the needs of our public safety and strength with jobs and benefits americans not big government, big labor and big business. time to charter a pro-growth
3:45 pm
course away from burdensome regulations so americans can get back to work and this amendment is one solution. it will prevent the president from unleashing a storm of regulations in an attempt to cement his legacy in the last months of his administration. i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek time? mr. serrano: claim the time in opposition. we'll wait for mrs. clinton to become president before any new regulation would take effect. the other side is always complaining about regulations. every so often we should step back and instead of knocking
3:46 pm
our country so much, kind of pay atext to what some of those regular -- pay attention to what some of those regulations have done. sure, we have regulations. we have regulations about conditions in coal mines. is that bad? we have regular lyings about the water we drink. is that bad? we have regulations about the air we breathe. those regulations make us different from other countries, where there's no respect for the population and no protection. there's a regulation that says you have to go to school up to a certain age. that's great. there's a regulation that says no children can be working in factories or in a garment industry in new york. that's wonderful. and so i'm not afraid of regulations. overregulating, ok, we can discuss that. but that side wants no regulation, wants a computer to run the country and i keep claiming i want to see who's going to invent that computer. here we go again.
3:47 pm
just talking about overregulating. and you have questions. this provision, for instance, would also be in direct conflict with other statutory requirements. for example, e.p.a. is required to finalize annual renewal fuel standards regulations by november 30 of each year. i'm sure there are others. this is widely overbroad and could prevent significant regulatory actions in emergency situations. like disaster relief. when required by court order or when required by statute. for another example, the alcohol and tobacco tax and and treasury will not be able to publish implementing regulations relating to taxation of crieder and removal -- cider and removal of alcohol producers and numerous other rules such as a final rule reducing formula burdens on industry for specially denatured spirits and
3:48 pm
in letely denatured alcohol the moderate stage of various alcohol. it's easy to say, no more regulations from october 1 through january 21. let the next president deal with it. you're rolling the dice, assuming you think you know who's going to be president. that's ok. i can roll it along with you. the problem is that this is not the way to go. the disease like of the obama administration -- dislike of the obama administration by the other side is so evident, especially on amendments like this, where it's directed. at least to your credit you had the honesty and -- in you to say the obama administration, you called it by name, and i respect you for that. other than that, i don't have a lot of respect for your amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from north arolina is recognized.
3:49 pm
the gentleman from new york has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. hudson: i thank the chairman and i thank my colleague for his comments. i do agree that we don't need to eliminate all regulations. and that's certainly not what we're seeing here. we are seeing from october 1 until january 21 we don't need new regulations. with all due respect, i think we've had plenty. the amount of regulations that have come out of this administration, this obama administration, has been astoundsing. if you compare the amount of regulations to all other administrations combined, it's astoundsing. and they effect every aspect of -- astounding. and they effect every aspect of people's lives. the chairman mentioned regulations in the past that have been good. regulating coal mines. i'm schauer that there were good regular -- i'm sure that there were good regulations on coal mines but we're at point now where this administration is going to make coal lines illegal. the -- mines illegal. the chairman also mentioned regulating water and air. we all agree we want clean air
3:50 pm
and clean water. when this administration issues a clean air regulation or new rule, and eastbound before it goes into effect -- even before it goes into effect, they issue the next one. to reduce the levels even lower, to levels that even experts agree aren't necessary. in fact, members of the other party, in our hearing in the energy and commerce committee, testified to the fact that the air today is so much cleaner than it was before. science proves that. in north carolina we've got 20% reduction in the coarse particulate matter, in the ozone in our air. and we've made great progress. but to say we're going to continue to lower that level, even before the science is in to determine what the effect of the last regulation was, is simply going too far. because what that means is, in places like montgomery county, north carolina, where we desperately need jobs, you can't have a new job. you can't have a new road. you can't have a new water sewer line. you can't add any new manufacturing jobs. that'sry dick lowls.
3:51 pm
this administration -- that's ridiculous. this administration has had 7 1/2 years and they have used that time wisely, if their goal was to overregulate the american people. all i'm saying is, in the last few months of this administration, let's put the brakes on it. as my colleague mentioned, we don't know who the next president's going to be. and it may be someone from the other party. but that new president will have won a mandate and that new president can then address the regulatory scheme and i look forward to having that debate. but as far as this administration, the votes are in. we've gotten our results. this administration has gone way too far with regulation and so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to put on the brakes and say, 7 1/2 years, enough is enough. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from new york has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. serrano: thank you. you know, it's amazing. many of us, and i'm not suggesting you, get elected to congress and we're in awe of
3:52 pm
the fact that we come from where we come and we get to congress. i'm in that category. i'm very bless -- blessed. there are others who come to congress and it seems that they come to congress to undo congress and undo the government. we are the greatest nation on earth. how did we get that way? obviously the fighting and the working spirit of the american people. but it was also the protection placed on the american people. the fact that children were told, you have to go to school. the fact that we try to get the best water. we spoke before about age gration issue. i don't call that a problem. why does it exist? because people still know that we're the greatest country on earth. and they want to come here. so a lot of what you see as government intrusion, a lot of what you see as government being a pain could actually be some of the reasons that we became the great country we are. we just didn't let people go on their own and hurt each other
3:53 pm
and so on. we had people elected by the people to say, hey, hold on, why don't we do this, why don't we do that, why don't we curtail this, why don't we grow that. and we continue to do that. we disagree. i think we're great because we have certain rules to follow and we follow them well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 34 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. huizenga: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in house report 114-639
3:54 pm
offered by mr. huizenga of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. section 1502 of the dodd-frank act requires the securities and exchange commission to issue a rule mandating the public companies disclose whether the minerals they use benefit armed groups in the democratic republic of congo, also known as the d.r.c., and its nine neighboring countries. conflict minerals refer to 10 things which have been used in a huge variety of products from cell phones, cosmetics, jewelry, chemicals, foot wear, including auto parts made right in west michigan. simply put, section 1502 produced a rule that has failed everyone and my amendment would therefore suspend its implementation for one year. the people of the central -- of central africa don't don't want it. president obama's own s.e.c. chair doesn't want it.
3:55 pm
parts of the rule have been judged by the courts to violate the first amendment rights and businesses throughout america are burdened with a reporting task that even the department of commerce has admitted is impossible. recently the european union apparently sobered by our own experience in the u.s. rejected this approach to conflict minerals. it's easy to see why they did so. as we debate this amendment, let's be clear on what this isn't about. it is not about who cares about the polite of the congolese more. a population that continues to suffer from violence at the hands of rebel groups. the question is whether a window dressing disclosure rule at the s.e.c. is the way to address this problem. if we truly care about peace in central africa, then good intentions aren't enough. we have to demand results, mr. speaker. sadly, we've gotten the wrong kind of results from section 1502 and recently i spoke with some missionaries from my own denomination who confirmed this. however, let's start by highlighting the voices of those who too often go unheard in this debate. the voices of the africans
3:56 pm
themselves. without objection, i'd like to incertificate into the record an open letter from -- insert into the record an open letter from leaders and experts who wrote, in demandsing, quote, in demanding companies prove the origin of minerals sourced in the eastern d.r.c. or neighboring countries before systems able to provide such proof have been put in place, conflict mineral activists and resultant legislation, particularly section 1502 of the dodd-frank act, inadvertently incentivized buyers on the sb international market to pull out of the region altogether and source their minerals elsewhere. as a result the conflict minerals movement has yet to lead to meaningful improvement on the ground and has a number of unintended and damaging consequences, closed quote. according to a "the washington post" article titled how a well intentioned u.s. law left congolese miners jobless, section 1502 set off a chain of events that has propelled millions of miners and their families deeper into poverty. with many miners forced to find other ways to survive, including by joining armed
3:57 pm
groups. this article goes on to share a story of a congolese teenager who actually joined a militia because mining could no longer put food on his table much -- table. if we were earning money more from mining, i would not have to have enter the militia, he said. i ask my colleagues to remember the congolese who aren't alone in their suffering. the s.e.c. rule applies to nine other african nations as if they were all a single country. section 1502 treats over 230 million people living in 10 distinct nations as one undifferentiated group. little wonder that africans themselves take issue with washington's one-size-fits-all mentality. in testimony to the financial services committee last november, rwanda's minister of state for mining noted that despite rwanda's actions to strengthen due diligence in its mining sector and despite the fact that rwanda has no armed groups in the first place, quote, the region has now suffered from an africa-free, not a conflict-free, mineral situation. section 1502 has caused the de
3:58 pm
facto biocot by companies in the u.s. and much of europe -- boycott by companies in the u.s. and much of -- much of europe on our resources, he said. this has largely impacted the livelyhood of thousands of miners and their families, closed quote. the words of africans harmed by this rule should be enough forever to us suspend it. if we need more evidence of 1502's failures, let's look at hard numbers. a g.a.o. study found last year that not a single company is a could determine whether its minerals supported armed groups. a professor at the university of utah law school has come to a similar conclusion after reviewing 1,300 filings under section 1502. additionally, i wrote to s.e.c. chair wright asking for a detailed description of the funds and hours ex pended to date on the mineral disclosure rule. the s.e.c. response letter, from july of 2010 to march 16 of 2015, the s.e.c. spent over 21,000 hours and approximately
3:59 pm
$2.7 million on this particular provision, which the s.e.c. has little to no experience with. given the lack of benefits from this rule, it's no wonder s.e.c. chair has said, and i quote, seeking to improve safety in mines for workers or to end terrible human rights atrocities in the d.r.c. are compelling objectives which as a citizen i wholeheartedly share. but as chair of the s.e.c., i must question as a policy matter using the federal securities laws and the s.e.c.'s power of mandatory disclosure to accomplish these rules goals isn't it. the i agree with the s.e.c. chair and i appreciate the support of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i'd like to recognize -- yield to the gentleman from washington, the full five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. chairman.
4:00 pm
thank you to the gentleman for yielding. this amendment is just another devious republican attempt to undermine efforts to end the decade-long scourge of rape and murder in congo. i've been in congo many times. i served in the state department, i know the area. . your statement that there's no company able to do this is absolutely incorrect. there's a company in coral gables, florida, they certify every bit of their metal is conflict free. it is possible to do. now, why is this important? well, all the five million people that have died in eastern n go since rwanda in 1992, 1993 -- in the eastern con gow since rwanda in 1992, 1993, are

18 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on