tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN May 10, 2018 9:00am-1:52pm EDT
democratic serves the state of washington, member of the judiciary subcommittee on immigration and border security. thank you so much for your time today. rep. jayapal: thank you. great to be here. host: the house of representatives is just about to come in today. you can watch that on c-span. if you missed the hearing with gina haspel, you can view it on www.c-span.org. we now go to the house. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] merciful god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house and liken their hearts, give them the light and strength to know your will and make it their own. guide them by your wisdom and support them with your power. for you desire justice for all and we ask you to enable them to uphold the rights of all. may they not be misled by ignorance nor corrupted by fear
or favor, but rather faithful to all that is true. as they work through this day and these weeks, may they temper justice with love and may all their deliberations be pleasing to you. may all that is done within these hallowed halls, be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition. mr. shimkus: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further
proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. kustoff. mr. kustoff: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor great american and good friend of mine, lawrence j. lorenzi. after 36 years of service to the department of justice in the western district of tennessee, larry is retiring from his post as the first assistant united states attorney. larry has served under six presidents. 11 attorney generals. nine united states attorneys. and on four separate occasions, he's acted as the united states
attorney during times of vacancy. during my time as the united states attorney, i saw first hand larry's strong work ethic and dedication to making west tennessee a safer place and defending the united states of america. mr. kustoff: without a doubt he's a true public servant. while larry soon will no longer be a federal prosecutor, i know he will never stop working to make his community a better place. i will always be grateful for the time that we worked together. i wish larry, his wife, and their whole family the best as they begin their next exciting chapter of life. congratulations, larry. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield whack. -- back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. a mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. prescription drug prices are
skyrocketing. every day constituents tell me about outrageous prices they are forced to pay for medications just to stay healthy. janice from my district wrote me last year about a drug she takes to manage her mental illness. her monthly costs went from $9 to $342. i reason has sent her -- said her monthly prescriptions have jumped from $35 to $250. for gina, saw the months will i cost 6 her arthritis medicine mp from $2,800 to $3,00 in one year. every member of this wodqui -- body has heard thee stories. despite these cries for help from our constituents, congress has failed to act. president trump made lowering prescription drug price as centerpiece of his campaign. what has he done about it? america leads the world in developing new and innovative lifesaving cures, something we should be proud to continue. but many of our own citizens don't have real access to those innovative treatments. that's a bad deal. drug pricing is complex, but in
the richest nation on earth, no one should have to go bankrupt to obtain lifesaving medicine. we have to do bert, we need greater transparency, more aggressive negotiation, no more pay for delay on generic drugs and more. democrats have a better deal to offer the american people. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition. >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in celebration and commemoration of the life of peter of oak brook, illinois who passed away at the age of 79. a businessman, entrepreneur, and philanthropist, he's best known for building waste management inc., into the largest in the world with his cousin. upon immigrating to the united states in 1800's, i his ancestors saw a need for sanitation services in their community west of chicago. their humble family garbage
collection business would become a fortune 500 company under peter's management, employing 75,000 workers worldwide. mr. hultgren: however, peter once said, my goal is not to make money but to make a better world. following the sale of the company, he devoted his life to philanthropic work in the community through organizations such as big shoulders fund and his alma mater, timothy christian school, and many more. his family was always his first priority, and he will be greatly missed by his wife, his four children, and his 10 grandchildren. all of illinois will miss him w that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to honor and thank federal communication commissioner clyburn for her nine years of service at the federal communications commission. fought r tenure she
for consumers. she's been a staunch defender of the public interest and critical voice in the fight for free and open internet. over the last year, thousands of constituents reached out to me expressing their concerns about rolling back net neutrality provisions. when chairman denied my request to appear at the commission's open meeting during which they would be voting to eliminate net neutrality, commissioner clyburn offered to submit my written statement for the record so my states' voices would be heard. additionally, she came to my district to hear firsthand from my constituents about net neutrality. i'm also grateful for her work to protect lifeline program over 56,000 households in my district rely on this program. connectivity is a gateway for economic opportunity. it's an equalizer, and commissioner clyburn's leadership has been vital. thank you, mr. clyburn, for your incredible work and public service. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.
for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. s. dingell: i rise the -- to discuss the pension crisis and the urgent need for congress to act. men and women in my home state of michigan and across the country worked a lifetime to retire with the dignity and security promised by their pensions. they earned their retirement with blood, sweat, and tears and many sacrifices along the way. they played by the rules, they put money into their pension, and now they are scared to death about how and what they will live on. they are worried about whether they will have a safe and secure retirement. a few months ago we created the joint select committee on the sol van hollency of multiemployer fence plans with the goal of coming up with a bipartisan solution to the pension crisis by year's end. this is an urgent task because if we do not act this year, the
major multiemployer plans will start going under and it could drag the entire economy down with it. not only would we face benefit cuts for retirees, but it will mean less money flowing in local economies and more people relying on the social safety net for support. it could be the perfect storm. i urge my colleagues, we must work together. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled joint resolution. the clerk: senate joint resolution 57, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the title submitted by the bureau of consumer financial protection relating to indirect auto lending and compliance with the equal credit opportunity act.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom illinois seek recognition. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent that -- mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 3053, including exchanges of letters between the energy and commerce committee and the committee on natural resources, and the committee on energy and commerce and the committee on armed services. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 879 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3053. the chair appoints the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, to preside over he committee of the whole.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3053, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend nuclear waste policy act of 1982, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, and the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm going to have a lot of people want to come to the floor so i'm going to abbreviate my opening remarks and just address a few questions. that are going to be raised. first, i just want to highlight the fact that you're going to hear a lot about local consensus based decisionmaking, and then you're also going to hear about closeness or proximity. this chart kind of highlights
what we're talking about, the red is federal government land. the federal government land is larger than 31 countries on the earth. and it's larger than -- you have three different sections. you have the national test and training range, you have the national security site, you have also some fish and wildlife interior land. bigger than many of our states in our union. to my colleagues, i want to make sure they have in perspective the size of the area we're talking about. bigger than the state of connecticut. and areas people are going to talk about. that's one question that's going to be addressed. another question will be the fear of tourism. because las vegas gets 42 million tourists a year. they seem to be concerned that this might affect that industry. and then it dawned on me that,
the city of chicago gets 55 million tourists a year. 55 million. and they have over 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in chicagoland. i want to make sure that my friends in nevada understand that they should not be -- that should not be a terrible concern when chicago seems to be doing well with tourism on that issue. i also want to make sure they are going to be a debate about transportation. i just want to call attention to you, mr. chairman, and through you my colleagues, is that we operate a nuclear navy. that nuclear navy has to have the power systems refueled. that means new nuclear fuel goes there. that means spent nuclear fuel goes off the nuclear navy ships. that's on the ocean. it's either on the atlantic ocean or the pacific ocean.
this spent fuel goes to idaho. which means that we transport safely spent nuclear fuel and we have done it for decades. those are three main contentions you are going to hear with this bill. i'm going to allow my colleagues to talk about all the great benefits of this bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy amendments act. first, let me recognize the hard work done by mr. shimkus on this bill. he has been tireless in this effort. and to his and his staff's credit, he has worked with us to make what i believe are a number of improvements to the given bill. regardless of your position on nuclear energy, we have to acknowledge the reality that tens of thousands of tons of
waste already exists. this is a problem for over 120 host communities across our country. and it will not be solved by continuing to ignore it. but even if you do not represent one of those communities, all of our constituents are paying for this waste. decades ago the federal government entered into agreements to remove it from nuclear plants. deadlines have been missed. and now all taxpayers have a legal liability of over $34 billion, which is being paid from the treasury's judgment fund n my view, the most bill does ing this is set up a path forward on interim storage, which will allow spent nuclear fuel to be stored in a consolidated location on a temporary basis b is set while a permanent repository is pursued. bill includes language based upon a proposal developed by our colleague, doris matsui, to allow the secretary of energy to enter into an agreement to establish an
interim storage pilot program, which can move forward drectly after enactment. . consolidating waste will help ensure waste is managed more safely and securely while allowing those 121 sites to begin to be redeveloped for other purposes. i know a number of our colleagues have concerns about this bill, and i understand their bill. and many members that support this bill, including myself, have not passed judgment on the merits or final disposition of the yucca mountain project. that is why members of the minority demanded a number of troubling nevada-related provisions be removed from the bill during the committee process. this bill will not rubber stamp the yucca permitting application. the nuclear regulatory commission will still need to adjudicate the many remaining issues with the application and it will need appropriations in
order to do so. i know we will hear about the challenges of transporting spent fuel to a final repository, but the reality is nuclear material is already moved around our country today without incident due to strict safety requirements. the only alternative to not moving this waste is keeping it spread out in 121 locations for tens of thousands of years. overall, this bill is a step in the right direction toward beginning to address our nation's very difficult nuclear waste issues, which is why it was reported out of committee by a vote of 49-4. with that i urge my colleagues to support the measure, the bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield as much time as he may consume the chairman of the full energy and commerce committee, congressman walden from oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker.
i want to thank mr. shimkus who i think his life's work is on the floor today in many respects. nobody's been more tenacious in this effort to get perm nate, safe, secure nuclear waste -- permanent, safe, secure nuclear waste. this is a promise that the united states congress, on behalf of the entire federal government made to our constituents a generation ago. today we're keeping that promise. we will accept responsibility for and properly dispose of radioactive waste. this is long overdue. americans across the country from maine to southern california, from florida to the pacific northwest are watching today and they're expecting us to act. you know, the department of energy's hanford site is just up the mighty columbia river from where i live and where i grew up. that area and those workers helped us win world war ii and the site's nuclear program was
instrumental in projecting peace through strength throughout the cold war. while the community has been a constructive partner and support of our vital national security missions, it did not agree to serve as a perpetual storage site for the resulting nuclear waste. 56 million gallons of toxic waste sitting in decades' old metal tanks at hanford, these are those tanks that were being constructed to hold this waste. they are now buried in the ground. the only entry point is right here. the amount of waste stored would fill this entire house chamber 20 times over. according to a recent government accountability office report, the oldest of these tanks, some of which date back to the 1940's, have single layer waters or shells. they were built to last 20 years. they will be almost 100 years
old by the estimated end of their waste treatment. the department of energy has reported that 67 of these tanks are assumed or known to have leaked waste into the soil. there's an understandable sense of urgency in the northwest behind the cleanup efforts that are under way at hanford. h.r. 3053 will provide the pathway to clean up the contaminated hanford site. you see, the waste from hanford will end up in a secure permanent storage site that we believe will be yucca mountain. these tanks will be drained and cleaned out. the waste glassified and put away. this bill keeps our commitment to energy consumers, too, who are legally bound to pay for a nuclear waste management program. these consumers in 34 states, including oregon, have paid the federal government in excess of $40 billion. even after the last administration stalled the
project, ratepayers continue to hand over nearly $800 million annually to develop the repository until finally the courts stepped in and said the fee collected will be halted. that money was paid to the u.s. treasury for a specific purpose, and we have a legal and moral obligation to advance the program for which ratepayers paid. now, my friends in nevada should have confidence the yucca mountain repository will protect public health and the environment. the completion of the safety review will answer the many questions raised by the state of nevada and will determine if he site meets the required one million--year environmental protection standard. that's right. one million years. consolidating this is better for the environment than the status quo, where these materials sit around in 121 communities in 39 states or tanks like this.
the legislation authorizes the department of energy to contract with the private companies to store nuclear waste while d.o.e. finishes the rigorous scientific analysis of the repository design and the associated nuclear regulatory commission licensing process. so an interim storage facility can bring added flexibility to d.o.e.'s disposal program and may provide a more expeditious, near-term policy to store spent nuclear fuel. the longer the government delays the greater the potential consequences. the legal cost of inaction, a bill paid by every american taxpayer, is staggering. today, taxpayers pay an average of $2 million every day, every day in legal claims because we as a government have not done what was promised decades ago. we're doing that today with this legislation. we're on the hook for nearly $34 billion. that increases every day we
delay action. instead of contributing to an escalating national debt, this money could be better spent to support our men and women in uniform, to deal with the opioid crisis, or a whole myriad of other things. by acting today, we will eventually turn off that penalty phase and start the productive phase. at the end of the day, this bipartisan legislation is good for our communities around the country and their safety. it's good for consumers and fiscal sanity. it's good for the environment, for secure storage. it's good for taxpayers and it's good for national security as well. so i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have put so much work into this. mr. tonko and certainly mr. shimkus. and i urge all our colleagues to support h.r. 3053. let's put an end to these tanks before they put an end to us. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the
gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, our outstanding ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank our ranking member, mr. tonko. 3053. in support of h.r. congress first passed the nuclear waste policy act back in 1982, but more than 35 years later, we still don't have a national solution to address the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. instead, it continues to sit on site at our nation's nuclear power plants. this becomes a concern as more and more nuclear power reactors are scheduled to shut down in the coming years, including the oyster creek nuclear generating station in new jersey. as these reactors shut down, the surrounding communities are realizing the nuclear waste currently stored at these sites will be there indefinitely when the plant closes absent a
workable solution. this bill will bridge the gap until a permanent repository is licensed and constructed. the bill before us today is a bipartisan compromise that was reported out of the energy and commerce committee by a vote of 49-4. democrats on the committee, especially representative matsui, worked with mr. tonko to craft a bipartisan compromise that establishes an interim storage pilot program which will allow for consolidated, temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel with priority given to waste to demissioned nuclear plants. we can have this at a single site instead of 121 sites in communities around the country. in one consolidated site will help ensure it is managed more safely and securely while allowing communities with decommissioned plants to begin working towards redevelopping those sites. now, some of the opponents of this bill have focused on claims that spent nuclear fuel can be transported through many congressional districts across
the country and that's true. spent nuclear fuel will ultimately need to be transported from power plants to an interim storage facility or repository. but moving nuclear material by rail and truck, as it has occurred frequently for decades and they know shipments have occurred without incident. so despite your position on the yucca mountain project -- and i know people feel strongly on both sides on that -- but spent nuclear fuel will need to be transported somewhere in the u.s. unless it is left to be at the site of a nuclear power plant that may no longer produce power. mr. speaker, this bill is a balanced bill that i support. just as it is also supported by other c.i.a., ibwd, the and - afl-cio, ibwd, others. and it will save taxpayers money. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. i want to thank both mr. shimkus, the main sponsor who's
worked so hard, obviously. mr. tonko, ms. matsui, of course, the chairman of our committee, mr. walden, as well. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the former chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from michigan, fred upton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to particularly commend john shimkus, chairman of the subcommittee, who helped shepherd this bill through. chairman walden, ranking member pallone, and others, tonko, it is truly a bipartisan work of art. 49-4 is what this bill passed in our committee. you know, i can remember way back when when president reagan was in office and signing the nuclear waste act in the rose garden. he said, we're going to keep our promise. the federal government is going to take care of nuclear waste. that's going to happen. well, here we are now nearly 50 years later. i can remember the upton-towns
bill back in the 1990's, a bill that did very much along the lines what this bill does. we came within a vote or two of having it overwritten by the u.s. senate, stopping it in its tracks. so decades later, here we are again. in my district we have two nuclear plants, both of them have run out of room in their storage. so they have dry cast that are literally a john shimkus baseball throw away from lake michigan. every one of these hundred-some sites across the country is in an environmentally sensitive area and at some point they will run out of room. in michigan we have two other sites that also have dry casts. in addition to the two in my district. so we spent nearly $40 billion. enough time has gone by. we need to deal with this. for those that are against this bill, your alternative is just keeping it there. just keeping it in california, just keeping it on that
pristine river. just keep it on the great lakes for however how long. that's not the answer. this bill is. and because it's bipartisan, i am confident that not only will we have the votes to get this thing through today, but we're going to get it ultimately to the president. so, again, i want to thank our leadership on both sides of the aisle to get this thing done, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3053. i want to thank ranking member tonko and chairman shimkus for their hard work on this very difficult subject. this is a bipartisan bill. it seeks a solution on how to remove and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. this bill recognizes the need to consolidate interim storage in an integral waste management
program. h.r. 3053 authorizes the department of energy to develop its own interim storage facility or contract with private entities for such development. the bill also authorizes the development of one pilot c.i.s. facility that is not linked to the nuclear regulatory commission's decision on the yucca mountain license application, and it provides a solution for nuclear waste stranded at sites without an operating reactor. this bill will help us create a path toward permanent storage while also being inclusive and transparent about the process. one of the key additions to this bill is that it will re-establish the office of civilian radioactive waste management. it also increases assistance to states and tribes for transportation safety which is important when transporting radioactive materials. you know, mr. speaker, we can't continue to put our heads in the sand about nuclear waste. there are about 120 sites
across the country that stored nuclear waste on a so-called temporary basis. with this situation, a serious accident is virtually inevitable. nuclear waste can be transported and stored safely for the generations needed. this is really an engineering problem, and america has some of the best engineers in the world. we can do this. this bill is an important step towards safe storm. i urge my colleagues to support this well crafted legislation. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: mr. chairman, i recognize for one minute the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of chairman shimkus' bill, the nuclear waste policy amendments act of 2017. this legislation is important not only because of what it means to the future of clean energy opportunities for this country, but also what this means for our communities.
nuke already energy has become a safe and effective way to produce energy. nukewlar waste policy amendments act would finally put in place a permanent repository for the waste generated by nuclear energy production that powers millions of homes and businesses across the country. we began this process nearly 30 it ago and today we move forward. my good friends' legislation authorizes the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a safe, term place. right now spent it forward. my good friends' legislation fu on nuclear energy sites around the country, leaving our o communities open to larger vulnerabilities and possible attacks or stents. i urge my colleagues to support the -- or accidents. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i thank the gentleman for his leadership and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes of time to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. dingell. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. miss particularrle -- mrs.
dingell: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy amendment act. finding a way forward on the future of our nation's nuclear waste storage is no easy task. arrived at a bipartisan agreement on nuclear waste storage that we need to advance today to address this issue. i would first like it thank chairman walden and ranking member pallone and chairman shimkus and ranking member tonko for their outstanding leadership and thank you to all of my colleagues who worked on this in committee, because it wasn't easy. but we worked together in a bipartisan wafmente -- way. this bill will authorize the department of energy to establish and maintain interim storage facilities to hold nuclear a waste until there is a clear decision on the national repository.
also included in this bill is an amendment i offered at the good ommittee with my friend, fred upton. this important amendment expresses the sense of the congress that the governments of the united states and canada should not allow permanent or long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel or good friend, fred other radioactive waste, near the great lakes. mr. upton and i were proud to get this amendment included on behalf of every member of the great lakes region. the great lakes account for 20% of the world's fresh water supply and is absolutely critical for millions of americans who rely on them for their drinking water, jobs, and way of life. nearly 1/10 of the u.s. population lives in the great lakes basin, and more than 35 llion people, with approximately 24 million of them being americans, rely on the great lakes.
this provision reinforces the importance of the approximately 24 million of hea lakes basin free of nuclear storage. i commend all of my colleagues one more time for their good work in crafting a bipartisan agreement that will ensure nuclear waste is stored at secure security facilities. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize the gentleman from south carolina, congressman duncan, for one minute. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman shimkus for his work. i have long been an advocate for nuclear waste policy like this for yucca mountain. since 1982 when the nuclear aste policy act was created, ratepayers in this nation have paid as part of their utility bill over $40 billion. in south carolina that means ratepayers have paid $1.3 billion for the construction
and operation of what we now know as yucca mountain. currently in south carolina there are over 4,500 tons of spent nuclear fuel in temporary storage from commercial reactors. at savannah river site we have both research and military clear waste sitting ready to go to a long-term reposs torery. the law of the land passed in 1992 is for yucca mountain to be a long-term repository for this nation's waste. it's time to move forward and give the ratepayers, not the taxpayers, but the ratepayers what they paid for. this legislation moves in the right direction. i appreciate the chairman. i look forward to my colleagues supporting this bipartisan legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui, who made tremendous contributions to this final version of the bill. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. matsui: thank you. thank you, mr. tonko, for
yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the nuclear waste policy amendments act. in sacramento, our publicly owned utility storage spent nuclear feel at the rancho saco nuclear generating station. despite the fact this plant has been demissioned for many, many years. and that the federal government has a responsibility to take the fuel. the continued presence of the spent fuel there has a direct impact on the rates in my district and prevents the site from being redeveloped. that is why i have continuously been supportive of an interim storage solution tore spent fuel. today it is the most viable path to consolidate the fuel housed in over 120 communities across the country. for the last two congresses, i have co-sponsored a bipartisan bill to explicitly authorize the department of energy to enter into agreements for consolidate the interim storage
. i believe a stand alone piece of legislation that creates a pathway for interim storage is the commonsense next step in our national nuclear waste management strategy. so, i was opposed to the initial version of h.r. 3053 that came before the energy and commerce committee last year. it tied yucca mountain, which i have major concerns with, to interim storage. linking these two policies together would effectively maintain the status quo for decommissioned sites across the country, which is unacceptable. that's why i worked in a bipartisan basis to ensure that the interim storage policy in this bill is dedumbed from a permanent reposs -- decoupled from a permanent repository. the bill we're considering now authorizes the use of one consolidated interim storage site and creates a path to move ent fuel to that site before
final decision is made on permanent geologic repository. it is critically important that we have further clarified the regulatory pathway for interim storage. for that reason, i will be supporting this bill today. despite some provisions i believe are less than ideal. thank my colleagues for working with me in a collaborative and bipartisan manner to ensure the federal government finally takes the spent fuel thank my colleagues working with me in a stranded i our communities nationwide. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: mr. chairman, i recognize for a minute and a half the gentleman from new jersey who is on the committee and has been doing great work to deal with his constituents. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lance: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy amendments act. this is an enormous achievement
for chairman shimkus who has worked so hard and so long to make this day a reality. the nation needs a safe and environmentally conscious plan to dispose of this waste. this plan is bipartisan and it is sensible. new jersey is home to four nuclear reactors and three generating stations. oyster creek will be closing this october. in the congressional district i serve, these plants account for about half the power generation and 90% of the carbon-free electricity. new jersey's nuclear plants avoid 14 million tons of carbon emissions each year. public service and others are doing their part in storing their nation's spent nuclear fuel on site, but we need a permanent site. the expertise and know how of the federal government has a responsibility to it my constituents and to the american people. i want the 3,000 metric tons of nuclear waste out of new jersey
and consolidated in a national protected facility. new jersey ratepayers have contributed nearly $2 billion to the department of energy's nuclear waste fund to dispose of the waste at a permanent repository at yucca mountain. my constituents should see a return on that investment. new jersey someone of the top state contributors to this fund. it is time for the government to hold up its end of the warring -- bargain and permanently lee move -- remove this waste. i urge a yes vote. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: i yield two minutes of time to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lujan: i believe it makes it more likely that a future interim storage site, potentially one in new mexico, becomes a permanent home for nuclear waste. i oppose this bill. i know these are tough issues and i agree we have a responsibility to address the waste issue that result from our country entering the atomic age. however, addressing nuclear
waste is not our only responsibility. 70 years ago, rural new mexico became ground zero for the detonation of the first nuclear bomb. this marked the beginning of sickness and suffering for generations of people who lived and grew up in the basin. that atomic bomb, gloria wrote to me, has caused anguish to so many people in new mexico. the people from new mexico have suffered physically, mentally, and financially. and all -- in all we're here and hope you will find a way to help us. over 70 years since the trinity test. 70 years in the federal government has done almost nothing to recognize or compensate those impacted over that test. they are not alone. in 1990, congress passed an act to begin it right the wrong. however we have since learned there are many more individuals who are sick or dying because they worked in the uranium industry, lived near a mining
operation, or downwind from a test. the apache and other indian reservations are particularly affected. that is why repeatedly introduced the radiation exposure compensation act amendments to compensate those workers. we have had navajo elders travel here to washington, d.c., and ask us in congress, are youaiting for us to die to solve this problem? the rules committeeejected amendments that i offered. why in the world is it that the people of new mexico where the first bomb went off are the onl ones left out of protections? people in nevada, colorado, and utah are included, but new mexico been left off. the first place the bomb was tested, these people weren't given a warning. all they saw was a light flash while they were in their kitchens or outside working. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: mr. chairman, i recognize now theentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, for one minute.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rothfus: i rise in support of the nuclear waste policy amendment act. this bill is the opportunity to give the department of defense and our nation's nuclear plants a proper place to store spent fuel. relieves a burden on our nuclear plants ich provide a critical source of resilient base load power to our electric relieves a burden . nuclear plants provi good jobs to communities across the nation, many of which are in economicall distressed areas. nuclear tely several power plants nuclear power plants are prematurely closing because of government policies. for a long time i have repeatedly warned the executive branch about the national security risks if too many plants deactivate. i'm glad to hear some members cross the aisle are actually acknowledging this problem, at least partially n april i bet with beaver valley nuclear wer station workers and told my constituents acknowledging this that i would everything i can to protect their jobs and theation's grid. and i meant it. this bill addresses some of the uncertainty and added costs the industry faces and one step in
helping to security those jobs and the riability and the resiliency of our grid w that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance his time. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes of time to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. titus. the chair: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for three inutes. ms. titus: today we must decide if you are going to double down -- or ies -- excuse me if you'll chart a new course that doesn't repeat the same mistakes of previous congresses. the first screw nevada bill was passed in 1982, and since that time, nevada's residents, elected officials, business leaders, health and environmental groups have steadfastly opposed the yucca mountain repository. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record over 100 letters from those groups in
opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman's request is covered under general leave. ms. titus: you heard the legislation before you now, screw nevada 2.0, is a work of compromise, a bipartisan effort, not perfect but a step forward. well, that frankly is an opinion. it's not the facts. here are the facts. the legislation overrides environmental laws, allowing the e.p.a. to move the goal post in terms of radiation limits to ensure that nothing will ever interfere with the agenda of the nuclear industry. it sets up a consent-based process for the establishment of an interim storage facility, but imposes a permanent facility at yucca mountain. it increases the amount of nuclear waste to be dumped in nevada by 37%. 110 metric tons more than were not considered in any of the environmental or safety studies being used to justify the project. it also removes the prohibition currently in law that prohibits
nevada from being the de facto interim storage facility until a permanent one can be licensed. it also was changed after passing out of committee to address the high scoring costs -- is it already three minutes? the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, we grant the gentlelady another minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. titus: to address the high scoring cost, making to less likely we get host benefits. also, contrary to the sponsor's comments, the area around yucca mountain is not some desloate area. it has iconic wildlife, endangered species and native american artifacts. also, the proposed facility sits above the water table and on an active fault and can only be reached by roads that travel through 329 of your congressional districts. and finally, like new mexico, the people in nevada have
suffered from tests of atomic weapons that the government told us, don't worry, it will be safe. in short, this bill does nothing to really address the root of the problem, and i urge you to vote against it. it's cost us 36 years and $15 billion, and all we got to show for it is a hole in the ground. we should be doing consent-based decisionmaking that will move us forward and not continue this failed policy that is bad politics and bad policy. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt, who's a subcommittee chair on appropriations. mr. aderholt: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. shimkus, for this important legislation. this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that has already been said that puts our country back on the right track and honoring that commitment that was made by the federal government to safely collect and dispose of spent nuclear
fuel and high level nuclear waste. it's been noted here this morning that under the nuclear waste policy act of 1982, congress assigned the responsibility for spent nuclear fuel to the federal government. but today, because the federal government has failed to honor this commitment, spent nuclear fuel sits idle in 121 communities across 39 states. it was back in 1987 that congress designated yucca mountain as the permanent repository for nuclear waste, but despite collecting more than $40 billion from taxpayers, yucca mountain nuclear waste repository has yet to be completed. the legislation before us today offers important reforms for our country's nuclear waste policy. it utilizes yucca mountain as our main point of nuclear waste storage while directing the department of energy to move forward with a temporary storage program as it works on the yucca mountain facility.
with that i want to thank my colleague, again, for his legislation and urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3053. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i inquire as to how much time we have remaining, please. the chair: the gentleman has 11 1/2 minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman from illinois has 14 minutes remaining. mr. tonko: thank you. mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes of time to the gentleman from nevada, mr. kihuen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kihuen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to speak in opposition to h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy amendments act. you know, mr. speaker, i find it offensive. i sit here and listened to all my colleagues and they all want to send nuclear waste to the state of nevada. they are all generating this nuclear waste and they want to send it to my back yard right in the fourth congressional district. you know, bottom line is this, mr. speaker. if you generate nuclear waste, you should keep it in your own back yard. don't be sending to to my back
yard. i met with various people out at the air force bases and the hawthorne army depot. these are very important military installations in the fourth congressional district for our entire country. they don't want this nuclear waste passing through their own back yard. it is offensive. it is offensive that we have a state that depends on tourism, that depends on people coming into our state, and we want to generate this -- bring all this nuclear waste to my back yard. we want to send it to yucca mountain, a place that hasn't even been deemed safe. it's disappointing, mr. speaker, that we have all this nuclear waste and we can't pick any other place in the country. it has to be somewhere where we have military bases. it has to be somewhere where it hasn't been deemed safe. their sites make activity. just a few weeks there was an
earthquake there. mr. speaker, i'm seriously concerned for nevadans. i am seriously concerned for our military bases. i am concerned about our touristes that will be coming from all over the country. i am concerned about every single one of the congressional districts and its constituents where this nuclear waste is going to be traveling through. these are some serious concerns that have been brought up, that none of us, none of my colleagues have been able to address. so i'm here to oppose this project. i'm here to speak on behalf of 80% of nevadans who oppose bringing nuclear waste to our back yard. and i'm here to send a message that we are going to continue fighting this tooth and nail right here in congress, in the senate, here in the house, and also if need be we will continue fighting this in the legal courts. thank you, mr. speaker. i'm here to speak in opposition and to speak on behalf of all nevadans. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i recognize the gentlelady from southern california, who's been very helpful in this project, mimi walters.
the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. how much time? the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: for one minute. the chair: one minute. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. walters: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy amendments act of 2017. at the decommission nuclear generating station just south of my district, 1,800 tons of spent nuclear fuel sits along the pacific coastline. this spent nuclear fuel must be moved for safety and environmental reasons but also out of fairness to american taxpayers. to date, california ratepayers have contributed more than $2 billion to the nuclear waste fund with the promise those funds would help establish a permanent storage facility. h.r. 3053 authorizes interim storage, a necessary step to get spent nuclear fuel out of our communities and into interim storage facilities until a permanent storage
facility is established. mr. speaker, i speak on behalf of my constituents who say the time to fix this problem is now. the federal government owes it to the american people to fulfill its obligation and take ownership of spent fuel. i'd like to thank my friend from illinois, mr. shimkus, for his leadership on this issues and i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3053. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: yes, thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes of time to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. rosen. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. : i thank the gentleman from new york. mr. speaker, i rise today and stand with the overwhelming majority of nevadans who wholeheartedly oppose our state becoming the dumping ground for the rest of the nation's nuclear waste. based on the department of energy's own studies, yucca mountain is unfit as a repository site for nuclear waste because of the impact it would have on national
transportation. we're talking about shipping up to three loads of radioactive waste per week to nevada by rail or truck for over 50 years. here's a map of what the proposed routes would look like. dangerous waste would go through 329 congressional districts across this country. to the members representing these districts, do you consent to high level radioactive waste barreling down your highways and your train tracks, and are you prepared to face your constituents at home and tell them that you voted to put their safety at risk? yucca mountain would also jeopardize our national security and the readiness of our air force by compromising military activities at the nevada test and training range, the largest air and ground military training space in the contiguous united states. instead of spending billions more in hard-earned taxpayer dollars on this ill conceived project, let's work on converting the site to something that will keep our country safe and create jobs.
my bill, the jobs not waste act, which i add as an amendment to 3053, would prohibit d.o.e. from moving forward with its plan until are r job-creating ideas considered. we can repurpose this site for something useful. i urge congress to stop wasting time and taxpayer money on yucca mountain and finally realize just how dangerous and costly this project will be. it's past time we identify viable alternatives for this project while finding a safe, long-term repository in a state that can consents to its citing. thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i recognize my neighbor, my friend, the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinsinger, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. chairman. as an air pours pilot, i will
note this will not affect range operations. my district is home to four nuclear power plants and i've seen firsthand the hard work and dedication of the men and women who work there. these plants not only provide clean, reliable power, but also create good jobs and they strengthen our communities. in 1982, the government made a commitment to these communities. congress and the president approved yucca mountain over 15 years ago. the nuclear regulatory commission concluded it can safely store spent fuel for a million years. in illinois alone, ratepayers have contributed over $3 billion to the nuclear waste fund. illinois houses more spent fuel than any state. today is about following through on our commitments. we must reassure communities like la salle and byron who put their trust in the government that they can continue to make clean, reliable nuclear power as well as have a safe place to store it. i want to thank my friend and illinois colleague, john shimkus, for being a tireless advocate for making good on this commitment. and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance. the chair: the gentleman yields back.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes of time to the gentleman from connecticut, a good friend, mr. courtney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of the nuclear waste policy amendments act. xt to me is a picture of connecticut, a pristine part of the state where the connecticut river and salmon river come together, where the circle is on the photograph, there is 43 casts of spent uranium rods that today pretty much corden off that whole area. if you drove up in a car you will be met with a platoon of heavily armed security guards who for good reason have to patrol that every single day because of the dangerous material that's stored there. it has been that way for 20 years. it cost ratepayers $20 million a year again, for a site that should be long overdufort renovation and access for folks from all over the world because of its rich archaeological and
historical area. this bill provides a way out for this area along with 120 other sites across the country that host communities have been saddled with storage of spent nuclear fuel because of the fact this country has been unable to come together with a coherent policy. and this bill provides a way out and, again, i congratulate the proponents on both sides of the aisle for getting us to that place. waterford, connecticut, is also home to dominion nuclear power plant with a similar situation that, again, is long overdufort change. i also just want to know -- overdue for change. i also just want to know groton, connecticut, it is where the nautilus was first launched in 1956. we have as a country been transporting spent nuclear fuel for aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines for decades by land and by sea safely and efficiently and the notion that we can't do this for our civilian nuclear power
facilities is frankly just demonstrably untrue. we can do this and this bill provides, as i say, a mechanism for an interim storage that is sensible, that is logical, and is bipartisan and, again, i congratulate proponents and strongly urge a yes vote on this measure later this morning. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. . mr. shimkus: i recognize the gentleman from minnesota, mr. lewis. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. lewis: thank you for your leadership on this vital issue. the federal government asks americans to pay roughly $40 billion in taxes and interest with the prom mission the government would operate a national repository. 37 years later, no repository nd my district is hampered with the burden of maintaining 40 spent fuel casks with more on the way. now, while on-site storage is
one in a with the burden of secure manner, it is simply not appropriate. in 1991 the united states department of the interior agreed stating, the position of risk upon the prairie island indian community is an unreasonable burden. very safe y prairie island is just one community shouldering this burden. and others red wing expect better. my constituents reminded me by law the repository should have been opened in 1998. stating, but it's not our responsibility to remind congress to do its job. they are right. i urge my colleagues to uphold our promise and vote in favor of this bill. with that i yield back to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. rohrabacher: i rise today
3053 and of h.r. thank chairman shimkus for the great leadership he's provided on this bill on this significant issue. it authorizes the construction of yucca mountain as a nuclear waste storage site which would alleviate the burden of incredible risk that is now borne by communities throughout the country, such as in my district where homes are not from the closed nuclear generating station. that and many other plants throughout the nation have closed their doors in decades. yet congress has yet to agree on how to safely store that waste. what's really important, is we must store the waste, but while we develop nuke nuclear energy technologies -- new nuclear energy technologies that are capable of producing less of their own waste and consume the waste. i reminded secretary of energy of that yesterday.
in the meantime, until that technology -- it is sinful that we have not developed that technology which we're capable of that could eat this waste. until we do, having safe storage at yucca mountain makes all the sense to me. and is safe for my constituents. thank you, mr. shimkus. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois reserves. gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: i continue to reserve. the chair: reserves. gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: mr. chairman, i recognize for one minute the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy amendments act. as a co-sponsor of this legislation, i understand the importance of enacting critical reforms to our nuclear waste management strategy. reforms that are long overdue. mr. speaker, i have the great honor of representing georgia's 12th congressional district, which is home to every nuclear reactor in our state.
we're leading the way in the new nuclear. in my district there are thousands of spent fuel rods being held in spent fuel pools and dry cask storage containers, and the next few years we're going to double the number of nuclear reactors online. h.r. 3053 would help pave wait to quickly establish a permanent geological repository to dispose of the waste that currently sits in 121 communities across america, 12.uding those in georgia this process has gone on far too long. and now it is time for congress to act and pass this commonsense legislation. 12. this process i want to thank subcommittee chair shimkus for his work and diligence on this matter. i urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in voting yes for this bill. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: i yield two minutes of time to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from
texas, mr. gene green, is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. thank my colleague, our ranking member, for allowing me to speak. i rise in support of h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy amendments act of 2017. back in 1982 passed the nuclear waste policy act directing the department of energy and nuclear regulatory commission to open a permanent repository for our nation's spent nuclear fuel. congress is slow, but this is amazing how we haven't dealt with this. over three decades later, america's still without a repository, leaving tens of thousands of nuclear waste vulnerable to acts of terror or other catastrophes f you say you are for all of the above for power generation, then you need to vote for this bill. because if we're really going to use nuclear power, about 20% in texas, we need a place to put that waste. not just on the sites where we
produce it. there was a decision made in the 1980's it would be out in yucca mountain. and that wasn't our decision, but that's there. it's federal property. that's where we exploded atomic bombs during the testing. nobody is going to build condos on that property. i was out there with the chairman of the committee. until the day we find full storage -- interim storage to ensure 70,000 tons of spent fuel sitting at our nation's nuclear plants are safe from harm at an interim storage facility, there is one proposed in west texas that the folks out there want it. i ask my colleagues to support this bill so we can finally move the ball forward on safely storing our nation's spent nuclear fuel. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized -- reserves his time of the mr. shimkus: i recognize
the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. sanford: i thank you. i rise in support of this bill. i want to single out chairman shimkus for his tireless work. he stood up in conference after conference after conference insisting we move forward. this bill has been a long time coming. this is about a national solution to a a national problem. each of the states could come up with their own navys, armies. we tried that once in south carolina, didn't work out so well. but it's important that we, again, have a national solution to a national issue. that's certainly the case with nuclear waste. this is about moving past politics to policy. this thing has been held up for years based on politics. and i don't begrudge anybody in nevada for pushing and using every tool in the tool kit holding it off. this is moving topolicy. this is about not building a mountain waste in south carolina and a whole lot of interrim sites across this
country. we have a fault line at the savannah river site. and there are similar security concerns with the plethora of different sites we have across this country, consolidating makes sense from a security standpoint. timely, -- finally, this is about giving people what they paid for. $40 billion nationally. over $1 billion in south carolina paid by ratepayers. i thank the chairman for acting on this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i'll continue to reserve. the chair: reserve. gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield for one minute the gentlelady from georgia, mrs. handel. the chair: the gentlelady from georgia is recognized for one minute. mrs. handel: thank you, mr. speaker. to my colleague from illinois, representative shimkus, thank you so much for your steadfast leadership on this very important issue. rise today as well to lend my support to h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy act amendment. mr. speaker, america lacks the necessary geologic repository for important nuclear power
resources. because of this, spent nuclear fuel currently sits idle in over 100 communities across 39 states. this deficiency has cost electricity ratepayers over $40 billion with little to nothing to show for the exposhant cost. h.r. 3053 makes long overdue reforms to the nuclear waste fund and facilitates a formal licensing process for the repository at yucca mountain. it provides a commonsense, bipartisan interim solution for the safe storage of nuclear waste. most importantly, h.r. 3053 ensures that the safe, efficient form of energy can continue to expand and be utilized in the united states such as georgia's plant vogel. h.r. 3053 is much needed legislation that will finally ensure the safe disposal of nuclear waste in this country. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves.
the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield to my good friend from texas, mr. barton, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. barton: thank you. i can't think of a more unrewarding, difficult, fruitless issue to be asked to be the leader on than trying to find a solution is recognized f minutes. mr. barton: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks to high level nuclear waste. can you imagine if, when you get elected to congress, called into the speaker's office, minority leader's office, and said i know you're young and bright and everything, but we want you to take the lead on something that we haven't been able to solve in 30 years. well, that's what john shimkus,
congressman tonko have been tasked to do. there is not a more unpleasant issue in the 30-something years i have been in the house than this issue. having said that, it's probably one of the most important issues to solve. we have at one time over 100 operating nuclear reactors. they generate electricity every day. d they use, eventually consume, their nuclear fuel rods. and when they have been used up, you can't put them on the curb in the trash to pick them up. mr. tongueine mr. shimkus have worked not just this -- mr. tonko and mr. shimkus have worked not just in this congress, but last congress, in the case of mr. shimkus, he's worked probably the last seven congresses to solve this. we have bipartisan bill today. i predict it will get in the
neighborhood of 260 to maybe 300 votes. it solves the problem. and the key in, in my opinion, to what they have done, is they have allowed for an interim storage facility in a state that approves it beforehand. you are going to have states compete to accept this high level nuclear waste on an make a path and forward to finish the licensing process, or make a negative determination in nevada at yucca mountain. make a path i think the interim -- 30 additional seconds? mr. shimkus: recognize the gentleman for another 30 seconds. mr. barton: you are going to have a way to begin, if this bill becomes law, to get the waste that's now stored on site , deactivated, some cases nuclear power plants, consolidated at the interim storage, make a decision on it's yea, or nay, if
begin that process. this is a very good effort. it should pass the house, and the president should sign it. and we will finally after almost 40 years begin to solve high-level nuclear waste issue in america. thank both the leaders on this bill. i hope we get a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm not closing yet. we're waiting for the whip. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to highlight a couple issues that's been raised. in my brief opening statement i reminded folks, i see my colleague from chicagoland on e floor, chicago gets 55
million visitors a year. in chicagoland there's 10,000 metric tons. that's in the community. that is where there are condose . and -- condos, and it's right there. this proposed long-term repository is 90 miles away from las vegas. it's a mountain in a desert. if it gets approved, final adjudication. what's held up final adjudication? politics on the appropriations. i think this bill will help solve because once we get a good vote, my colleagues, i don't think we voted on an authorization bill on this issue on an authorization bill since 2002. that's when the state of nevada objected per the law.
they were allowed to do that. we had a chance then to override that veto, because as mark sanford said, this is a national problem that demands a national solution. so the law laid out an opportunity to hear the complaints from the state of nevada and i -- and say yes or no. they said no. the law laid out the opportunity for the national legislative body and the president of the united states to decide to accept or reject that. . i think this chamber vote was about 350 to reject the state of nevada's opposition. the senate rejected it on a voice vote. so we've been through this numerous times. we know where the majority of representatives are. we know where the majority of senators will be. we just got to move.
we've got to address this national problem with a national solution. another issue that was just touched on by chairman walden, we spent a lot of time on spent nuclear fuel. this is ratepayers also helping pay for our defense waste obligations. the nuclear weapons and winning the cold war created stockpiles f nuclearaste, toxic slug in areas in four states. primarily washington state. also south carolina. ratepayers are going to help safely dispose of that. o when you take the national defense problem and the spent -- ar fuel problem, the we're moving forward in that
direction. the nevadans are not uniformerly opposed to the repository. in fact, nine of the surrounding counties have passed resolutions to move forward. at least with the adjudication. and as my colleagues from nevada know, i've been to that state quite a few times and talked to many, many people on this issue. with that i reser the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized and the gentleman from new york does have 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. tonko: well, thank you, mr. speaker. we have no other speakers, and am prepared to close. the chair: the gentleman from new york is prepared to close. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i'm prepared to close also. the chair: so the gentleman from new york is recognized for the remainder of the time. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. it's rare we consider a perfect bill. this is not the bill mr. pallone or i would have written on our own, and i do not think it's a bill that mr. shimkus
would have wanted on his own either but that's the nature of compromise. i, again, want to thank mr. shimkus and his staff for their willingness to work with us to address a number of our concerns with the initial bill. and i want to acknowledge the hard work done by rick kessler, other members of the energy and commerce committee minority staff that worked so diligently on this legislation. i truly understand the concerns raised by my colleagues in opposition. especially those from the nevada delegation. and i sympathize with many of their arguments. but the reality is our nation has a substantial amount of nuclear waste, and we as a nation need a plan to address it. we are dealing with the constraints of legislation passed some 30 years ago, and within those constraints, i believe this bill is a step in the right direction to address our nation's nuclear waste issues. so with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i yield back the
balance of my time. the cha: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized, and the gentleman from illinois has one minute remaining. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'll be quick. first, i want to also thank the staff on both sides for their work. this is the way legislaon is supposed to move. you have hearings. in energy and commerce we really forced a subcommittee hearing, markup, subcommittee mark, full committee mark. then, we go through the process. our staff has done a tremendous job. i also want to thank ranking meer pallone and ranking member tonko for their friendship and their actually good negotiating skills as they have told me many times they have changed that bill through their diligence and that has got us here to a better product. i'll end up on three quick points. we raised them before. we can transport this safely. we've done it for decades.
every day taxpayers are paying from all 50 states in the judgment fund because of our failure to meet our legal obligations. i think it's almost $800 million a year that we pay because we're breaking the law. independent scientific analysis of the yucca mountain repository found the site to safely dispose of nuclear waste for one million years. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back his time. all time for general debate has expired. so pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print
115-69. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be consered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 115- 6. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the repo, shall be considered as read, all be debatae for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an ponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it's now in order t csider amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-665. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. keating: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-665 offered by mr. keating of
massachusetts. the chr: pursuant to house resolution 879, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. ating. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. keatg: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to tha congressman shimkus for his support of this amendment. i also like to thank congressman tonko as well, and express my support for the underlying bill, which will, among many other things, prioritize decommissiod nuclear plants for removal of spent waste. the hard work to come to this stage is important and we're finally moving forward. you know, in 2015, news brok that the nuclear plant in my district would be decommissioned in 2019. unfortunately, this plant has also been in the news quite a bit because of significant
safety concerns. so the communities back home are intimately aware of the safety and security risks to local neighborhoods and plant employees and local officials and stakeholders have worked hard to hold plant operators accountable to prepare for all the risks presented and to demand a plan for what happens after the plant is decommissioned so that the families and the businesses in my district are not left high and dry. i offered a number of amendments to h.r. 3053, the nuclear waste policy amendments act. they included efforts to strengthen local stakeholder engagement, to support funding for communities where spent nuclear fuel is awaiting transfer, to ensure the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel -be ecommissioned or soon-to decommissioned plants. i offer this amendment because of the communities affected by nuclear plants and the nuclear storage sites, the importance of that being recognized.
and while some of these ideas weren't included in the particular bill, the amendment i offer now is fundamental to making sure that they will be ultimately addressed. congress created the nuclear waste fund to fund a solution to civilian nuclear waste that would provide for safe disposal in a permanent repository. these funds came from funds paid by ratepayers and generated by tens of billions of dollars. i mean, $31 billion as of 2014, dollars to support a solution for dealing with nuclear waste in a safe and secure manner. and in the issuance of what's happening with these funds, the administration ceased making an easy-to-read summary to be part of that. you know, the american people deserve to know just how this fund is being managed and that any expenditure is actually necessary, justified, and publicly reported and easy --
easily digested by local officials and the public as a whole. for this transparency, really, is key. we should be making it easy, as easy as possible for the public and the officials that oversee these funds. and my amendment does just that, by requiring clear, plain english summary to accompany annual reporting on the nuclear waste fund's financial status. the information about the fund should not only be accessible to those that can understand the technical information contained in the full report. when communities like mine are working hard, as hard as they can possibly work under the circumstances to make sure they keep families safe, we should be making every possible tool available to them in this goal. transparency around the fund created by ratepayers and
intended to support a permanent solution to the safety risks they face from nuclear waste is only one piece of that but an important piece. and with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: but i do not oppose the amendment. first, i want to thank my colleague from massachusetts. i think this is a very needed amendment. i would say one of the most frustrating things about this process, and my colleagues on the other side knows, we passed this bill june of last year and then we had the funding and the money and the debate and the trust fund and appropriators and budgeteers. anything we can do to clear out and get some clear guidance on the money may help -- we may have to then move to another piece of legislation to really clarify. our bill does that for new revenue coming in.
so i think it's a great addition, and i appreciate him coming down. i'd like to yield to the majority whip, mr. scalise from louisiana, for as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. thank my colleague from illinois, mr. shimkus, for his leadership on this issue. for so long we have been trying to get a solution and to get proper use made out of yucca mountain and the billions of dollars illinois, mr. shimkus, that rat across the nation have spent. and i rise in strong support of the bipartisan amendment as well that's brought forward by the gentleman from massachusetts to show ratepayers across the country what's happening with this waste fund. this is critical to our national energy strategy. for decades, going back to the 1980's, this country through congress established there will be a national nuclear waste storage facility, and yet it's
gone unused. the money's gone unutilized and there is no facility right now that's working. we've got to make this work for the ratepayers all across the country who paid billions of dollars into this fund. we need a national repository for spent nuclear fuel. this bill finally achieves that. i congratulate my friend, mr. shimkus, for spending years finally getting us to a point where we can move this bill across the house floor and hopefully the senate moves this bill to the president's desk so we can finally resolve this long-lasting issue that ratepayers across the nation deserve an answer to. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the gentleman from illinois reserves. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to -- i don't know how much time left. i want to say i know there are rumblings out there -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: i know there are rumblings out there, what is this litigation fund being paid for and who is paying for it? the united states government is
being sued. we have to make these payments because we're not abiding by the law. it's not the private industry. there's rumblings out there about, oh, we're releaving the nuclear industry of liability. that's absolutely false. we're going to protect u.s. taxpayers from the liability that we're paying because the federal government is not complying with the law and i want to make that straight. that's accountability. that's transparency. that's what my colleague, mr. keating, is doing. with that i support his amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. keating: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from new york, who's worked tirelessly on this issue as well, a great spirit of strong -- and a strong spirit of bipartisan cooperation on this bill, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the amendment.
i know that this takes the issue and the response of this bill and makes it even stronger. and so with that in mind, i thank my colleague and those with whom he worked on this amendment for their input and for, again, an amendment that makes the response so much stronger. so with that i plan to support the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. keating: thank you, mr. speaker. once again, i want to thank everyone that's worked so hard, mr. shimkus and mr. tonko, all the people that are finally moving this ahead. it's a very important issue in terms of our energy. it's very important in terms of safety of our communities. we're finally got the ball rolling so, again, thank you for your hard work. i yield back my time. . . the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say
aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2, printsed in house report 115-665. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition. mr. schneider: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 115-665, offered by mr. schneider of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 879, the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. schneider: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my amendment which would help those communities saddled with housing our nation's stranded nuclear waste while the federal government has failed to meet its legal obligation to find a permanent repository. this is something my
too ituents understand all well. the former nuclear -- zion nuclear power plant located on valuable lakefront property has housed more than two million pounds of spent nuclear fuel since the plant's closure in 1998. this waste situated on the very shores of lake michigan is both an extreme environmental hazard and severe burden to the quality of life of the residents of zion. deterring economic investment, depressing home values, and driving up property taxes to fill the void of local revenue. zion is not alone. across the country there are 17 nuclear power plants at various stages of decommissioning with even more announced closures slated for years ahead. in these communities, plans are tip -- plants are typically the largest employer in the area, when they close and waste is stored on site, it is devastating to the local communities. my amendment seeks to help these communities access
desperately needed federal resources until waste is moved. waste that is quite literally stranded in these communities due to the federal government's inaction. specifically, my amendment would require the secretary of force to assemble a task force across all federal agencies in identifying existing resources and funding opportunities that could assist communities with decommissioning plants where waste is being stored. in addition, the task force would work with communities in the decommissioning process to develop transition plan to mitigate the economic damage when a plant closes. communities like zion, illinois, have been forced to shutter the burdens of storage with no compensation in return. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and help my communities get the federal help they are owed. mr. speaker, at this time i would like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from ohio, marcy kaptur. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes.
ms. kaptur: i thank my fellow great lakes member, representative schneider, for yielding the time. also want to thank the ranking member of the appropriations committee, congresswoman lowey, for offering this amendment. i rise in support of this effort to help communities that are left with radioactive waste after the closure of a nuclear power plant. the great lakes region, i might point out, has no energy umbrella like the bureau of reclamation for the 17 western states or portions of the south, the tennessee valley, that can help communities large scale for energy disruptions or changes. in my district of northern ohio, the large nuclear power p is expected to be shuttered. flag not waving the white yet. but the people need the tools to cope with the aftermath if the worst happens. when nuclear power plants close, the flag yet. but the impact on local economies due to the loss of jobs and tax revenue will be severe. for years the davis bessie power plant has provided 700
good jobs and generated $20 million a year in tax revenue for a rural county, of which 12.1 million each year goes to its school district. that 900 megawatt power plant does more than produce power. it builds community. this major financial support disappear and leave the community and that entire county struggling to support schools, law enforcement, and roads, and therefore i strongly support this amendment to help these communities adjust as necessary to access federal resources and make a plan for economic revitalization. thank you. for disappear offering this com amendment, one that is so vitally necessary, especially across the great lakes region, which is owe often neglected. i want to thank chairman shimkus and ranking member tonko for their leadership as well. urge my colleagues to support it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, seek recognition.
mr. shimkus: i rise in opposition to the amendment though i will not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you. mr. chairman, i appreciate my colleague from illinois, one of those chicagolanders i talk about, for bringing this amendment. i use his district, and i have used it for years, to talk about the challenges that we ace if we don't -- do nothing. and this authorization bill is designed to start doing something. and actually it's designed to help us comply with the law hat's already written. zion is the perfect example of e need to move to -- spent nuclear fuel to an interim site and then a final geological thus freeing up,
obviously, great lakefront opportunities on the great kes for redevelopment that thg would help this community that suffered further closure. i'm glad you are here. i appreciate the amendment. and i'm going back to what mark sanford said. this is a national problem. we need a national solution. that's what we're trying to do now in a bipartisan manner. and good job. thank you for offering the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i would now like to yield one minute to my friend and co-sponsor of this amendment, the gentlewoman from new york, nita lowey. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider, for working with me on this very important amendment. indian point energy snernt my district is scheduled to cease operations in 2021.
when the plant closes, the village of buchanan will be left with a large amendment of stranted -- stranded nuclear waste on site. help mendment would buchanan and the town of cortland access vital resources for economic redevelopment. until the department of energy takes title to nuclear waste and removes it from our communities, the federal government must do all it can to support these de facto interim storage sites. i urge adoption of the amendment. yield back. gentlelady yield back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. schneider: back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. schneider: ask i ask how much time i have left? the chair: 30 seconds. he reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus. mr. shimkus: i reserve. i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman will reserve. the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider, has the right to close. mr. shimkus: i would thank the
gentleman from texas, appreciate his support. and we're just, again, just highlight -- i thank my colleague. i don't know if you were in the chamber when i mentioned chicagoland has 55 million visitors. the and 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. -- and 10,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. your amendment helps communities as we transition. it's additive to the overall bill. happy to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider, is recognized to close. mr. schneider: thank my colleague from illinois for your hard work on this and your support. i yield my last 30 seconds to my colleague from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: gentleman from new york is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman from illinois for yielding. i stand in support of the amendment. i thank the gentleman from illinois, and the gentlelady from new york for their hard work on the amendment and for the sensitivity shown the
people in host communities for our nuclear facilities across our country. with that, mr. speaker, i support this amendment. and encourage our colleagues to do likewise. with that i yield. the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. schneider. mr. schneider: i appreciate all the support, the work of my colleagues. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3, printed in house report 115-665. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printsed in house report number 115-665, offered by ms. titus of nevada. the chair: pursuant to house
resolution 879, the gentlewoman nevada, miss tie turks and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from nevada. ms. titus: thank you. nevada, m a which is also supported by my amendment, my nevada colleague, mr. cuen, is very simple and straightforward. it sets up consent based site decisionmaking as an attorney to screwing nevada 2.0. which continues a process that lasted 36 years, cost $15 billion, going nowhere in the senate, and has nothing to o show for it but a big hole in the ground. consent based citing, on the other hand, is fair. nevada doesn't want your nuclear waste. but we didn't get any benefits from it. and we didn't generate it. but texas and new mexico do nt it, so why not let them have it? it's also a sound policy.
it was the number one recommendation of the esteemed blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future. have it? you can argue the politics. you can distort the science. you can assert it's the law as 10 h a 1982 policy is the commandments, but you can't hide the truth. my colleagues don't want this dangerous waste in their backyards any more than nevada does. i get that. that's easy to understand. it's funny, they didn't mind the jobs. they didn't mind the tax revenue, the cheap power, and the political support they got from the nuclear power industry over the years that it's existed. now they just want somebody else to clean up their mess. screwing ead of nevada one more time, why don't we really work together so we can finally and effectively scr nevada solve the problem? we could do this with consent-based siting for both interrim and permanent storage facilities. this would be a real solution that could take us into the future.
so i would urge my colleagues to support the titus amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from i am now seek recognition. mr. shimkus: speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you. mr. chairman, first of all the state of nevada has benefited nuclear age. it helped us win world war ii. also nevada pays for our inability to comply with the law because nationally we pay out of the judgment fund. so the taxpayers of the state of nevada are paying through federal tax liabilities for us not complying with the law. i want to make that straight. there's two main problems with my colleagues -- colleague's amendment. , it's just the language, it's a striking bill, which
says that, it's then all this d of interim storage we're having, her amendment strikes that. all the discussion about how we're trying to protect the ratepayers, especially in the future? her amendment strikes that. her amendment strikes the final regulatory review of the yucca mountain site. the n.r.c., nuclear regulatory commission, said in their scientific -- the scientific evaluation report, yucca mountain would be safe for one million years. current law allows the state of nevada to challenge that. but my colleague's amendment strikes that. and what we have done in this legislation is we said, we understand the concerns of the state of nevada. current law says because you vetoed it, you get no benefits. in this bill, we said, that's
not fair. we're going to allow the state of nevada to receive the benefits that they request in moving forward. your amendment strikes that. your amendment strikes the opportunity for the state of nevada to get any benefits once we move forward. . the other part of the problem with this amendment is the terminology is very vague as the local government entities. and we think that's probably intentional. it's intentional so that you can never get a number of local entities to ever decide. we kind of looked at -- based upon the way the language is written, who would be considered. well, a local entity in the
state of utah, minersville, population 887, 300 miles from the site, could be able to veto his national solution to a national problem. now, that means -- i can't wait to visit minersville someday -- that means they will have more power than the federal government and this chamber. they are going to have the veto authority over the state of new jersey or the state of illinois or the state of california. i don't know how many states here came to debate on this bill. quite a few. so a couple problems. first problem is, it's a strike amendment which means everything that has been done, all the adjustments i worked in a bipartisan manner, throw them out. d that you cannot get to understand the universe of
local communities that would have a veto over this national solution to a national problem. and with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just respond to two things. thank you for recognizing what nevada did to help win the cold war. we were the site of atomic testing for years. we still bare those scars. this isn't about military waste. this is about commercial waste. second, while i appreciate the chairman's concern about nevada and giving us benefits, the health and safety of nevadans is not for sale to the nuclear power industry. at there time i'd like to recognize my colleague and yield 45 seconds to the ranking member of the house transportation infrastructure committee, mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. defazio: i thank the gentlelady. i think we can agree on one thing. the status quo is not acceptable. dispersed around the country in wet pools, casts, we need to
deal with that. this is not the perfect solution and it's destined to fail in the senate. why do we commission blue wribon commissions of experts -- are we the experts? and then ignore their advice? they made four major points. the solution must be adaptive, it must be staged. it must be consent-based, and it must be transparent. this bill assumes we're going at yucca mountain which has been proven to be geologically unstable and unsuitable. so, therefore, this amendment should be adopted. the bill should fail. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from nevada. ms. titus: continue to reserve. the chair: reserves. and the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman. i am glad my friend from oregon mentioned the blue ribbon commission. the blue ribbon commission was old, do not consider yucca mountain. so, come on, really? pull out the blue ribbon commission and say this is the truth when they were told, consider everything else but you can't consider the law of
the land. preposterous. and to my colleague, chairman walden, actually in oregon, this is hanford. these are the tanks. next to the columbia river which goes next to oregon. and you're saying it has no defense-related provisions for this bill? come on, now. let's move forward. i reserve my time. the chair: members are advised to direct their remarks to the chair. not to each other. and the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: thank you, mr. chair. that's in washington. it's not in oregon. if you don't even know where hanford is, i am not sure you know what took place there. i would say the law of the land, that's a great argument. you forgot about that argument when you tried to repeal obamacare 60 times and done everything you can to roll back dodd-frank. so law of the land is a pretty weak, specious argument. this is not about the safety of nevada. this is about doing what's
right, finding a policy that will work that's based on consent that the experts say is the way to go, that has a chance to get out of the senate and really move us forward so we do quit wasting time and we he do quit wasting money and we find a real solution to an issue that does affect the entire nation. that's why it should be consent-based. that's why i think we should support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill, and i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. shimkus: i yield back my time. the chair: yields back his time. the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for the remainder of her time. ms. titus: mr. chairman, i say, please keep in mind this has an opportunity to pass. it will really solve the problem. it will not turn the clock back to an old way that has failed, that is faulty science, bad politics and even worse policy. i thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from nevada yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlelady from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. titus: mr. chairman. i'd like to request a roll call vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 332. the amendment is -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 332. the amendment is not adopt the question is son the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises.
the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union directs me to report the committee has had under 4453 and ion h.r. reports it back to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under its consideration h.r. 3053 and pursuant to house resolution 879 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the question is ordered. a a separate vote demanded on any amendments to the quhole amendment reported by the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the nuclear waste plcy -- policy act of 1982 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is son passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentlelady from nevada. ms. titus: i request a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have it. a roll call vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise, a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause of rule 20, this five-minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a five-minute vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 340 the nays are 7 2. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a
recorded vote is requested. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition. >> i ask unanimous consent to remove myself as kee sponsor from h.r. 1468. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove myself as co-sponsor from h.res. 774. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition. ask unanimous i consent to remove myself as a co-sponsor from h.r. 60. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. k
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek nation. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign affairs be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 835, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 835, resolution supporting robust relation was the state of israel bilaterally and in multilateral upon 70 years of statehood, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the resolution? the clerk will report the amendment -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. mr. royce: i have an amendment to the text at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment to the tesk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. royce of california, strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following, that
the house of representatives, one, encourages equitable -- mr. royce: let me ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: there objection? without objection, the reading is suspended. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i have an amendment to the preamble at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment to the text is agreed to. and without objection the resolution is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. mr. royce: i have an amendment to the preamble at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. royce of california. strike the preamble and insert the following -- mr. royce: i'm going to ask unanimous consent to dispent pence with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection. the reading is suspended. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the amendment to the preamble is agreed to. and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3210, an act to require the director of the national background investigations bureau to submit a report on the backlog of personnel security clearance investigations, and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's reappointment pursuant to section 201-b of the international religious freedom act of 1998, 22 u.s. code 6431, and the order of the house of january 3, 2017, of the following individual on the part of the house to the commission on international religious freedom for a term effective may 14, 2018, and
ending may 14, 2020. djori of dr. tenson alifornia. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week and perhaps longer than that to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i yield to my friend, mr. mccarthy, the majority leader from california. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. -- mcyart mr. mccarthy: no votes are expected in the house on monday. votes will be postponed until
6:30 p.m. on tuesday. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. mr. speaker, on -- mr. friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by cless of business -- close of business tomorrow. next week is national police week. so several built will focus on supporting the work done each day by our men and women in law enforcement. that includes h.r. 5698, the protect and serve act sponsored by representative john rutherford. this bill would make inflicting or attempting to inflict serious bodily harm on any police officer, a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. the house will also consider h.r. 2, the agriculture and nutritious action, sponsored by representative mike conaway. ronald reagan said american farmers are the backbone of our
country. both myself and the data would greevement food and ag industries drive more than 43 million jobs, over a quarter of all american jobs, and u.s. farm exports generate more than $300 billion in economic activity. this important bill will re-authorize farm and nutritious assistance programs for five years while making reforms to modernizing key programs and bert support rural america. since my friend often asks about items beyond the week to come, i'd like to make this a bonus colloquy for him. and preview several items that are possible during this work period. this includes h.r. 5674, the v.a. mission act of 2018. sponsored by representative phil roe. this bill would fundamentally transform the v.a. and the way america veterans receive care for the better. i want to applaud chairman roe for his hard work on this legislation, which recently passed his committee on a bipartisan vote of 20-2.
next h.r. 3, the spending cuts to expired and unnecessary programs act, a $15.4 billion, the bill represents the largest single rescissions request in history. more importantly, this bill allows congress to give our federal budget a much needed spring cleaning to the benefit of hardworking taxpayers. third, h.r. 5515, the national defense authorization act, sponsored by representative mac thornberry. this bill supports the historic investments we have made to lee build america's -- rebuild america's military and ensures our brave men and women have the resources they need to keep us safe. flime, the house may take further action on dodd-frank reform, including potential action on the community bank regulatory relief bill passed by the u.s. senate. i look forward to both chambers additional policy actions in this space in the coming weeks as we continue to improve access to capital for american families and businesses. additional as soon as our schedule's
finalized, i'll be sure to inform all members w that i thank my friend. yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the information and for the bonus. of the little longer term view of what we might be considering on the floor of the house. one of the things i didn't hear on that, perhaps the -- i ask the majority leader about this before, is the majority expecting to offer on the floor or consider a budget resolution this year? i yield. mr. mccarthy: you asked before and as we worked time and time again, the committee is working on a budget. as we get through we'll take it to the floor. yield back. mr. hoyer: so that although it was not on this list, we might expect a budget resolution to be offered at some point in time in the future? i yield. mr. mccarthy: i thank my friend for yielding. even though i have given him a bonus colloquy between the week
in front of us, that does not mean if i don't mention something that that item would not come forward. as the budget committee works, will i keep you apprised of where they are and when the timing is for us to bring it the to the floor. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. april 15 is the day set forth. many times we did not meet april 15. clearly last year we didn't meet april 15 by many, many months. but i appreciate the gentleman's answers. let me say that i will be joining sunday night at the national law enforcement memorial here in washington, d.c.. the ceremony to honor those who have given their life in service to our country as law enforcement officers. and we ought to pause not just next week but every week to recognize the extraordinary service given to us by what i
call our domestic defenders, both our police and fire personnel and emergency medical response teams. it is appropriate that we say thank you. they obviously have a very, very tough job. they get a lock of flak from time to time, but without them we could not maintain the system of order that we have in this country that allows democracy to proceed. so i want to -- all of us to join not just next week, but next week particularly, to recognize. we'll have of course a ceremony on the west front of the capitol. we just had a ceremony the other day which the capitol police conducted remembering the loss of life that we experienced here in this apitol to officer chestnut and detective gibson in defending the capitol and those who reside therein and visit this capitol.
on the farm bill and on farm bill, as i understand it, again i think pursuant to what the speaker said after we passed the tax $1.5 which we gave 83% of trillion to the wealthiest in america, the farm bill is now to fill that $1.8 trillion hole that was constructed by the tax bill by reducing benefits to those most in need in this country. i would not so much ask a question of the majority leader, mr. speaker, but simply to observe that i would hope we would not try to fill that very, very deep hole we have dug by passing that tax bill by taking it from those who are
most in need. i notice that as well as the farm bill the reconciliation bill -- excuse me, the rescission bill was referred to by the leader as coming to the floor as well. and that seeks to cut a very from the l amount contingency fund for child health insurance. the majority leader will make the point, well, that is money that is not necessarily from expected to be spent. he wrote to c.b.o. to ask them a question, c.b.o. said they didn't think any children would be cropped -- dropped off, because if the contingency is not realized no children will be dropped off, but if the contingency is and there are no contingency funds, children will be at risk unless we pass additional legislation.
i think it's unfortunate think majority is pursuing a policy now, both on the farm bill and on the rescission bill that seeks to undermine the safety and security of those who are nutritionally uns served in this country. it's amaze, the richest country on the face of the earth, we have people, one out of five children is going, mr. speaker, o bed at night hungry. we ought to be moving in the other direction. this bill has historically been a very bipartisan bill. mr. lucas and mr. peterson and last re-authorization brought a bipartisan bill to the floor. very frankly it was turn intod a partisan bill on the floor, mr. amendment was amendment was offered and voted on by much -- many of the leadership on the majority side which would have cut $40 billion from food stamps
for those who are hungry americans among us. this is less than that. but i understand that the heritage action, club for growth and americans for prosperity are opposed to the bill because it is not a deep enough cut either in farm programs or in nutritional programs. i would say mr. speaker that we hope that these will not be policies that we will pursue as a house of representatives or as a congress and very frankly we think the farm bill has little chance of passing the senate. i would say zero but that perhaps is a little bit too strong but certainly little, so that we will be spinning our wheels to send an ideological message to constituencies, i suppose, that want to undercut
the ability to ensure that people have food that are hungry. in our country. as to the rescission bill that the majority leader mentioned, mr. speaker, rescissions are pretty common. rescissions are common and mostly done by the congress of the united states. and we do it annually in almost every appropriation bill that we -- or omnibus we pass or not so much c.r.'s but they have been present in c.r.'s as well, that we have rescissions. the congress has also gotten, as the majority leader will point out, resigs requests from the xecutive department. not ly those have been agreed to by the congress.
only in one instance has one president had even a majority of his requests acceded to. and that was president clinton. but the fact of the matter is, for the midwest part, rescissions have been pursued by the congress of the united states. appropriately so. doing its job. and of course the -- president bush asked for no rescissions. president reagan asked for a lot of rescissions. president bush asked for no rescission, i refer to the second president bush, nor did president obama. notwithstanding -- and when republicans were largely in charge of the congress of the united states. and we exercised our judgment and did in fact do rescissions in the appropriations process. now we're not -- we had not had a budget,s the middle of this may, it's a month after the budget was to come forward, our
side does not see a budget moving but perhaps the majority leader is correct. the committee is considering that. and that would be another place where the congress could take initiatives and a decision to rescind various amounts of spending. last week, mr. speaker, i said if there was spending that was neither necessary and had been authorized over long periods of time, then i would have no objection personally to that seigs -- rescission. and would think we could initiate that action. but i would hope that in both of these instances we would not take actions which would adversely affect those who are challenged in america either because of health reasons or nutritional reasons. i would secondly say, and lastly, the majority leader i'm sure wants to make some comments , 60% of the budget that we
passed which our republican friends apparently think was too uch was defense. is single red cent included in the president's rescission. from the defense side of the budget. only the nondefense discretionary funding. the people part of the budget. now i'm a strong supporter of national security, mr. speaker, i have been for the 37 years i've been in this house. but i do not delude myself that every bit of money that has been appropriated, trillions of dollars over the last four, five, or six years is either -- has either been spent or is not subject to, perhaps the congress saying, well, put that money on the table but it hasn't been spent.
the president can't find a single red cent for that but he can find places where we can undermine research for innovation, children's health insurance program, i understand the leader is going to say that c.b.o. says not a single child will be dropped. that may be true but if we drop the contingency fund which has been available and used year after year, either directly for health insurance or for related programs for children, then we will be at risk of hurting people that i don't think anybody in this body wants to hurt. so i would hope that before those bills are brought to the floor, we would keep those matters in consideration. yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for those questions. i've got good news for the gentleman. if his concern is the contingency fund for the
children's health insurance program, no need to fear. in the life of the entire policeman, the most that's ever been used accumulated completely is $300 million. that's why we set aside $500 million. go beyond the long history of it, you know, c.b.o. tells us they don't expect any of it to be use bud we wanted insurance. just as we wanted this program to survive, that's why it got extended more than 10 years. i don't have to, mr. speaker, i don't have to remind my friend he voted against that. but we care about children's health insurance program. we care about the taxpayers. and the good news is, in this rescissions program, none of that money can be spent. and if you're concerned about it and worried about maybe you'd make that vote, mr. speaker, the leader of the other side, she voted to take that same amount from chip in the omnibus to spend somewhere else but when you -- you can't use the money,
we've already extended it 10 years new york child is going to be harmed by this, c.b.o. says it, all the way through. we keep the contingency fund there, but you won't rescind the money that you don't have authority to spend on the program to give become to the taxpayers? that's what's interesting to me. because i listen to your -- to you closely. we've had this discussion before about rescissions. it was just in our last colloquy. i remember when we talked about rescissions. because that used to be common practice. president bill clinton did it 111 times. president ronald reagan did it 214 times. and those -- both presidents, mr. speaker, had congresses that were from other parties. sometime during their administration. so when you and i talked about it, because you had vetted -- voted for rescissions before, i wanted to make sure i got your
input before ever talking to the administration. because i would like to have your help on this. i think the american taxpayers would like to have everybody's help on this. so i asked you in that colloquy, i was hoping that you would support this bill from our last one. because you said in our last colloquy, i would not irrationally oppose a rescission which said we had money laying in an account that had not been spent for one, two, or three years. e shouldn't just have it sitting in that account. because in our colloquy, mr. speaker, the concern on the other side from my friend was we were going to break a trust, we were sitting in that account. going that omnibus that he felt a lot of people negotiated in, but unfortunately that trust he couldn't vote for, you even interrupted me to say you believe that rescinding those funds was a reasonable thing to do.
i agree that it is a reasonable thing to do. so this administration i think may have listened to our colloquy, mr. speaker, because if you look at this rescission ackage this elargest done. common practice. you asked for funding that's sat for the last one, two or three years. but even in this one, we identified programs that have sat there for seven years. there's more than $4 billion sitting there. taking you at your word, you would jump at this i should have asked you to co-sponsor it. now i hope all members will put the politics aside and be able to support this because this is what the taxpayer is looking for, this is what this house has a history of doing and i know you brug up a few every issues in there. and i know when you talk about the children's health insurance
program, the c.b.o. has said, it says that rescinding the unooble gated balances would not affect outlays or the numb of individuals with insurance coverage. so many times i hear c.b.o. quoted here so i hope we would quote it here as well. in other words, this will have no effect on the chip program. and mr. speaker, as i noted earlier -- earlier in the omnibus, those who voted for it and the leader on the other side did, it did the exact same thing with a higher number. so it was on unonly now i do want to also, mr. speaker know because we worked on this chip program for quite sometime. the republicans passed the longest and generous chip extension in the program's history. for the record, my friend did
vote against it, not once or twice but three times. i would like to quote an ap article from andy taylor because you can't make this stuff up. democrats supported almost $7 billion in cuts to the children's health insurance program eager to grab budget savings to finance new spending at the department of health and human services but some democrats howled over the trump proposal any way. let me get this straight, is it ok to rescind the chip program when nancy pelosi wants to spend more and mr. trump wants to save the taxpayers money with no effect on the chip program at all? is that what armageddon is? i don't want to play politics and you did mention the tax bill and you did mention april. there was more good news in america.
wasn't just unemployment at 3.9%. the whole time i have been in congress, it has never been that low. mr. hoyer: when president clinton was president. mr. mccarthy: 18 years ago. you know the claims for unemployment is the lowest in four decades. just in the last year, two million more people have jobs? did you realize the millions of people that actually got bonuses r just in one company, 1.2 million americans have longer maturnt leave. and did you see the revenue into america's government last month? it was the largest surplus in the history, the most revenue coming in. so all those colloquys we had of the fear of this tax bill, the one that allowed americans to
keep more of what they earned and would create more jobs and bring more prosperity, facts don't lie. america is in a very good place. and i'm thankful we had that debate. i know, mr. speaker, the others on the other side there wasn't one that could agree with us, but today they can agree with the numbers what it says and what it means, that we know for any american that has a child that is 18 years old and ready to go to college, they don't have the fear to come back and live with their parents and enter one of the strongest economies to find a job in their lifetime, but maybe in almost one of the best times we have seen in ours. so, yes, i'm excited about this. i'm excited about an idea of bringing a tradition back to save the taxpayers money, one that my friend has voted for before, and protects the chip
program by setting aside that contingency basis more than what has been asked for it and even though they say not one dollar will be spared. we have the reserve there for it. and i am excited that the administration listen to our colloquy, took my friend's wisdom and advice that he would look at any account that sat there, one, two, and even seven years that was unobligated to save the taxpayer money. and i look forward to when it's on the floor and we can vote on it together and show the american public we are serious about saving taxpayers money. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. he mentioned a number of facts economically. i think all of us can be happy that unemployment is down. he then mentions there is less unemployment requests being made. is the gentleman aware that in
2016 we created 400,000 more jobs than in 2017? that's a fact. i yield. mr. mccarthy: does the gentleman realize there is two million more people in the work force in less than a year. and five million people got a bonus that some people on the other side thought were crumbs. does the gentleman understand 3.9% unemployment, that we have not seen that in two decades. does the gentleman understand we watched our president at andrews air force base bring back three americans that were held in prison in north korea and for the first time since that conflict went on, there is an opportunity to end that war? so, yes, i think some of our best days are right now, but with the potential that we have t only with our tax bill but
get the farm bill moving to get individuals into the work force, that i do believe the best days are in front of us. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i presume the gentleman did not know there were 400,000 more jobs created in 2016 than 2017. i didn't get the answer to that question, mr. speaker. let me ask, however, if the gentleman is convinced that there's not a single nickel that can be rescinded from the defense department budget over the last 10 years, trillions of dollars of money and that only the nondefense side of the budget is subject to rescissions. the gentleman of the opinion that there are no sums available from the defense budget to try to fill the $1.8 trillion hole created by the tax bill. i yield to my friend.
mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman is very concerned about the trusts that we would have because of the months that went into the omnibus, that we would break this trust even did not for it. in that omnibus because defense had been cut more than 20% because when i wake up this morning and i see rockets flying from syria into israel, when we watch the world become unsafe, it's not 20% safer. we made an investment into military. and he does not want any cuts to go into that process. but my question to you, sir, is there any cut in the rescission you can support, because i took you at your word? i said to the administration, i just had a great conversation in a colloquy. the gentleman on the other side said of course he would look at
anything that was twun, two, three or further years that was unobligated. that's the only thing that's in the rescission. you know, the easiest way not to save taxpayers money is to find something that's not in the bill that you just really need. you lay it out in a colloquy what you wanted in a rescission and did not deal with the omnibus because you were worried about the trust. and you said you would look at one, two, three or further. that's the only thing in here. mr. speaker, i ask my friend, is there anything in the rescission bill that you could support by giving the taxpayers more money back? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, of course the answer to that question is yes. and as i have explained to the majority leader, the congress has rescinded billions of dollars through the years. and i have voted for rescissions
that have been sent down by presidents of the united states. and there nay well be rescissions that are sent down that i could support. i do not intend to support rescissions, mr. speaker, that i view as undermining children's health. i know what the majority leader says, nobody's going to be hurt. now, interestingly enough in that answer, he does not answer my question except we all want a strong defense. nobody on this floor has longer supported israel's right to be . fe and defend it than i have the issue is, i ask the majority leader, this does not include a single red cent of rescissions from the trillions of dollars to the dens department. not that i want to undermine the defense department any more than he says he wants to undermine children's health. but this is not about
rescissions per se. what is it about is the flack that the majority party is getting, the president is getting from the club for growth, americans for prosperity saying your budget was too big. the omnibus was too big. we don't like it. show some fiscal discipline. in an effort to show fiscal discipline, who do they go after? the children's health insurance program. he can say what he wants and he well knows and the propertyors will tell him that that money has been used on an ongoing basis by the labor-health subcommittee and the appropriations committee to backfill in places where there were clearly shortages to children and families. and the gentleman may want to say whether or not he believes because outlays are not affected, he says, whether he
believes that, in fact, this rescission will lower the nondefense discretionary baseline in 2019. that's what i think the real purpose is, mr. speaker. and that is why the majority leader, mr. speaker, has not answered the question about whether there is a single cent to save the taxpayer money. we all want to save the taxpayer money. out of the defense department side of the budget. r whether that is simply sacrosanct and not worthy of oversight by the congress or the president. that was my question and it was not answered. mr. mccarthy: would the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i will. mr. mccarthy: i know you served on appropriations committee. offer up like any member can what you would cut or where you want to find the savings. i will look in any department in
anywhere to find the savings. can the gentleman show me where in the chip program, because one, you cannot use these funds. two, the contingency base is more than what has ever been used in the history of it. show me where the children's health insurance program, because no one is saying it, no one can show that it is and please point it out to us. mr. hoyer: excuse me, i yield -- mr. mccarthy: you do not have the authority to spend this money. we put a contingency fund set aside and looked at the history of the program, the most that was ever used was $300 million and keep $500 million in
reserve. why then for those who voted for the omni on your side of the aisle would you make a larger, same amount and the argument then to take that money in the omni, but not now? why is it different? why is it different when the taxpayers will save money into an account you cannot spend and don't have the legal authority to and it is sitting there and goes to the criteria you laid out. and this doesn't have to be the only one. if you want to work with us and find savings for the taxpayers, i will make myself available to have those meetings. i yield back. mr. hoyer: is the majority leader aware of the fact when he says the rescission was cut or chip was cut, is the gentleman aware of where that money went when it was cut or i would say it in a different way, reprogrammed to other items in the omnibus or in the
labor-health bill in previous appropriations? is the gentleman aware the difference between the cut and reprogramming of money for a different objective related to the appropriation that was included? mr. mccarthy: the answer is yes. because if you listened to what i said earlier, it went to h.h.s. this is the point that you could not use that money for the chip program. it is still sitting there. you don't have the authority for it. it is exactly what you just said in a colloquy that you will look at any account that is looking at one, two, three, all the way to seven years. if no child could be harmed, if the republicans put it for 10 years, you can't use the money and we leave a contingency fund there. if the gentleman wants to find a reason to get to no, i understand that. but i'm of the belief, but i want to find a way to save money and i don't know what points you
try to bring up. the whole time i have been in this house i have held to the belief, we can find any program, any waste, but this rescission program is about money that's sitting in an account that you laid out that you said you would be more than willing to look at. and that's what we have done. and i hope you keep your word and vote for it. i yield back. mr. hoyer: the gentleman has not answered either one of my questions, a, whether there was a single red cent in the defense department because that money has been laying there, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 years. whether or not this rescission will adversely impact the discretionary baseline for the 2019 budget. yield to him.
mr. mccarthy: you're yielding to me? mr. hoyer: i did yield to you about the single red cent because all these deals on the nondefense side of the budget, the smallest part of the budget and the gentleman says we need to make sure we do these cuts he wasn't as concerned apparently about the balancing our budget when he cut $1.8 trillion, $1.5 trillion, 1.8 trillion when you include the interest, i know they say it's going to pay for itself. i've been here a long time, they've said that before, it never has paid for itself. the gentleman will not answer that question as to -- the two questions is there not a single red cent in the defense budget, looking at the defense budget to see whether or not we put money on the table that is neither no longer necessary or has not been used for significant period of time. that seems to be his rationale.
or secondly, whether or not it's going to have an adverse effect on the budget deal that was reached in terms of where the nondefense discretionary spending base will be for the 2019 budget. i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i'll answer any question you have or any other reason why you can't cut money. this doesn't affect the 20189 baseline. secondly, the gentleman is a member of this congress. rescissions are not a one-time offer. if you have any ability or any ideas on -- i'm more than willing to work with you, more than willing to work in the future, not just that line but others as well. mr. hoyer: is the gentleman aware that there are $95 billion of unobligated funds in the department of defense? mr. mccarthy: that's great. will the gentleman offer an amendment.
mr. hoyer: why would i need to offer it. excuse me, mr. speaker, i'm sorry. mr. speaker, i would ask the majority leader, he wants to do these rescissions, congress usually does this, do them in the appropriations process. and that's fine. presidents have also done that. my question to him was, you want to see rescissions, and i have -- he has quoted me over and other and over again, funds that are not necessary, not needed, not going to be spent, obviously we'll consider rescissions for those. however, what i've asked the gentleman is, you make the assessment. very frankly, the first time we make a rescission suggestion on defense, you will stand up or others on your side will stand up, say they're against defense. i'm strongly for our national security, always have been.
but i think it perverse in the farm bill to look at people who need nutritionalmen, this chip program, there's $500 million as e claims, and probably the ate, don't want to say gentleman would say something inaccurate but clearly these funds have been used for other issues almost annually by the appropriation committee, mr. cole would say that, mrs. lowey ould say that and -- mr. mccarthy: would the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i expect the presidented on the majority to propose where the funds, the $95 billion in unobligated funds might also add to his desire to make sure the taxpayers get some money back that's not being used. i yield to my friend and then we'll conclude. mr. mccarthy: the gentleman used congressman tom cole's name. saying he would answer.
congressman tom skeel co-spon or of the -- co-sponsor of the rescission bill. he's an appropriator just as congresswoman kay granger, congressman tom grace, they're all on the appropriation committee and they're all co-sponsors of this bill. because they want to continue to look for ways to save taxpayers money. i know we've gone round and round here. the question really ends to a philosophy. can we find a place that we can save the taxpayers money, or can we only find the time that we take that money when you can't spend it and spend it someplace else? i believe we can take money you cannot spend and give it back to the taxpayer. the gentleman brings up other areas. my door is open. i don't want this to be the only rescission. i look forward, any department, any area in government that we can find savings that's left over, that's sitting there, or
just make it more accountable. find savings in the current process as well. i'm all for that but the one thing, mr. speaker, i'm opposed to is, voting no is the easiest thing to do on this floor. i can always find a reason why i'm against a bill because something else was not in it. what's in this bill today is what my friend said in the last colloquy. his argument against having a rescission package was all based upon the omnibus. so he laid this out. then we immediate that criteria and he lays another reason out. you cannot point anywhere, c.b.o. or any other way, that the chip program is harmed. i'm sure he was concerned about that, mr. speaker, when he vote against it three times when he extended for 10 years. this isn't about chip. it has nothing to do with it. because the c.b.o. says it's all protect and we put a con tin general -- contingency fund there, greater than what was used in the history of the program. the real story, mr. speaker, can you take money and give it back to the taxpayers and save money
or do you always have to spend more many washington in -- in washington? i think when the bill comes to the floor, the american people will get that answer. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the gentleman has mentioned numerous times i voted against some of the bills that were offered on this floor and he's right. he tries to make it as if i voted against the chip program. he knows that's not an honest representation, mr. speaker. any more than the chairman of the armed services committee voting against one of those bills with me, being against defense. i was against it frankly because the speaker and the majority leader made a representation in september we're going to solve a problem we have yet to solve. and i'm sorry about that. i think it's wrong not to have solved it. we were told we were going to have a solution toyota.
but the fact of the matter is, hat i'm saying is, the republicans republicans talked and talked mightily about deficit reduction. and giving money back to the taxpayer. , thef you break their bank money who you're going to take from people are our children. so they passed a massive $1.5 trillion tax bill. massive. and then come here with nickel-diming programs. and say that they're going to give money back to the taxpayer. i'm for giving money back to the taxpayer. i'm not for doing it by creating additional debt for their children and grandchildren. i think that's not only an intellectually bankrupt policy, but an immoral policy.
but we're not going to resolve it today. i understand that. so unless the leader has something more to say i'll yield back the balance of my time. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the gentleman said nickel and dime programs, this will be the largest rescission in this country. it's not nickels and dimes, it's the taxpayers' money. if it's nickels and dimes for taxpayers, i want to save those just the same. but this is billions this egentleman tries to make an argument that doesn't hold. mr. speaker, mr. speaker, the gentleman argues that chip could be in jeopardy. the c.b.o. says that's not true. mr. speaker, the press writes that it's not true. mr. speaker, i cannot find anywhere that this program would be harmed. mr. speaker, i listened to my friend on the other side explain why he voted against chip three times.
his explanation is because he said there was a promise on the other side for some other bill to come to the floor. i can take him at his word but my only question would be back, mr. speaker, then why does he vote for any bill? shouldn't he vote no on every bill that's on the floor then if that's the protest? i don't understand why you would take it out on the children's health insurance program. i don't understand why when we had the opportunity and we were able to achieve it, mr. speaker, to get the longest extension a decade. so mr. speaker, i know the american public will see through what's politics and what's policy and what the opportunity. we did pass the tax bill and mr. speaker, unfortunately, it was just one side that voted for it. yes, we are at our lowest unpliment we've been in more than 18 years. our unemployment claims are the lowest it's been in 44 years. two million more people are now
in the work force. if you go back nine or 10 year the participation rate in america was over 65%. unfortunately, just a few years ago it got down to 62.7%. the lowest it's been since 1978. but the good news is, it's on its way back up. the good news is, mr. speaker, millions of americans got bonuses. where they could fix their car, maybe buy that new washing machine. the better news is, mr. speaker, that the revenues into government are even higher. part of what the argument was, mr. speaker, on passing the tax bill. there was even an excitement to watch, mr. speaker, president trump sitting at andrews air force base, watching to three americans get off an airplane that have been in prison in north korea, released on the hopes that the war and the battle of north against south can end. and mr. speaker, the president has announced the location that
he -- that he has a location and time for that meeting. yes, the world looks brighter. but there are still spaces around the world that are not safe. and yes we did make an investment into the military. and i'm very -- that i'm very proud of. i voted for that bill. people will say a lot of people negotiate -- people say a lot of people negotiated. some that negotiated didn't vote for it in the end. so mr. speaker, i try to listen to the other side. and i take what they say very seriously. so mr. speaker, when i heard my last colloquy that a rescission bill had to be on those funds that have sat there for one, two, three, and even seven years, that's what we did. and i look forward to working on further bills in any department that anyone in this body would like to work on. yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, this administration will have the largest deficit increase of any administration in history.
they haven't been here very long so that's a prediction i make and i am absolutely positive i'm correct. and they are now trying to bring that down. as i have said. by going after investments on the defense -- on the domestic side of the budget. both in the farm bill and in the rescission package. there are clearly rescissions that are justified. and that the appropriations committee and administration have made on a regular basis. when administrations have made them, almost invariably, the majority of the rescissions requested by the administrations, democrat or republican, have been rejected by the congress of the united states. but i'm hopeful, as the majority leader says, that we can reach bipartisan agreement. on rescissions that in fact make
sense. i would also hope we could reach some bipartisan agreement on solving issues that confront this country. the farm bill is a perfect example where it historically has been a bipartisan bill, mr. speaker. it's a partisan bill that this -- partisan bill this year. as they made it the last time when chairman lucas reported out a bipartisan bill and pleaded with his party not to make it a partisan bill. they made it a partisan bill. and of course it failed in the senate. wasn't even brought up in the senate. the senate did its own thing. so i would hope that the words of the majority leader about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion will be realized. with respect to all these issues include regular sigses. and i would hope that we could perhaps have some rational the ies to try to stem extraordinary deficits that will
nevitt wliably be caused as they tax een in the past by a cut bill that gave 83% of its benefits to the wealthiest in our nation. so without further ado, mr. speaker, i'll be prepared to yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today about an excellent event that will take place saturday in communities throughout the nation. the 26th annual stamp out hunger food drive is the country's largest single day food drive.
the brain child of the national association of letter carriers in response to the need they saw every day on their routes. letter carriers go into neighborhoods in every town at least six days a week and they have a keen awareness of their neighbors in need. after receiving input from food banks and pantry the letter carriers determined that late spring would be the best time for food drive, since by then most food banks in the country start running out of donations received during the thanksgiving and holiday -- and christmas holiday periods. known for its distinctive blue plastic bag the stamp out hunger food drive provides nonperishable foods to local food banks, shelters across the united states. one bag of food may seem small but gos a long way to stamp out hunger. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to remember the life of john phippin. mr. kihuen: john was the father of six, grandfather to one. his life revolved around his friends, children and grandkids. john showed his true character the night of route 91 festival when he died while shielding a stranger with his body from the gunfire. john was a kind and gentle man who enjoyed the simple things in life. his favorite thing to do was spend time with his family and friends in the sand dunes or camping at the beach. everyone who knew john remembered him for being a wonderful, selfless, sweet man. i would like to extend my condolences to john's family and friends. the city of las vegas, the state of november and the whole country grieve with you. i yield back the remainder of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition?
>> i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the success of the a-29 super light attack combat air caft in afghanistan. a joint u.s. air force, nato and afghan air force program. started in december of 2015, the 81st fighter squadron graduated the first class of afghan a-29 pilots than april marked the two-year anniversary of their first combat mission in afghanistan a remarkable milestone. as one u.s. armed the a-29 has been a game changer. the program's success has dawn the attention of our allies with more than 14 air forces using the a-29 and 220,000 flight hours and 40,000 combat hours.
our air force is conducting experimentation to add this light aircraft to the fleet. i'm proud this contribution of this because since 2011, the a-29 has been built in my district by more than 1,000 u.s. employees, 60% of which are veterans. the a-29 is truly made in america and includes the support of more than 100 suppliers and subcontractors across 20 states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, we will be losing a member of the house of representatives, charlie dent, the gentleman from pennsylvania, will be leaving this body and i would remiss if i didn't come to
the floor and talk about his tremendous service to the house of representatives. ms. sanchez: i have the honor and privilege of serving with mr. dent on the ethics committee, not that serving on ethics is a great honor or great privilege, but serving with him truly was. he is a man of integrity, a man who kept his word, a man who worked hard to get through the business at hand, somebody that i could trust and somebody with a really great sense of humor, which in this body is becoming a rare and rare thing. he is truly a likeable individual, somebody who took his job and responsibilities seriously. and i wish him the best of luck in his feature endeavors and want him to know he will be sorryly missed in this body. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection. mr. carter: i rise today to remember the life of mr. james fuller, senior, long time mayor congresses at district. he began working for the town as a police officers and then police chief and then water superintendent. 42 years ago, mayor fuller was elected to his first term on city council. when he passed he was completing his second term as mayor. he lent his hand to the nation as a whole, serving in the korean war. mayor fuller was fulfilling as the city's leading official. even in the hospital, he said he would never get tired about doing what he can for the people. mayor fuller passed away on
april 27 at the age of 83. his family and friends and the city are in my thoughts and prayers. hank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> address the house one minute and resize and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to remember a friend and former colleague patty burkeholtz. i join my colleagues and friends from lansing by wearing purple. she had the ink pence that she used, everything was purple. she was first elected to the state legislature as the first woman in the western side of michigan. then she became the first female republican speaker pro tempore. after that, she was legitimated to the state senate and served
two terms. mr. huizenga: senator was appointed director of the office of great lakes and as michigan representative. president obama appointed her to the national sea grant advisory board, position she continued until she passed away. the senator was a passionate advocate for michigan's natural resources and passed significant legislation creating the great lakes inner basin compact and as well as ballast water standards that have affected all of the great lakes region. in 2010, 290e-acre portion of the state park was renamed the patricia burkeholtz area. she was a friend and colleague who fought hard for her beliefs. she was tough. she was compassionate. and she was a great legislator
and blessings to her and her family as we mourn her loss. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. rothfus: i rise to offer a big welcome home who arrived this morning back in the united states, in their words the reatest nation in the world. ti commend the secretary of state to release these americans and president trump that led to the negotiating dynamic. if we followed the prior administration's strategic patience, they would be still in prison. with the freeing of these americans, both north and south korea removing their respective propaganda, one cannot help but recall the events of 1989 in eastern europe and the thaw that
resulted. this can achieve lasting peace but we have a long way to go. it is a shame it couldn't have me to fewishon before otto warmbier's release. i thank the speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> we say fair well and colleague and good friend, charlie dent, a dedicated public servant who served in the pa house and pa senate and a dedicated public servant. he's smart, he's tough, he is hardworking and has a great sense of humor but he has been a voice of reason here in the house of representatives.
mr. shuster: he has worked extremely hard to represent the people of the 15th district over the past 14 years and done it with great honor and integrity. as charlie leaves the house today, i say to my good friend, chuck, we're going to miss you. god speed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic term nation of the national emergency within 90 days of the anniversary date, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress that the emergency continues beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with the provision, i have sent the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in executive order 13667 of may 12,
2014 with respect to the central african republic is to continue in effect beyond may 12, 2018. the situation in and in relation to the central african republic, which has been marked by a breakdown of law and order and tension, widespread violence and atrocities and the forced recruitment and use of child soldiers threatens the peace, security and stability of the neighboring states and continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. therefore, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to the central african republic declared in executive order 13667. signed donald j. trump, the white house, may 12, 2018. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on
foreign affairs and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it meet at 11:00 tomorrow and when the house ouns tomorrow and it adjourn to meet on tuesday for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dent: i seek unanimous consent that the committee on popingses have until friday 6 p.m. to file privileged reports making appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to give notice of my intent to resign the united states house of representatives on may 12 and to share a few words with my fellow members and the american people. it has truly been an honor and privilege to serve the people of pennsylvania's 15th district and proud of my time in congress. i believe that i have made a difference and improved the libes of the constituents i served in pennsylvania. from serving on the house homeland security committee and the transportation and infrastructure committee, which is being led by my good friend, mr. shuster of pennsylvania and his term is coming to an end and i congratulate him on his dedicated service and to my current role as a senior member of the house appropriations committee chairing subcommittee of military construction and past chairman of the house ethics committee and i'm proud
that i served with representative sanchez. so much of the staff who are in the chamber today, i'm thrilled to have the opportunity to work with her and the staff who are so prolvingsal. i had the opportunity to serve as co-chair of the tuesday group caucus. very pleased what we were able to accomplish in that role. and as a senior member of the appropriations committee, i fought to fulfill basic government functions like preventing default on our nation obligations. at times, that's not been easy as so many of us know and i see mr. cole is here, too. he is a great appropriator and great mentor to me. unfortunately due to disruptive political influences, increased poll larization has led the congress to become more
paralyzed and not beingable to complete our fundamental tasks. this manifested itself during the 2013 federal government shutdown but it continues today. this political polarization has led to a disturbing trend where the far left and far right are empolledend and empowered. and while the basis of both political parties are well represented in congress, the governing center has been under increased pressure. too many republicans expect nquestioning loyalty and obedience to president trump no matter how absurd the conduct or baffer. constitutional separation of -- alien n jailen concept. on the other side, some democrats have opposition to
president trump even if they agree with him on a given policy or position. separation of political parties has replaced separation of powers as a guiding governing philosophy. this dynamic simply not sustainable and it is already having troubling consequences. we have seen a rise in the three-headed monster of igselationnism and proiksism and nativism. these are not qualities of a great nation. they dishonor the sacrifices and service of the greatest generation who delivered victory during world war ii and farsighted post war that has brought freedom and prosperity to america and its friends and allies and partners. furthermore, traditional democratic values, the rule of law, freedom of press and independent judiciary are under unprecedented attack throughout
much of the world. it is incumbent upon all of us to stand up and defend our way of life and our institutions. in congress, we need to re-establish a strong bipartisan governing center that will help restore order and stability to washington. and that will also help bring -- alleviate a lot of concerns throughout the country. there are a number of members working towards that goal, from the members of the tuesday group, republican main street partnership, the blaw dogs, new democrats, problem solvers caucus. onsensus and compromise are many understand that compromise is not ka titch -- capitulation and surrender. we need to pursue reform on the mandatory side and revenue side of the ledger. we need a simpson-bowles 2.0 with teeth and reforms must be bipartisan to assure they're
both durable and sustainable, which won't happen, we know it won't happen on a bart stan -- a partisan basis. additionally, we need to address other challenges such as how to increase access to and affordability for our nation's health care system. expanding educational opportunities for our children and grandchildren. and making needed improvements to our infrastructure like so many around here are dedicated to, especially chairman shuster. the administration must realize the -- america has to honor its agreements. if we ever hope to enter into new ones. we simply cannot walk away from american commitments, even ones we may have voted against or disagreed with. if we expect to continue to build new coalitions and enter into new agreements. instead we should double down on the multilateral rules-based order, whatever the flaws, that america work sod hard to establish after world war ii by defending the institutions,
alliances and partnerships we established or helped establish, to, european unity, and yes, to a global trade regime, through which we advanced america's economic security and strategic interests. we should look at ways to open new marks and expand new opportunity that unleash the power and benefits of the american free enterprise system. all of us, republicans and democrats, need to work together to move america forward as friends and partners who share values, ideals, and common interests. whether confronting an aggressive russia, terrorist iranian regime or china's marcan tilist policies, success can only be aghide finding strength in unity. while i may be leaving the halls of congress, i'm not retreating from the battlefield, some of you may regret that.
i continue to -- intend to sensibleadvocating for policies. i hope to foster a strong center-right movement that embrace astra decisional conservative virtues of order, discipline, stability, measured statements, and incremental change. not the incendiary rhetoric, kay ys, and dysfunction that we have unfortunately grown accustomed to in recent years. although my time in congress is drawing to a close, i know that our nation's future is bright. thank you, mr. speaker, and thanks to all my friends and colleagues, again, some of whom are here today. thank you all, to my friends and colleagues not only here in the house but in the senate for your support, guidance, wisdom, your friendship over the years, it is truly very meaningful to me. i've been especially touched by
some of the very nice things people have said and other tributes paid to me. my wife said after she heard a few of them she's waiting to meet this guy. they're all talking about. but seriously, i can't thank you enough. i also want to give a special thank you to all my staff both past and present for everything that you've done dutyfully to serve our constituents in pennsylvania and to my legislative and poll icy and priorities, some of my staff are seated up in the gallery, past and frent, not suppose to do that, but it's my last day so i can do. -- i can do that i want to thank my staff, washington and district staff, who did a lot of working not just me, but our staffs to do lot, sometimes they take a lot of grief and we don't say thank you enough. we could never have achieved as much as we did without their dedication and their commitment and above all, thank you to the
people of pennsylvania's 15th congressional district for the trust that you have shown in me time and again and i've always said i don't know how many constituents would allow the amount of latitude they've given me to be an independent voice here and say what needed to be said. i appreciate my constituents allowing me to do that, i recognize in some districts that may not be the case. after serving my family -- after my family, i should say, representing you and carrying your voice to washington, has been the honor and joy of a lifetime. mr. speaker, i say thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's anouned policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole, for 30 minutes. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the house is often described as a family but it's a lot bigger than 435 members. our extended family, of course, includes the staff of the house, and the staff of each and every member. the capitol police that do such an extraordinary job of protecting all of us. the maintenance crews that make sure the facilities function, are open to the public. and frankly all those others who make the house of representatives a very special place. i rise today, mr. speaker, to report what many of you already
know. the loss of a member of that extended family, my longtime chief of staff. shawn patrick murphy. shawn's been a professional associate and friend of mine for 19 years. he was my chief of staff for 11 years. and frankly, we both believed he would be the last chief of staff i would ever have. shawn patrick murphy left us unexpectedly in february. he had based his life on three things. his faith, his family, and his friends. those people who were privileged to know shawn know that he was a very devout catholic and his faith was not something that was casual to him. it was something that he lived each and every day. and carried out in each and
every relationship he had. nothing was more important after his faith than his family. shawn murphy was the consummate husband and father. he loved his family. and he lived a life of total dedication to them. his wife, joanna, his sons patrick, peter, and charlie were fixtures that we all heard about in our office each and every day. particularly the boys. because there would always be a funny story about what they happened to be doing at any given moment. and shawn worked hard so joanna could stay home and homeschool those three children. so they were an extraordinarily close group. and finally, there were shawn's friends. no one had more, no one, fragly, held his friends longer, and no one treasured them more than
shawn. and because of that, if you happened to attend his funeral, you saw over 2,000 family and friends show up for to the remember this extraordinary man. as a person, shawn had all the wit, all the wisdom, all the decency of the irish. he was a natural leader and a loyal colleague. people followed him because they trusted him. he was fair, he was decent, he was selfless. he always put others first. and if you spent a day with shawn maher fi, you were going to laugh he made people laugh, partly by laughing at himself. n all the years i knew him, in all the many capacities we dealt together, i never had one other person come and complain to me about shawn. no constituent, no fellow staff member, no lobbyist, no member of another office. all of them thought they were his best friend.
pretty good and that and would give you a pretty good opinion later of whether they were a friend or not. everybody who knew him liked him and everybody believe head like themmed back. shawn's lifelong profession and it began when he was quilet young was his passion for politics. he took i.r.s. first as a volunteer and it did become the manner in which he lived his life. now, his gentleman nature -- his gentle nature hid an extraordinarily competitive personal spirit. politics, i like to say, is an adult team sport and shawn played it exceptionally well. he was astute nizz judgment about people and about politics. and in all the many issues we discussed, over many years, both in terms of dealing with
political campaigns and dealing with politics of the house itself, both on the floor and in our conference, i never got a piece of bad advice from shawn. but with shawn, politics always had a purpose. and that purpose was always to achieve some greater good, some more important goal. he wasn't just good at winning. he was good at governing. he frankly never sold out. he had plenty of opportunities to go and make a lot more money than i could have ever paid him. but he worked for principle. he always put his country and his party and his people -- and people above anything that might benefit himself. and he believed in the things that he worked for. and he worked to make a difference in this country each and every day. frankly , he cherished this institution above all else. he enjoyed not only the politics but those rare moments of drama
when great things happen on the floor of the house. and he made sure that any member he worked for, and i wasn't the only one, had an opportunity to impact those events, thanks to his good advice, thanks to the wonderful staff he built and created, and thanks to his shrewd strategy. all of us who knew him believe he left us far too soon but that's pretty presumptive, mr. speaker. who are any of us to say something like that? god chooses the time that we come and the time that we go. and how can you leave life better, or how can you be bitter when your friend went to his bed innocent and untroubled and woke up in heaven with our lord and savior. god does allow us to miss him and miss him we all will.
he'll be missed as a husband and a father and a friend. he blessed all of us with his life and for me in particular, mr. speaker, i will miss him for all my days. with i yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. costa, for 30 minutes. mr. costello: -- mr. costa: i thank the speaker. we just heard a few moments of ago, a colleague of ours, congressman charlie dent who has served with great distinction and honor, a classmate of mine. he is a role model for all of us
on how to legislate and in this a thoughtful and deliberative fashion and reach across the aisle in a way that is conducive to gettings things done and he is a great example of how we should all reflect in terms of our work here every day. we will miss him. we wish him the best of luck in his next endeavors. mr. speaker, i also want to talk about the challenges that we face in california as it relates to our water needs. the san joaquin valley that i have the honor and privilege to represent is one of the largest regions in the country. we grow half the nation's fruits and vegetables. 70% of the world's almonds and the number one dairy state in the nation and number one citrus state in the nation. and the list goes on and on,
over 300 commodities that we have the ability to grow because of our incredible climate. and water, which is the crews i believe, because we like to say in the valley that where water flows, food grows. and clearly the ability to have water reliability is so essential to ensuring that we can continue to maintain our agricultural production, which every night puts food on america's dinner table and therefore, allows american consumers to have the healthiest , the best nutritious quality of varieties of food and food products at the most economical costs to them and their families, anywhere in the world. and we're so good at it in
producing food not only in california but around the country, american agriculture, that i think sometimes americans take it for granted, because less than 3% of our nation's population as in california, less than 3% of our state's population is directly involved in the production of food and fiber. theso i sometimes feel that majority of americans believe that their food comes from a grocery store. i mean you get it at the grocery store, at your favorite restaurants, but before that food gets to the grocery store or before it gets to those restaurants, it comes from farmers and ranchers and dairy men and women across this great land of ours. and certainly california plays a key role. weave's had difficult, difficult
drought periods in california. we had a six-year prolonged drought that reminded us that the climate continues to change and what impacts we as women have on the change of that climate is debated, but clearly we know we have an impact and it continues to change. and therefore, to be responsible, we have to plan to ensure that we have adequate water supplies to maintain our agricultural production. for it is the success tenance of life. water or water flows, food grows. it is so important obvious throughout the country but critical in maintaining our ncredible agricultural production in california. 99% of our agriculture in california is irrigated.
and so, i have for over 30 years worked to strengthen the water reliability not only in the san joaquin valley but throughout california. because in a state like california, where we have so many resources and so many cutting-edge technologies in terms of efficient irrigation methodologies, conserving and trying to figure out ways to recharge, we are using all the water tools in the water tool box. when i was in the california legislature, i authored legislation to create the occur and county water bank and led two successful water bond measures to provide more than $2 billion to improve california's california water system and provide for reliable and safe water drinking. we have places in california where our groundwater has gotten
contaminated and therefore, we need to make adjustments to ensure that every american, every californian has clean drinking water. in congress, i secured approval for a water district, the san lewis intertie, the north valley regional recycled and hundreds of thousands of water for our san joaquin valley but also for other parts of california as well. for we cannot solve the water problems in california, i really am very concerned about the future of our nation and our planet. for, again, we don't think about it, but food is a national security issue, it truly is. we take it for granted. but we not only have the ability throughout the country and in
california to produce enough food for every american, but we produce more than we can consume and therefore we export many of our food products throughout the world. but again, with the impacts of climate change, oceans rising, the planet that two years ago clicked seven billion people, by the middle of the century we will have nine billion people. guess what happens? you have to feed them. food not only for america but for the world is a national security issue. but you can't have that abundant supply of food, reliable supply of food unless you have a reliable supply of water. let me give you some perspective. 00 years ago, we had 2.7 billion. we have gone from 1.7 billion to seven billion and middle of the
century will be nine billion people on the planet that will need food. only if we have reliable water supplies can we ensure toe have that supply of food. and if we can't figure out to anage our water resources, a cutting-edge state in technology, if we can't solve our what water problems in california, i'm truly concerned about other parts of the world that depend upon a reliable water supply to feed their population. so throughout the years that i have been both here and in sacramento, i have worked on a bipartisan basis to pass water infrastructure improvements for our nation. the win act we passed two years ago and signed into law in december of 2016. it is part of an overall effort to provide solutions using the
water tools in our tool box that will make it more flexible to move water through california's system of waterways, the sacramento-san joaquin delta system in which we can have the flexibility and try to deal with the environmental concerns and maintain water quality for our cities and provide water for our farmers. in addition, provided the state $355 million for water infrastructure projects and new surface storage in california for the flat project and raising san lewis reservoir and for other important funding purposes in which a federal authorization will allow us to match both state and local dollars. and all of my time in working to improve the lives of the people
in the valley that i have the honor and privilege to represent, rarely have i presented with a project that has such obvious potential as the new ex checker dam that was built a number of years ago. the water that is currently impounded, a dam that was built in the 1920's, provides irrigation for an incredible amount of productive ag land in merced county and allows for groundwater replenishment in the nearby communities and environmental benefits for fisheries, wildlife receive fewes downstream from the dam. the irrigation district performed a detailed analysis of the watershed upstream from the dam, which is the mountains that california has been blessed with, the incredible sierra
nevada mountain range, 150 miles width of mountains that go to 12 to 13,000 feet and provides the snow pack for california. it's not's nature ice box. those of you not from california, we get our moisture in california from november to march. and above 4,000, 5,000 feet, that rain turns into snow and in the spring time it melts and fills our rivers and reservoirs and it allows us to have a supply of water throughout the summer. we don't have any rain in the summer. recently, this project as an example was determined by the district in the merced irrigation district if we we raise the spillway by eight feet, that the lake behind this ,000 e could had 57
acre-feet of water. that is a good additional supply. without impeding merced's wild and scenic river designation. so we maintain that. but at the same time, we add 57,000 acre-feet of water to the supply. that's important. however, to move forward with raising these spillway gates, the flood control and operations manual must be updated and that's the responsibility of the corps of engineers. you should understand that many of these water projects in california and other states across the country have multiple purposes. not corps of engineers. you should understand that onlye and not only try to benefit the environment, but they also provide water for farmers and at the same time, many of these projects provide hydroelectric power and provide flood control protection. in this case, when you increase
the spillway gates eight feet, the army corps of engineers has to modify the flood control manual so when we have heavy storms and rains as we did in california, we are able to operate the facility that provides flood control protection. unfortunately, the current manual that is in place was from 1959 when the dam was expanded a second time sm the army corps of engineer's policy requires that flood control manuals be updated to reflect the new data in the changes of the project that would occur as a result of raising these gates. in 2017, the merced irrigation district wrote the army corps of engineers requesting a revision and that is what this legislation we are working on. they could not update the manual at the time citing budgetary
constraints. merced proposed to pay for the process to update the manual to incorporate this new data, if, raised. the gates were they said they didn't the legal authority to accept for a nonsection 7 project like this new dam despite being able to do so for other army corps' facilities. thus the nonfederal improvements act, legislation that i have introduced would resolve this disparity by allowing the owners of a non-fd owners that are regulated by the army corps to provide protection for flood control, to contribute the funds so we can update the manual, so we can raise the gates eight feet which the merced irrigation district is going to pay for along with the water users and
as long as paying the army corps of engineers to update the flood control manual. now, this sounds like a lot of common sense, doesn't it? i think so. and so that's the purpose of this legislation. it's part of a long effort that i have been engaged in to improve the water supply, the water reliability, the water quality, the environmental benefits for the challenges that we face in california as it relates to maintaining the water needs for a state that has 40 million people, the fifth largest economy in the country and number one agricultural state in the nation. and so we know that with the growing demands, the competing demands on water, that critical absolute must resource to ensure that we can survive as people, so that we can -- where water flows, food can grow and maintain our ability as a
national security issue to ensure that all americans have the kind of sustainable good quality nutritious food that is diet and l to our well-being. this is a local project but part of a much larger effort that i have been engaged in with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to address the needs, long-term needs of california's water supply. . we'll continue to work together. i hope that this legislation will be enacted this year. so that the merced irrigation district can be able to go ahead and plan and construct the increase of water supply for the needs of the people of merced county and the surrounding area, that will have a multitude, a multitude of benefits. this is a part of an overall effort that i will continue to be engaged in, in merced county,
in fresno county, throughout our valley and throughout our state, to ensure that in the long term, in the 21st century, we can count on the fact that we have a long-term water supply for all californians, that will allow us to continue to maintain our agriculture economy, and at the same time provide water for people who live in the cities, improve our water quealt quality, and to ensure -- quality, and to ensure at the same time that we protect the environment. those are the goals. it's complicated. it's complex. and it's never easy. mark twain supposedly was credited with over 100 years ago saying, having spent some time in the west, that it was clear to him that when we talk about water and water resources and the incredible demabbleds on those water resources -- demands on those water resources, 100 years ago supposedly mark twain said that in the west it was clear to him that whiskey was made for drinking and water was
made for fighting. we hope that we won't fight over our water resources. but that we'll work together in a bipartisan basis to solve these problems. that's what we are sent here to do. to work together on a bipartisan basis, to solve a whole host of issues that we deal with. but it's very important that we focus in this instance on this legislation with passing a bill that makes a great deal of common sense. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it is an important day for the e who knew and loved three individuals that were being held improperly by north korea. now been released due to the negotiations with our prior colleague, mike pompeo, now secretary of state. . d also president trump
and it's interesting, mr. speaker, for those who have not spent a lot of time studying have not istory, they realized what a benefit it can be to have an american president a person who to be properly accounted may be of ions .nterest to foreign leaders and frankly i enjoy hearing people in other countries say they're just not sure what to make of president trump, they're not sure if he's crazy, they're not sure if he might push the
button to launch missiles. they're just -- he's so unpredictable. but actually i think he's very predictable. the man knows how to negotiate. and as i pointed out to him a couple of times, if you look through our history, people that were considered to be the most highest some say the intellect, greatest intellectual ability, you have people like john quincy adams who is a hero of mine because of his dedication to bringing an end to slavery. it didn't happen during his four years as president. it didn't happen during his 16, 17 years in the house of representatives. but he was so dedicated to his
purpose that he materially affected the young freshmen that sat at the back of the room for two years, overlapping about a year with adams before his fatal stroke on the house floor. just down the hall. he ohn quincy adams, when was president, for all his education, intellectual ability, i mean, the man wrote books in german, loved the french language, read books in other languages like french and german. probably kept the best journal of anyone who was ever elected president. but he really didn't accomplish much of anything at all when he was president. some of that had to do with the election and controversy surrounding that. but you look at people like
woodrow wilson, former college profess -- or president, supposedly high intellectual ability. but, yes, he did get us involved in world war i. he drug his feet, there were things that could have been done . but nobody had any concern worldwide for woodrow wilson. he was considered very predictable. and it got us into some trouble because people didn't think he had the nerve to stand up when it was needed. jimmy carter, touted as being some sort of nuclear engineer. went to the naval academy. but the fiascos in which he was involved as president showed a
man that was rather -- a nice man, but rather inept when it came to foreign affairs. obviously the iranians had no fear of him. nd he had such poor judgment at he encouraged the removal of the shah of iran. not a nice man, but he was an ally. and carter didn't have the foresight to see, kind of like president obama, when he was dealing with gadjovich, -- gaddafi, obama with gaddafi, carter with the shah of iran, they figured, well, he's not a nice guy, so we'll run him off, we'll encourage him being run off and in the case of gaddafi, planeseren't for obama's and the missions to take out those defending gaddafi, gaddafi
would probably still be in charge in libya. and isis, al qaeda elements would not have gained the incredible foothold they've had. it wouldn't be the case -- there wouldn't be the chaos there is today in libya. but, you know, president obama was touted as being of high intellectual capacity. yet just one fiasco after another when it cames to -- came to foreign affairs, as we have seen in the news recently, president obama's efforts to get 100 to -- $100 to -- $100 billion to $150 billion, some of it on pallets, with just cash, american dollars, on pallets with forklifts, moving those from the united states into the
hands of the ayatollah khomeini and his bloodthirsty religious zealots in iran, the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. so, deemed to be an intellectual, president obama was. incredible malfeasance when it came to foreign relations. peep were not afraid of him -- people were not afraid of him. it was interesting to see polls while president obama was our chief executive officer, showing that although muslim -- or nations where muslims were the ajority, they didn't have much respect for president george w. bush. but there were polls indicating that they had even less respect for president obama. how could that be?
they didn't see him as being very decisive. a bit indicative was when he drew a line in the sand, had a red line and syria crossed that line and he did nothing about it. in essence. so that encouraged our enemies and i know there are those who id that things that happened guantanamo bay, abu ghraib, other places, actually hurt america badly. because it inflamed our enemies. whereas actually nothing inspires our enemies like the showing of weakness. as president reagan once said, of all the wars that occurred during my lifetime, which america was involved in, none of
them occurred because america was too strong. so, when other nations perceive weakness, it is provocative. and that's what has happened in our 200-plus-year history. if we're perceived as being eak, it's provocative. president obama oversaw a number of such weak, provocative incidents. some weren't weak, they were just foolish. like encouraging the taking out of gaddafi. not a good man had, blood on his hands -- man, had blood on his hands from back in the 1980's. and yet when president george b. wush -- george w. bush sent , gaddafi had an epiphany and invited us to come in and tell him what weapons he could keep and what he had to get rid of. because he was afraid that he
would be the next nation to be invaded. when it comes to north korea, , sident clinton, educated considered by some to be quite elite schools, ivy league schools, and yet he oversaw, as president, negotiations with orth korea -- and this is just a rather short summary, but basically matt madeleinal bright as secretary of state -- madeleine athal bright as secretary of state and president madeline albright as secretary of state and president obama's approach to north korea was, we'll make sure you get all the nuclear -- materials you need to make nuclear weapons. we'll make sure you get all the tech nothing you need to create
nuclear weapon -- technology you need to create nuclear weapons. and, you know, we'll get you in a better situation, as far as the ability to have nukes, than you could ever have possibly done on your own, and all we ask in return in essence is you sign a document saying that you won't use the technology and the materials to make nuclear weapons. and i can just envision, the glee, the celebrations behind the scenes in north korea over how crazy and foolish american leaders are during the clinton administration because they are going to give us everything we need to have nuclear weapons and all we have to do is put a signature on the document. and we saw history repeat itself
when john kerry played the role of madeleine albright, this time were iran and of course, we did have lindy who was helpful in getting north korea and her as the lead negotiator with john kerry with iran to make sure iran had an agreement that would enable them to have nuclear weapons. and if they lived up to every part of the agreement, this disastrous agreement as president trump described it repeatedly during the election and since, they would still have nuclear weapons in 10 years from when the agreement started. and we know, and i went down to the sci finch. there but't have been
it appeared very clear that the agreement that was enabled by senator corker -- yes, he's a republican -- but wasn't familiar enough with the constitution as he needed to be, because he thought you could take a treaty which the iran deal definitely was because it modified other treaty terms and you can't do that unless it's in a treaty and the constitution requires that a treaty is not valid, a deal such as the iran agreement is not valid until it's confirmed by 2/3 of the senate. and i'm not saying anything that we didn't say back at the time. trying to get the senate to wake up. that you can't ratify a treaty, which the iran agreement is,
unless you have 2/3 of the nators voting to ratify -- confirm the agreement. without voting, there is no agreement. all you have is something on paper that might as well be a memo. but they acted like it was a deal and that's why president obama and john kerry made sure that the eye tolla, these radical islamists that wanton d america's existence on the planet as a country in which there is self-representation through a republican form of $150 ent, yet they sent billion in cash.
and my friend, steve king from iowa, dana rohrabacher, but we went and met with the two lead inspectors in iran from the international atomic energy agency, the iaea people talk about so much, yeah, we can be comfortable that the iran deal and any nuclear efforts in iran. and i even heard one of my friends who i have a great deal of respect for on fox news said you can't do anything with nuclear material without being detected, because there are iceo
topes that are easily detectible so the iranians can't do anything in the way of creating nuclear weapons without us knowing. and i'm not sure the source of those comments, but i'm sure of the source of my comments. i was asking the two lead inspectors of iran with the iaea, gee, we just sent $100 , if iranr more to iran were to take some of that money or all of it and buy ready-made nuclear weapons from pakistan, which has them, from north korea , can you guarantee us that they could not get those nuclear eapons into iran without you
knowing? and the answer is of course we cannot guarantee that. fact, i was told that the iaea could set up detection equipment in iran, say at an airport or wherever, but they could not set up the detection equipment anywhere without iran knowing exactly where the detection equipment was. and unless iran was foolish enough to either bring nuclear material or a nuclear weapon right beside their detection equipment, then, know, they would have no way to know whether iran was bringing nuclear weapons or even nuclear material into iran. so i'm not sure where this other information came from that you can't do anything with nuclear
material or weapons without the iaea knowing, because that's news to them. they don't know what they don't know. but they know that they don't know if someone is trying to evade their detection equipment. that simple. so when you have an agreement with people who go out before or after or during the negotiations and stir up crowds with chants like death to america and you tell people in your country that you want to see america gone, that it is the great satan. israel is the little satan. you wiped them both wiped off the face of the earth. you want any evidence that we ever existed eliminated, then you're dealing with a country
that cannot be trusted. and whether you call the radical oramic leaders in iran crazy jihadists, atic either way they are a threat to america. and you send them money, they are likely going to spend it in a way that hurts america, kills americans, kills israelis and makes iran more dominant in the world. so all of us that took an oath to support and defend the united states constitution, if we're sending money to iran, my opinion, we are grievously violating that oath because they to going to do all they can
subvert our constitution and they hope to be able to wipe us out. and of course, one of their points that was discussed in the philadelphia meeting over 25 years ago, the f.b.i. had evidence of the meeting and evidence of the things, their goals, what they wanted accomplished, well, one of their goals over 25 years ago, these radical islamists in america, one of their goals was to subvert the u.s. constitution to shari'a law and they believed the easiest way to subjugate the u.s. constitution to their radical version of shari'a law was to get either through the courts, through the legislature or through the u.n. and force countries to adopt what the u.n.
passed as criminal laws in their own countries, so there are people that keep advocating for that, but get a law passed one way or another that in essence that says you cannot say anything negative about radical islam and make that a crime, punishable by jail, prison, fine. so we have been moving that way that's in essence what hate grimes are. hate crimes as i said back in 2007, 2008, 2009, when we were bringing this issue up, really you don't need a hate crimes statute. were told, oh, yes, you do, because look what happened outside of jasper, texas, just south of my district. none of the people involved were constituents, but when i heard
three white men took an african-american and had him drugged behind the truck and tortured the poor man to death. i wouldn't have a problem if texas passed the law that in a situation like that, someone's victim's ty, then the family, had their family select the manner that the defendant is o be drugged and who will be dragging him across that terrain if we passed a law like that, basically capital punishment with a different way of inflicting the capital punishment. i would not object. it's outrageous what those three efendants did. but the ridiculous remedy that's
proposed here in congress was we will fix that situation by providing punishment for hate in somebody's heart and we will be sentence you to life in prison. there is no death penalty for any federal hate crime. and this is how ludicrous the law was that passed here in ongress, if someone were being tried for a hate crime because of the physical assault on someone else, the defendant would be totally, completely exonerated and held not guilty if he raises a reasonable doubt that, no, i didn't choose somebody because of the race, gender, any top group they were
part of. no. i just wanted to ash temporarily kill somebody, abuse somebody, i didn't care what group they were part of. and under that law, they would have to be acquitted of the federal hate crime because they chose their victim randomly or raised a reasonable doubt that they may have chosen the victim randomly. whereas under texas law if you harm somebody, not nearly as important the feelings you have in your heart as what you did. and under texas law, the two most cull pable defendants in that case in my opinion, properly got the death penalty. nd the least cuppable got life in prison. this case was heralded as the
poster case of why we need a federal hate crime actually would diminish the punishment that the defendants in a hate crime case would get. they couldn't get the death penalty but life in a federal prison instead of death under texas law. we did not need that hate crime. as i said years ago when this bill was being pushed, ultimately what this hate crime bill will be used for is to punish christians, christian ministers for reading versuses out of the bible as has been done in the house and senate since the very beginning of this nation. and now we're starting to see it being used as a threat against christians. we hear more and more people the biggest hate group threat is the
evangelical christians. if they're real christians, they cannot have hate in their heart for others and yet they are being called the biggest threat as potential hate criminals. . needs to be changed. we need to punish people for when they do wrong, not if they have an improper thought in their head. but i'm grateful that countries look at donald trump the way they looked at ronald reagan. because it's helpful historically -- "saturday night live," i recall reagan's character being portrayed as walking around with a finger out wanting to push the red button so he could launch nuclear weapons -- missiles with nuclear weapons on them. and the world said, wow, this reagan guy is really crazy.
it is invaluable for foreign theers to not be sure about american president because that gives him more negotiating power . kind of like a great poker player, except that donald trump indicates clearly he doesn't bluff. and if you, as he pointed out to north korea, he is not bluffing and though he would rather not take the actions that are required, he will take them. and i believe he will and apparently kim jong un believed he would as well. so if you look historically, reagan, teddy roosevelt. has his navy go around the world. people are going, this guy is crazy. he's just sending his navy around the world. don't know what this guy is going to do.
who knows, this guy is a little bit crazy. and it always was helpful in foreign relations. another took the measure of john f. kennedy, very intelligent man, who wanted to protect america. but he was not desicive in his early days -- desicive in his early days. he was scared out of following through on his promise to provide air cover tho to those going -- to those going into cuba. scared him off, backed him off of his promise to provide them air support. -- who were killed were relying on president kennedy preems. president kennedy gave a speech -- promise. president kennedy gave a speech and said in essence, we're not going to let anybody build a wall, wall off part of germany, eastern europe, and it was just, as i recall a couple of weeks or
so before cruise chevy ensured that the bricks were being laid and the wall was started. they had a meeting in vienna and president kennedy told people he didn't do well in the negotiating, that he was scared and he didn't represent america well. s that not -- that's not going -- that's not going happen to donald trump. he's not going to go into a negotiation with kim jong un or the ayatollah or anybody else and go in and come back out as president kennedy did and confide, wow, i really showed weakness, i didn't do a good job. he scared me. that's not going to be a problem under president donald trump. and our country's going to be better off because of it. for applaud president trump to tfully taking the step discount and discontinue the
farse that was the iran treaty. it was not properly radified -- ratified. and even though i wish we had had president trump in place to stop the $100 billion-plus that president obama and john kerry sent to these biggest suppliers of terrorism, no doubt that money will be used or has been used to kill americans. but there's a new sheriff in town and president trump is going to make sure that doesn't happen again. god bless him for stopping the iranian farce. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.