-- this idea -- i shouldn't say amendment. this motion to recommit. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. boustany: i ask for a recorded vote -- mrs. bustos: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. favor favor -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, 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 tseiod coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercialurposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 184, the nays are 239. the motion is not adopted. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? mrs. lowey: i ask all members of the new york delegation, first to please join me here in the well. i ask unanimous consent to address the house out of order for one minute. yesterday evening a commuter train struck an automobile at a grade crossing in valhalla, new york. resulting in the deaths of six people and many others injured. i stand on the house floor today with my colleagues to call for a moment of silence to honor those who lost their lives in this tragic accident

offer sincere condolences to the families of the victims pray to the -- for the full recovery of those injured and thank our first responders for quickly arriving at the scene to help others. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. >> mr. speaker. request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested.

those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representates. any use ofhed-ne coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercialurposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the ayes are 250, the nays are 173. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise?

>> i ask that my name be removed from the bill -- mr. rangel: i request unanimous consent that my name be removed from h.r. 279 to amend the communication act of 1934. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will recognize requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? without objection. members will please take their conversations off the floor. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker those that sign up to serve and defend our country deserve our respect and

support when they return home. sadly there's a crisis in our country when it comes to our veterans' health care. with an average of 22 veterans a day taking their own life, we are failing them. that's why congress took action to pass the clay hunt suicide prevention for america's veterans act to improve mental health care, services and suicide prevention programs at the v.a. and department of defense. by establishing pilot programs to recruit and keep psychiatrists and establish support networks for veterans it will help serve -- help service members' transition back to civilian life. it's named after clay hunt who served in iraq around afghanistan. tragically he, took his own life when he returned home. mr. paulsen: i thank my minnesota colleague tim walz for his leadership on this issue. i urge the president to quickly sign this into law and get our veterans the help they need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to note the passing of a great american. charlie stricker died last night at the age of 92. often called the jackie robinson, he wrote an auto biography called "just let me play" and he described his meeting with the man who broke baseball's color barrier. i'm quoting here. he asked, are you a quitter? i told him no. he said if you're not a quitter you will probably experience some things that make you want to quit. mr. clyburn: he suffered racial abuse, slurs and threats as he became the first african-american to play the pga tour. born in north carolina in 1922,

he worked as a caddy and dominated the all-black united states golf association winning five straight national titles. he challenged the pga's whites only rule and in 1961, they rescinded it. he won the harvard open in 1967 and the los angeles open in 1969. he also won the 1975 senior pga championship. in 2004, he became the first african-american inducted into the world golf hall of fame. last year, president barack obama awarded him the medal of freedom joining jack nicolaus and arnold palmer as the only golfers to receive a you are -- receive our nation's highest civilian honor. tiger woods, one of the greatest golfers of all times, has often said, he might never have taken up the game were it not for the

courage grace, and perseverance of charlie sifert. mr. speaker, charlie was not a quitter. he was a hero. he was my hero. may he rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today is world cancer day a day to recognize the patients survivors, care givers and those who raise awareness on their behalf. cancer has touched every family and community in some way and it is their stories that sustain the fight for increased funding for medical research. according to the world health organization, cancer causes 1.5 million deaths worldwide. mr. higgins: investing in medical research leads to

advanced treatments and cures and has the potential to lower devastating outcomes. it boosts the economy, job creation and discovery and allows america to retain its leadership in the fight for a cure. yet in the last decade, the funding for the -- for the department has been cut by 25%. i introduced a bill with peter king and rosa delauro. today we recognize world cancer day. the goal must be to celebrate the day when we have a world without cancer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair announces the speaker's appointment -- speaker's appointment pursuant to section 1024 and thed or over january 6, 2015, of the following member on the part of the house to the joint economic committee. the clerk: mrs. maloney of new york.

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 emergency act 50 u.s.c. 1522-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in executive order 13396 of february 7 2006, with respect to the situation in or in relation to the ivory coast is to continue in effect beyond february 7, 2015. the country and its people

continue to make progress in democratic social and economic develop. the united states promotes the advancement of impartial justice there as well as the government's efforts to prepare for a peaceful, fair, and transparent presidential election in 2015. which will be an important milestone in their progress. we urge all sides to work for the benefit of the country as a whole by rejecting violence and participating in the electoral process. while the government there and its people continue to make progress toward peace and prosperity, the situation in or in relation to them continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for these reasons i have determined that it is nose continue the national emergency in relation to measures blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in the area. signed barack obama, the white

house, february 4, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from arizona, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. >> i appreciate the time to highlight an urgent and important issue that should unite this body in a call to action. i represent arizona's second congressional district including 08 mile of the southern border and today we're talking about the importance of securing our border both in the south and in the north.

i've spent a lot of time on the border with our residents and ranchers and can tell you the border is not secure. ms. mcsally: this is a public safety risk a potential national security risk and though some efforts have been taken our border is not secure. we now have the opportunity to have a call to action to do -- to take the measures that are important in order to secure this border once and for all that's impacting again the residents of my community. i'm grateful that a burn group of members of congress came down to visit our southern border just 10 days ago, we had 20 members plus myself. so they could see firsthand what our ranchers and border residents were dealing with in arizona. the group under the leadership of chairman mccaul who i'll ask to -- mccal who i'll ask to join

-- mccall who i'll ask to join us in a minute, saw the challenges in our sector and also in texas. we got to see firsthand what's going on in these different sectors and reinforce the fact that this is an urgent matter we've got to address and it should be a bipartisan, uniting issue. i've got lots of stories to share from the dueson sector but have a number of colleagues that want to join the conversation. i'll ask chairman mccall if he'd like to join the conversation. mr. mccaul: let me thank my colleague from arizona. your great leadership is welcome, we have the first female who was a pilot it's great to have you here. when i go home, the number one

question i get is when are you going to secure that border? i believe we have an opportunity in this congress to get this thing done and get it done the right way and the smart way. people say why is it so important? in 10 years in congress and as a federal prosecutor prior to that dealing with this issue, i've seen the scourge of drug cartels, human trafficking, poisoning our kids with drugs, and the potential threat of a terrorist attack in the united states. i don't want that on this congress' head. and we do have an opportunity to act. we have a bill that was passed out of committee, i think it does several things. one, it finally directs tells the department of homeland security how to get this mission done. sector by sector. as the gentlelady knows, arizona is very different from san diego and very different from texas where we saw 60,000 children crossing last summer. we know that a surge is probably

on its way again if we don't act in this congress soon. and we also know with the spread of isis overseas that the threat is real. and the events of the jordanian being lit on fire yesterday is a wakeup call that we need to act we need to act soon. in the congress -- act soon in the congress to protect the american people. this is beyond -- it's more than homeland security, it's national security. it's really not an immigration issue. this bill is about securing the board for the a smart way. when i was in afghanistan and pakistan, i met with general allen. they didn't really have much of a fence but i said what's your border security at the board her he pointed to the err stats in the sky that can -- the err stats in the -- the aerostats in the sky that can see for hundreds of miles. the value of 100% visibility, how to -- to see what's coming in and how to stop it you can measure it and you can track it

in realtime. in addition to the radar technology, the radar on the predator u.a.v.'s is tremendous value for a smart border. a lot of these assets were used in afghanistan. we've paid for these assets. we want to redeploy those to the southwest border. we also fully fund the national guard, which particularly my governor in the great state of texas, is a vital interest and concern. we allow access to federal lands for c.v.p. which in the past they've been denied and we have a units exit system set up which the 9/11 commission recommended and to this day congress has failed to act on that to determine who is staying with visas legally, who is overstaying those visas, like we saw with the hijackers on 9/11. at the end of the day, this is an important issue that has to get done. it's time -- no longer time for lip service. it's a time for action. on what i consider to be one of

the most important homeland security issues facing this nation. i just want to thank the gentlelady for holding this special order. i know we have members of the committee here who have great expertise, both federal prosecutors the c.i.a. and other experiences, to bring this issue to life. and i hope we can do more of this in the future. the american people know this is an important issue. the problem is the members of congress have been tone deaf on this and have not gotten the job done. i would argue to my colleagues who are listening to this, and to the american people, that now is the time to finally get the job done. and with that i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i really appreciate your leadership on this issue. i also want to thank you for coming to southern arizona, to my district, to see firsthand what our border residents and ranchers are dealing with on a daily basis and i look forward to working with you on the committee to get this bill across the finish line and getting the strategy and the

recorded to those in the border patrol so they can actually address this threat. thank you. mr. mccaul: if the gentlelady would yield on this point too. this is a bill not built from bureaucrats in washington and down. this is a bill designed, talking to border patrol agents, to the border sheriffs who support this bill, to the ranchers. john lagg and jack, his father, was what a great presentation we received from them in arizona. and i'll never forget when we had the press conference. john saying, you know, for the first time i have real hope. and they said well, members have come down here before. he said, not this many. and not of this caliber of leadership. and for the first time i have hope, he said. and don't want to let those ranchers down. i want to get this job done for the ranchers, the border sheriffs and the agents who spend day in and day out in very tough conditions and again with that i yield back. mr. sali: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it -- ms. mcsally: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. would my colleague from

pennsylvania, mr. perry, want to join the conversation? mr. perry: absolutely. i want to also extend my appreciation for you bringing up this important issue and i think this is going to kind of be a continuing conversation, at least for the next couple of weeks, as we move forward into bringing this particular bill and the legislation to the floor. with that i was just thinking that, you know in the last couple of days i saw the president on tv and he said, he asked the question, what kind of country do we want to be? i think it's -- he can think of that in a lot of different ways. but regarding the border, you know, the president, while he says that, he's preached over the years that he's made our nation's border more secure than ever. last year when he was literally saying that, we saw tens of thousands of unaccompanied people coming acrossed border and all of america was saying to themselves, what are you talking about, how can you say that? the border patrol wasn't stopping these people, they were greeting these people and bringing them into the country and you're thinking, maybe that's a great thing, but we

don't know who they are or what their intentions are. and you have no credibility mr. president, when you say that. his statement is just supported by bloated statistics and a false sense of reality and i think most people, most americans understand that. as a matter of fact, the g.a.o. recently found that only 44% of the southwest border was under operational control. 44%. so 66% is just wide open apparently. listen that 44%, that's based on some best guess or some estimate because believe it or not they don't even keep the records. you know, you know as sure as you're watching this on tv or in the gallery or sitting at home thinking about it that those border patrol agents and those sheriffs are keeping records of the things they do on a daily basis on nightly basis. drove so many miles, picked up this many people coming across the border. what happens to that information? guess what, folks, they don't want us to have it. they don't want the g.a.o. to have it bee e would know that our back door is wide

enofment -- is wide open. the gaps in the border lead to higher crime rates and unemployment for american citizens. it's really no more complicated their your own home. sure, you love your neighbor to your left and your right and the people that join your left -- your home to the north and to the south. but that doesn't mean that you leave your doors wide open for them to come in and go as they please in all hours of the day or night. we want to be a country that is divine by -- defined by who we are and it requires protecting. if we're not going to define our country in those ways, why define it by having a border at all? that's what i think the president and many on the other side would propose, that we just abolish the borders. guess what, folks. if we abolish the borders, we don't have any country at all. i was thinking about anoth thhecently over the last six years, of the couple million jobs that were created in downturn economy, almost

all of them statistically were filled by people that weren't born in this country. listen, it's great to have people come here and we need to have that policy, a smart policy, but our policy should be what works for america first. and securing our border and doing what works for america is the right thing to do. it is the -- it is our duty, it's our oath. people say, well, why is it so important? look at the crime rates. more than 40% of all criminal cases initiated by federal prosecutors were in districts that border mexico. is anybody surprised? do you think that doesn't correlate to something? that means something folks. the governor of texas, rick perry, stated more than 3000 homicides were committed by illegal immigrants in the last six years. now are we a nation of laws or aren't we? if we are a nation of laws what does it matter if you have a law that you're not going to enforce? does it means anything? the president has not executed

the law for biometric exit. that's where we determine who you are, what you're doing here and when you leave. come legaly, come across our border, but that's part of securing the border. but when it's time to go, it's time to go. if you want to stay hey, that's great, but show up and let our government know that you're going to stay a little bit longer and what your purpose is. we don't want you to stay if your purpose is something -- for something other than what it should be. the congress has spoken. as a matter of fact eight times passed a law requiring an exit system at all our ports. but yet the executive branch the one who executes the laws has decided that's not important. it's just not going to do it. folks, this puts us at a huge disadvantage. it makes us unsafe. we're not secure in our homes. we don't have the peace of mind of knowing that we're safe in our homes. we don't have the peace of mind of knowing that the people that are coming across the border are being screened for maybe diseases or criminal activity. i mean, there's a cost to that. there's a cost in lives. there's a financial cost to

that. in caring for people that get diseases that we have long eradicated in america that now come across the border unchecked because our border is wide open. that's why it's important to secure the border. and it's important -- congress has spoken. congress, the representative of the american people, have spoken eight times on this issue and the president has just said, i can't be bothered. he designates federal lands and our own agents can't be on these federal lands and do their job. i mean, who thinks that controlling the border and securing the border means being 50 miles off the border? i guarantee you, if you're in a combat zone securing your perimeter, your border, and the gentlelady know what i'm talking about because she's been there herself as i've been there, you secure your perimeter and you watch your perimeter right on it. not just set up a little fence or draw a line in the sand and then head to the tent and hope nobody crosses it. that doesn't work there and it doesn't work here. but yet that's what we're doing

and we're espousing it as though it was some kind of policy that's coherent and is realistic. it is not. our agents want to do their jobs. they want to do -- they're excited to do the job. they're committed to the job. and the federal government literally is standing in the way and saying, absolutely. right? you can't do the job. we can get some assistance from our state and local and national guard too. i served on that mission as well. there's a lot of opportunity there to divide the duties and the resources and make this work that's cost-effective. there's a lot of expertise from a military standpoint that can be used legally to help secure our borders but here again the president can't be bothered. mr. speaker, it's unconscionable. we need to keep track of these individuals with radical views. you know if we had -- if the president had enacted the biometric requirements that have been required by the united states congress eight times, maybe those brother

wouldn't have had the ability to come to boston and blow up people during the marathon. but we'll never know, right? because they just come and go as they darn well please to our country and we don't ask anything. how is that securing the country? how is that good for america? madam speaker, thanks again to the gentlelady for hosting this. this is an incredibly important subject that we need to be discussing and it's great that we have some time on the house floor to discuss this. i hope what this does is it kind of gets the people that are watching this to say, huh, maybe there's something to this, maybe i should call my representative, what does he or she think? how would he or she vote on such a border bill? is there something missing in the bill and is there some reason they wouldn't support the bill and what is that? what would i like as an american to see about my border? should we be let be anybody that darn well pleases come across the border unchecked, to come into my community and do

whatever they would, take my job, harm my family, or do i want something more as an american? and where is my representative -- does my representative stand? i think it's a great opportunity to call your representative write your representative email, talk to staff and say, what does my representative think of this? so i appreciate the opportunity, i appreciate your leadership. i know -- i've been to where you live. ms. mcsally: you know what we're dealing with. mr. perry: yes. i've flown on your border down there i've crossed the border and i've been privileged to be there. but america is not where it needs to be on this. the congress is. but we need to pass a bill and we need to the president to execute it -- the president to execute it. i thank you very much for the opportunity and i yield back. ms. mcsally: sure, thank you and thank you for your support on this urgent matter and the bill that we hopefully will be bringing fo o cleue as soon as possible. because every day th goes by is a day that our ranchers and border residents are still dealing with this. before i recognize my next colleague here, i just want to paint the picture of what we've seen going on in the different

sectors and in the early 1990's, the san diego sector is really where most of the illegal activity, the transnational criminal organizations were just at will crossing into the san diego sector. a lot was done there. we were visiting it 10 days ago. we got to see the new tactics, the resources, the fencing, the lights, the technology. so that the agents there are really able to squeeze the activity related in the san diego sector. but these are living organizations, these transnational criminal organizations that are trafficking in o cmie and ouneighborods. so they react. it's like squeezing a balloon. so guess what happened? they tightened up in san diego and that meant that these organizations were now coming in and out of my community and in the sector in tucson. put up some fencing and other resources in more populated areas, but then that pushed the activity out into the rural areas where the ladd ranch is that we visited and mr. chairman, mentioned jack ladd and john ladd, ranchers with

about 10 miles on the border right there. so we got to see firsthand what they are dealing with because these organizations are nimble. they're going to respond and react and they're going to move as we, you know, create obstacles and we address in certain areas, they're going to move to other areas. so what we've seen in the tucson sector, from fiscal year 1998 up until fiscal year 2012, we've had the highest number of apprehensions, we've had the highest number of assaults in the last couple of years. in the last few years we've had the highest amount of marijuana seized. by the way, we don't know what the denominator is though, right? apprehensions is the numerater but we don't know what the denominator is because our agents do not have full situational awareness and you can just look at the price of drugs on the streets. it's a supply and demand issue. so if the cost is still low, which it is, it means that we're still not catching a whole lot that's trafficking in and out of these neighborhoods. again, the potential for violence is up and even though the numbers of apprehensions

are down in the last few years, those that live on the border and the border patrol has confirmed to me that the types of people that are coming are more the transnational criminal organizations. the traffickers. it's drugs and people coming north and weapons and money coming south. they have more of a criminal record and a potential for danger is certainly up. i do have some stories to share but i know i have a number of colleagues who want to join the conversation so i'll yield to my colleague from texas mr. herd what do you have 800 miles? i only have 80. you have 00. mr. hurd: 820 miles miles of the border from san san antonio -- from san antonio to el paso. i thank the gentlelady for the time and taking me to your district and seeing that part of t border. our trip a few weeks ago was great and enlightening to me. i've spent a lot of time crisscrossing those 820 miles of the border and it was great to see how san diego's sector and tucson and my fellow texans in mcallen are doing the same thing. as the gentlewoman knows, i spent nine years as an

undercover officer in the c.i.a. i chased groups like al qaeda and the taliban. i've traced narco traffickers all over the world and the threat is increasing and the threat is sfiff cated. the drug trafficking organizations in mexico are making $50 billion a year in the united states. that's billion with a b. that's a big number. their tactics, techniques and procedures are sophisticated and we need to keep up. it's about moves and countermoves and what i like about this bill is it empowers our members of the border patrol to do their job. . a lot of people talk about border security, i'd like to refine it a little bit. part of it is interdiction stopping people before they get to the border. it's grabbing them. it's having them in custody and then it's removal. this bill is focused on this first piece of border security which is interdiction. we need to make sure that our men and women that are on the border every single day have the

tools that they need in order to do their job. it's different in tucson, it's different in eagle pass, it's different in san diego. what i like about this bill that was developed under the leadership of chairman mccaul is that it gives them that freedom and flexibility. having spent a lot of time overseas, i know the disconnect between the field and headquarters and that's going on right here on our border. we need to make sure that the guys and gals on the border have the tools that they need. this is a sophisticated threat as you alluded to using ultra light aircraft to deliver their payload. they're using tactics that intelligence organizations have used all across the world to do denial and deception and we need to make sure we have all the resources things like the err stats things like -- like the aero stats, things like radar technology, in order to have that combined picture of the

border. this is something that for 19 months i talked to folks in the district. i know like you this was a very important issue and the american people sent us up here to do our job and our job is to protect our citizens and protect our homeland and this bill does it. it's a strong bill. i look forward to working over these next few days and weeks in order to make this happen and thank you for the time and i yield back. ms. mcsally: thank you, mr. hurd. thank you for your leadership on this issue as well. it's great to be working together with individual who was operational experience and understand what it takes to get the job done. look forward to working with you. mentioning the ultra lights, i was with our c.d.t. team for several hours a few weekends ago on a blackhawk getting an aerial tour of the border. we got a radar hit and we went to the area, but they're small you have no idea of what

altitude they're flying at. trying to find them. but as quickly as we have a radar hit they pack up and are out of there we don't know what they've dropped and where. so these are some of the challenges that our agents have out there in trying to address this threat in a very nimble and sophisticated cartel and transnational criminal organizations reacting to us, much more nimble than we are. i appreciate my colleague from new york, if you want to share your perspective. >> i thank the gentlelady, i want to honor you for what you've done for your country in the past. i want to thank you for taking a leadership role tonight and having this session so we can discuss border security in a little more detail and want to thank chairman mccaul for his leadership on this and his ability and desire to empower the young congressmen and women such as you and i to take

leadership roles with respect to the homeland security committee. mr. katko: for the last 20 years, i was a federal prosecutor for the united states of america in the department of justice. i started my career in 1994 and soon thereafter was sent to the southwest border, el paso texas, as part of the southwest border initiative. back then it was just simply to try and stem the incredible tide of drugs coming across the border. when i got there, i was stunned to see how wide open the border was. it's my understanding it remains so to this day. while i was down there i was prosecuting cartel-level cases. we could get on the roof of the attorney's office, look across the border and see a cartel member's house on the bluff overlooking the united states. it was wide open and remains so. it was dangerous for border patrol. dangerous for people living along the border. and in some respects it's become even more dangerous for ranchers and law-abiding citizens along

the border. after a few years there, getting great experience and great perspective, i was sent to puerto rico to do similar drug trafficking prosecutions and organized crime cases. i saw a different perspective, being 500 nautical miles from colombia. the first day, the federal parking lot was lined with botes that were seized for smuggling hundreds of kilos of cocaine at a time across the strait from colombia. i spent the last few years in new york where we have 300 miles of board we are our brothers and sisters to the north with canada. while it's a different dynamic than the southern border, the reality is less than 4% of the border is secure. it's wide open. to the northeast where there's several major cities along the border with the united states and that brings a different problem. in the northern district over

the last 16 years, we've dedicated several individual prosecute dwrors deal with nothing but alien smuggling, illegal entry cases and major league drug cases on the northern border. we have well worn smuggling routes in our district, well-worn alien smuggling routes and in addition to aliens smuggling, we have major drug trafficing from the north coming down south, that being hydrouponic marijuana a multibillion dollar a year industry in canada. now cocaine is going north. the canadian drug traffickers hooked up with mexican cartels and cocaine is coming north through our district, guns are going north, cigarettes, contraband cigarettes are going north. like i said many ethnically based alien smuggling rings in our district. so i say all that to point out the fact that there is a problem on the northern border as well and everything that's being prescribed in this bill for the

southwest border and southern boarder is being prescribed for the northern border and the prescription for the northern boarder is based on discussions with border prol and the different sectors throughout the northern united states just like they did in the southwest border in the pieces of legislation regarding that. so it is the first time in 20 years of being a prosecutor that i saw a bill that actually looks like it's addressing the problem all together once. that's critically important. while i was running for this office i made it clear that my opinion is we need full immigration reform. but any immigration reform has to start with securing our borders. it's foolhardy to do anything other than that. so this is the first step toward immigration reform and i totally applaud it. i do not think this bill is unduly burdensome to travelers coming to and from the united states on the northern border. we have many. to the extent there are burdens we'll address those. i do say that moving forward,s the right bill at the right time and i applaud everyone who is supporting it and i hope that we

get this passed. i a related bill to that that i submitted to congress and may be considered as early as next week is a northern border threat assessment. it's clear to me the northern border habit had a threat assessment done in a detailed fashion as needs to be done system of this bill simply orders a threat assessment to be done and to report back to us and see if there's any additional legislation or funding needed to address concerns along the northern border. in short, we don't know the extent of the threat on the northern border and this bill will help us. with those two bills combined, particularly the border security bill, i'm confident we can get a handle on problems on both sides of the border, north and south and i applaud you for the efforts and applaud everyone else supporting the bill. i echo the sentiments of my colleagues and i urge the good citizens of the yeats to contact their leaders and ask that this bill get passed. thank you very much. ms. mcsally: thank you, mr.

katko. it's wonderful to have a freshman class with people like you and you bring a unique experience and also reminding us it's not just the southern border. thanks for your great additions to the bill. next i want mr. carter from georgia, i want to invite him to join the conversation. mr. carter: thank you very much. let me begin by complimenting you and applauding your efforts, the gentlelady from arizona. your leadership in this has been invaluable. we appreciate it very much. you've taken a leading role in this. i also want to compliment and applaud the chairman of homeland security, chairman mccaul, for his tenacity in assuring that this gets done. for most of us when we go home, when we talk about illegal immigration or when we talk about the terrorists, the threat of terrorism, or when we talk about drug smuggling, the one thing that our constituents say is secure the border. secure the border. that's always the first thing they say, regardless of what

we're talking about, whether it's illegal immigrants, whether it's terrorism, the threat of terrorism, they always say that first and it's very important. i'll be quite honest with you. i'm from south georgia. i don't get out a whole lot. in fact, quite honestly, this is the first time i've ever been to the southwest border. never been to california before i went on this trip, never been to arizona. and -- although i've been to texas i've never been to the rio grande. it's an eye-opening experience for me. before i went there, i think i was like most of my constituents and like many americans. i would watch what's happening on tv and i'd holler at the tv, build a fence, build a fence. well, after you visit it and after you talk to the border patrol agents, after you talk to the ranchers, after you talk to the local officials, you realize that in each sector, that's not necessarily the answer. that in certain sectors, yes, a fence is needed. but in other areas, in other sectors, that is not what is

needed. that we need more technology. that we need boots on the ground. those are the type of things we need in certain sectors. that was eye opening. that was one of the takeaways i had from this trip. ms. mcsally: would the gentleman yield? i want to point to a visual we have here. this is from the area in my sector, you can see, we do have a fence but the area that's cut out here in the middle is where the cartels very quickly come up and cut it out and they are across that border in a minute or two minutes, maximum and i'll give you some other examples later but this is a visual example of the fence, the -- the fence delays the activity as you saw when you came to visit but it's not the answer, build a fence and walk away. they're smart, resourceful, adaptive and very quickly getting thru many different types of fencing, both pedestrian and vehicle fences. so thanks for bringing that up. mr. carter: thank you.

that was the first thing. the second takeaway i had, when most of us think about the southwestern border we think about illegal immigration but it's more than that. when you think about the drug cartels in mexico, south of us. when you think about the drug smugglers bringing those drugs, poisoning our children, poisoning families, ruining families, when you think about that, think about the terrorism threat that we face as a nation, that shows you just how po rouse our borders are and just how important this issue is. and again that's why this bill is so important. because it addresses that. yes, it addresses fencing. it calls for fencing where fencing is necessary. it addresses boots on the ground. it helps taos bolster the number of people, the number of agents we have in this -- in certain areas, weand need that. it also takes into consideration technology. it utilizes resources that we have. it's a smart bill. it's a good bill.

it's a vital bill. a vital bill to our national security. and that's why i'm glad i went on the trip. it was very educational, very eye opening to me. i'm glad that i'm supporting this bill. i hope that my colleagues will support this bill. it is essential and vital to our national security. again, thank you to the gentlewoman from arizona for the work that you're doing and thank you chairman mccaul. ms. mcsally: thank you, mr. carter, for your comments and thanks for coming to visit my community and listen to the residents there that are dealing with this. having that ear and coming back as an advocate and leader on this issue. thanks for supporting this bill. appreciate it. mr. palmer from alabama, would you like to join the conversation? mr. palmer: i would. i thank the gentlewoman from arizona for the work you've done on this. i know this is -- this has been -- i don't want to say a labor of love but you have an incredible sense of urgency and

i think perhaps more than anyone that i've been involved with, a sense of how important this is. i want to talk a little bit about the fence and like the gentleman from georgia i have been to the border before but not in the context of examining our border security. and i'm a strong proponent of the fence. i have been all along. but what this trip showed is the fence by itself is not enough. it's an impediment. one of the things ims preed -- impressed on me in this trip was the sophistication of the cartels and the people across the border in breaching our fence and breaching our security. there are some pretty serious engineering going on here. when we were in san diego for instance we saw where we have double layer fencing. we've got the metal landing

meath fence on the mexico -- made fence on the mexico side, the other fence -- the razor sharpened fence on our side. all along that fence you saw where it was patched, what the border patrol calls it doggy door. cut it out in three places and they're through. interesting thing, you've got three million people in tijuana on the mexico side. three million in san diego. the minute, almost the minute they're through they're asim litted. the ding -- assimilated. the thing that's going on there is the cooperation wean the -- between the local law enforcement coast guard, and border patrol and how diligent they are to be there immediately when the line is breached. they're so effective that they're pushing these folks offshore. they're using botes now. the coast guard working with border patrol and local law enforcement have been so good at

that, they're forcing them up the coast in california. that's not the case in arizona. what people need to understand is just building the fence and pulling back and thinking that's going to stop them, i don't care how high we build it, how wide we bill build it, how many layers we have if we don't have people in forward operating positions to interdict these people when they're staging to come across we're not going to op. -- stop them. the picture that you're showing there is the fence in arizona and the attention was drawn to where they cut through the mesh there. that's not the thing that got my attention. if you'll notice there, those are six-inch i-beams, that's quarter inch carbon steel. that's all along that border. they came long there with these hardened blades, laser saws, cut through the i-beam, cut through the channel fold it over, ramped over and drove trucks over.

now, this was not reported in the national media. i'm not sure there was any discussion about it from this administration. it was the local media that picked up on it. the ranchers know about this but i think -- and you can correct me if i'm wrong, but i think they said there have been 47 vehicles crossed over. these are pickup trucks loaded with drugs and other items contraband, whether it's guns or drugs or human trafficking. but that's the issue. mr. salmon: if the gentleman will yield? that was mr. ladd's ranch and they showed where they ramped over. according to him there was 47 drive-throughs on his ranching area in the last about 2 1/2 years. in that particular case, it was caught by the sierra vista police which is a town a little bit further inland because the truck didn't look right. it was weighed down, looked funny. they got about 600,000 pounds of marijuana caught on that

vehicle alone. so that's just an example of what's happening. mr. palmer: well, think about the staging that had to take place for that. a vehicle that heavy, to be able to cross that fence. and the interesting thing is they used our own i-beam and channel to support the ramps that would bear that rate -- weight for that truck to get over. this is not a static situation. just building the fence is not enough. we've got to have the aerial surveillance, the unmanned aircraft, the air stats looking into mexico and seeing the staging that takes place for an operation like that to take place. you've been in the millions. you understand that if you're going to -- literally look like a military operation where they cut this down and ramped over and drove over it. if we're looking into mexico and see that, we need people in forward operating bases that can react immediately, not 20 minutes later, not 30 minutes later because they're already

over and gone. this has got to be a combination of things. i'm fine with the fence. we can build fence as high and wide and as long as we want to, but we got to be able to interdict. we got to be able to see them staging because they're not carrying ramping material on their backs for three or four miles to the fence. this happened fairly close to the fence, and we should have been able to see that and stop it. the other issue is is the morale and the fact that we don't -- that we are not doing anything about catch and releases really hurts morale, i think, with our law enforcement and with our border patrol. and it definitely has hurt the morale of the ranchers. my heart really goes out to those guys. they've been there through many generations. they put in their blood, sweat and tears in this, and it's not just that they love their

ranch they love their country, and it was very evident in what they had to say. i think it's incumbent upon us as members of congress to do our duty to protect the border and the other thing -- again, going back to the morale it's different in san diego it's different in arizona it's different in texas. what we need to do -- and i'm very grateful for the work that's being done to bring alongside this bill, an enforcement bill. we got to do this, i think, in a way that makes sense to the american people build a fence, but have the right enforcement that goes along with this that makes the work that our border patrol is doing worthwhile. that when they catch the bad guys, they need to be able to -- there ought to be some consequences for it. and rlier, mr. perry from pennsylvania, made this point about when you're forward deployed in a combat zone you secure your perimeter. there are consequences if you cross that perimeter.

a little more lethal than would be here. in all honesty, we got to do these things together. i applaud you for the work you're doing. it's extremely important, and i look forward to working with you on this. mr. salmon: thank you, mr. palmer -- ms. mcsally: thank you, mr. palmer. the men and women in border patrol are doing the best they can. they are my constituents as well. i appreciate them putting on the uniform, doing the job they're doing but the strategy is not working for those that live in these rural areas mere the -- near the border. we need to use our intelligence using intelligence-driven operations so we can use these radars in order to detect the cartel activity, detect the movement, monitor the movement and then these forward operating bases are critical. the bill in consultation with the chairman, they agreed to

add in two forward operating bases in tucson to get the border patrol right at the border so we can prevent the activity or they can very quickly respond to it if they see a breach happening. challenging response times, if they're further inland or in some of the tougher terrain. so some of the things that i added into an amendment to address this issue was related to the fact right now they're focused on defense in depth. sometimes we're seeing mules and traffickers -- and i'll show a picture here. you know 30, 40, 50 miles inland. you can see this is one example of a mule with packs on their backs. and so they're trafficking across private property while they're, you know moving into a defense in depth strategy and that's not working. we got to get the border patrol close to the border. i offered an amendment.

i'm glad the committee agreed to it to get the border patrol closer to the border, have those forward operating bases manned to the max extent possible and also developing a quick reaction capability so that when we see the activity happening they can quickly get -- especially in these areas of tough terrain -- to stop the activity or intercept it as soon as possible when it comes over the border because this, again, if they're coming through mr. ladd's ranches raverpblg and some of the other ranchers, they don't know who they are. they don't know if they're armed. they don't know what their intentions are and they put them at risk on a daily basis. mr. palmer: it's important this would access -- it has created a huge impediment for border patrol and the interdiction of people like this where they're coming across on foot or coming across in vehicles. if our border patrol do not have access to roads through federal lands, so that is another very important

component of this bill. and then last thing, down in texas we got this caruso gang on the banks of the river that basically is a natural hiding place for people crossing the river. we got to allow our border patrol to take whatever measures are necessary to eliminate those type natural hiding places and barriers to interdiction. so all of this is extremely important. i'm glad you put that picture up because i don't think people fully appreciate when you talk about bringing drugs across the border the massive amounts that can cross just on the backs of individuals. ms. mcsally: exactly. thank you, mr. palmer. now i yield to my colleague from california, mr. denham. mr. denham: it was a pleasure to travel to your southern border. i traveled to the southern border of california many times, and as we saw on the entire border security trip, our entire southern border is very important, depending which

state and which area of the state that you're in. in my home state of california, we saw the jet skis that were coming along the turf that were bringing a couple of illegal aliens at the time. we've got to be able to address that from a coast guard perspective. and when you have double fencing in those high urban areas we saw the vietnam landing strips that at one time were very good piece to add along border security when we had nothing, but now we got to replace that with new fence that will allow our border patrol agents to actually see through and address it when there's weakened area in that fence. we got to go much further. along the california border, we also have a number of mountains and cliffs where we have to address the border differently. in your area, we saw where a truck was able to cut through while you had a big fence, was able to cut through that fence and actually go across the border into your area which is why we need the radar technology. we saw some of the technology that is being redeployed from

afghanistan, and with that infrared technology, we actually saw individuals coming across the border. but with the radar technology, we can actually see 150 miles. so you would see people actually lining up on the border or preparing to bring drugs across. now we can actually work with our counterparts in mexico to actually go and address it from their perspective before it gets onto marin soil. so there's much more we can do both technology that's coming back from afghanistan, coming back from iraq as well as new technology that will give the american public the assurance that we have the measurements and metrics in place to secure our border. part of our challenge right now is not knowing how many people are coming across. if you don't know how many people are coming across, you can never address how many you're actually addressing -- addressing. we have to have a full debate on immigration. we have to give the american people the sense of security we

need and deserve. and this bill will do just that. and we have to do it now. we can no longer wait until there is another surge of 50,000 or 60,000 unaccompanied minors or family units that are coming across the texas border, where they're just hopping in a boat going 100 yards and stepping on american soil and then looking for refuge. we have to send that message across central america, across southern america -- south america that we are actually sending the message that our border is secure and this isn't going to just be an automatic pass during the summer months across that river. many things we can do many things we need to do, this bill will give us the measurements and metrics to secure our border and i yield back. ms. mcsally: thank you, mr. denham. i appreciate you coming to our district to see that firsthand. and i will working with to get that bill across the finish line. i think it's important for those watching to note we've

had a variety of people that spoke in support of this bill. we're all in agreement on one thing which is we need to secure the border that this is an urgent issue and across the spectrum this is something that unites those in the conference. i know my community is a very split district politically but everyone agrees if they're democrat, republican or independent, they want their family safe and secure. they want their community to be safe and secure and this bill does that. and so it's time that we work together to get this thing passed. so thank you, mr. denham. and i'll continue to tell a few stories here from my district that i do want to share. i'm sorry, mr. perry -- i'll yield for just a minute. i do have a number of things i do want to share before we wrap up. mr. perry: if the gentlelady will yield because we want to make sure we get all the information out about this. as i say, the g.a.o.'s best estimate i think is about 56%

of the border is not secured. another thing to mention about this bill is that we are looking for 100%. now, we understand just like law enforcement doesn't -- they don't catch every criminal, and sometimes prisoners escape from prison but we expect the warden to secure the prison and the plan is to keep everybody in prison in prison. with this bill we expect 100% and it's important to note that other side would have us diminish that standard. right now g.a.o. is saying, you know, 50% of the border is not monitored and not secured. we have people in this congress that's saying, let's lessen the standard that we currently have right now. and the best we can get is 50-something percent. i don't know who in their life plans to fail doesn't plan to succeed and do the maximum, you know, whether it's -- whether it's showing up to work on time or anything you endeavor and

nobody shoots for below the bar. you shoot for the best. yet, in this endeavor we have people literally in this congress, let's actually do less than we can do. actually, let's do less than we're doing right now, so that seems to fly in the face of what every single american, regardless of your positions on other things, feels about securing the border. with that i yield back. . ms. mcsally: i want to tell some stories related to the level of activity in the district and how it's impacting people in southern arizona and their families and the threat that has been increasing. rob krantz and he was killed and murdered on his own ranch in 2010. he was on -- it was a breezy spring morning, a red a.t.v. rolled across the southern border.

a gray-haired rancher and classic cowboy attire was at the wheel accompanied by his dog. he was checking stock ponds and water lines on the 35,000-acre spread not far from the geronimo leader. and modern times, this sparsely populated sberned bordering son ora was a haven for smugglers. he pulled to a stop as he noticed a man apparently injured. the rancher made a radio call to his brother phil. something about an illegal alien hurt. call the border patrol. 10:30 a.m., march 27, 2010. what happened that morning as shots echoed across the grassy range would fuel the u.s.

immigration debate. one day earlier phil put border agents on to a suspected drug runners resulting in eight arrest and seizure of 200 pounds of marijuana. after the broken radio transmission, family members launched a search and neighbors and other ranchers were trying to track the killers and enlisted to track the footsteps south. rob's body was lying on the ground with his feet still inside the vehicle. two solution had penetrated his lungs. another bullet wounded his dog. he carried a rifle and pistol in his ranger but he never used them. he managed to drive 1,000 feet before he collapsed. only immediate signs were a set of foot prints and they went into mexico where the trail

vanished. his murderers have never been caught. his family deals with the grief and fear of the border not being secured and what's going to happen next to them. this is very real in southern arizona. in 2010 we had brian terry, border patrol agent who was also murdered by smugglers in our district. on december 14, 2010, border patrol agents demonstrated extreme bravery while facing a lethal threat from a superior number of armed suspects. and i'm reading from a citation where he earned the 2010 congressional badge of bravery. all four agents were operating as members of a four-man rural assault element. this four-man element occupied a remote site consisted of rugged,

steep and difficult terrain for a period of 48 hours without relief. at 11:00 p.m., the team was alerted to five suspects moving into the zone. without regard to individual safety, the small team maneuvered into position to apprehend the five individuals passing in front of them. as the agents identified themselves, suddenly and without warning, the subjects opened fire on them placing themselves at great risk of serious physical injury of death. four agents stood their ground to provide vital protection. during the short and heroic gun battle agent terry sustained a fatal injury. the team without hesitation continued to place themselves in harm's way attempting to provide life-saving techniques and preventing the assailants moving on their position.

one of the suspects was apprehended and taken into custody. brian terry was a hero and rob krantz. rancher kelly, a fourth-generation rancher. i'm reading from an email she sent to me an incident she had on her ranch. a couple of days ago, i was driving from a ranch and mile marker 11, i could see motion ahead of me in the road and as i approached 13 men formed a barricade with their bodies across the road. i slowed and tried to pass on the right. they moved right. i had locked my doors as i approached, my windows up, knowing i had to run over several of them. i stopped. they immediately surrounded my truck. two fellows stood in front of my truck with their hands on the hood holding me in place. some of the guys climbed on the

running boards. and i was thinking if he proceeded to break a window i would use my pistol. i was not sure if i was being hijacked or what. think about it, this is a woman alone in her truck, 13 men stopping her in her tracks. i put my window down, a couple of inches and told them to get back. they started talking back to me in english and frantic to have me take them to the police. they stated they were from the country of india. i talked to them out of my truck and i promised them i would call border patrol and let me leave. she said scared me for a few minutes. she is a tough woman. a rancher and mountain lion hunter and cool under pressure. how would you behave? the challenge she has, she has an 18-year-old daughter who often drives home alone.

how does she know they were not armed or what their intentions were and decided to hit the gas and did harm them, they would be questioning her actions because they were unarmed. this is the type of circumstances that these people are dealing with. just living in their own homes, going in and out of their community, traveling to the store and going about their stories. a rancher and vet who has worked and lived in our county. he has seen a dramatic change. he lives three miles from the border. over the past four years, 11 of his ranch family clients have sold out. big economic impact on his practice. they decided to give up and can't afford to ranch in this area. many of those families just said they can't deal with the threats and life along the u.s.-mexico

border. for the ranchers to remain has become increasing hard to find people to work on their ranch. another rancher shared he has a couple of houses, one two miles and one 40 miles from the border and far more trouble at the house 40 miles at the border. 15 16 break-ins and home invasions and one was three weeks ago. someone broke in, stole food and they left. the next day they started moving north -- saw individuals moving north. border patrol captured out. according to this rancher after breaking into his ranch they stole a weapon. the pistol was ditched before they were caught but connected back to them. who knows what their intentions were. these are the challenges these people have. the rancher talked with the

criminal and he said he admitted to being a lifetime criminal and repeat offender. he was detained for two days and wasn't charged with weapons charges, and sent backs back to mexico to be used by these transnational criminal organizations. this is very real for southern arizona. the transnational criminal organization are daily trafficking. there is another photo i have right here and see over here on the right side, a number of individuals that are just -- they are mules, they are packing drugs and just going through their property. there's other photos i have here related to some of the ranchers -- there's just know fence. again, we talked about earlier, the fence is not the solution. the only solution, but fencing will delay activity. this is a bashed wire -- bashed

wire fence. i'm urging my colleagues to pass the border security bill. and contact your members in the house and senate and let's not play politics with securing our border. these ranchers have put up with this for decades and cooperated with border patrol. border patrol is doing the best they can, but we have got to change the strategy and address this issue. it should be a bipartisan issue and something that units us. let's get the job done so we can protect the people of southern arizona, the people of texas the people living in other board -- border communities and our nation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015 the gentleman from texas, mr. al green, is recognized as the designee of the minority leader.

mr. green: i thank the leader for allowing me to be a designee at this moment in time. i'm appreciative for this special time. this is black history month. and it's a very special month in the life of african-americans, but the truth be told it's a special month in the life of all americans because this month is black history month. i had a couple of nights ago to appear on the floor with a couple of my colleagues honorable donald payne from new jersey and honorable robin kelly from illinois. they were here to have a special order hour and i want to complyment them because that special order hour dealt with a lot of black history. they talked about 50 years from selma, where we were, where we are now and where we're headed. and they did such a great job, i thought it appropriate to acknowledge the outstanding effort and a good number of

members were supportive of what they did. i'm honored to also say we plan to continue tonight with this special order time and we will talk about black history month, but from a slightly different perspective. we are honored to say that this resolution that we've introduced into congress was introduced on january 6, 2015. this is the ninth time that i had the pleasure of introducing this resolution. it has 24 original co-sponsors and i want to thank all of the original co-sponsors for being a part of helping this resolution come to the floor for this special order time. we are not here for the purpose of passage, but we are here for the purpose of expressing much about black history and explaining why this resolution is so important. it's important not only to me and the people in my district, which is quite frankly one of the most diverse district.

the ballot is printed in english, spanish vietnamese and chinese. black history month is important to not only the african-americans in my district but all the friends, associates and constituents i have in my district and they constantly talk to me about black history month and we talk about other aspects of history as well, but tonight we'll focus on black history. it's important to note that this is the 100th anniversary of the organization that promoted and promulgated black history month. this organization, the association for the study of african-american life and history, founded by the honorable carter g. wood son is the organization that carried the torch for hope to be inclusive. there was a time that i can remember in my lifetime in my history book there was you

little mention of the accomplishments of african -americans in history and world history even less. i remember one of my books proclaiming there is little mention of the countries in africa is because they contributed very little to history. that was the kind of statement that i had to read as a child. well, i'm honored we have come a long way from a point where we were rarely included to a point we are included but i think not enough yet. my hope is at some point in time we won't have a black history month. we won't have any type of history month other than a history on a daily basis because at that point in time, we will have included all persons and all of the great cultures in this country in the history of our great nation. black history does not mean that black people assume that they are better than anyone else. it just means they would like to

be included in history because they believe that no one else is better than we are. we are all god's children and we bring special talents and attributes that makes this country the wonderful place that it is. talking about black life history and culture in this the united states of america, and we could make it the world, but let's just talk about the united states since the organization the association for the study of african-american life and history was founded in the united states. this is the 100th anniversary. i will ask a question and give some examples of why this question is so important. . we stand on the shoulders of giants. we all do. the shoulders of giants, people who have done great things to make it possible for us to have these great opportunities that

we have. people who suffered many of the arrows of life so that people could have a better quality of life. many of them well-known. so we stand on the shoulders tonight of giants. but the question that i pose is -- whose shoulders do the giants stand on? if we stand on the shoulders of giants, whose shoulders do they stand on? thurgood marshall, one of the greatest litigators in the history of the united states of america won 29 of 32 cases before the supreme court. a great litigator. went on to become a justice on the supreme court of the united states of america. the first african-american. a giant. i stand on the shoulders of thurgood marshall. a good many people in this congress stands directly on the shoulders of thurgood marshall in that we are here because of

some of the litigation that he won before the supreme court of the united states of america. we stand on the shoulders of thurgood marshall. but on whose shoulders does thurgood marshall stand on? well, the person that probably shaped his legal career more than any other was the honorable charles hamilton houston. charles hamilton houston, a harvard lawyer, a person who was a dean of the law school at howard university, a person who concluded that the constitution of the united states of america did not condone separate but equal. the person who is said to have killed jim crow the person who was a part of all of the lawsuits of the civil rights era from 1930 to 1954, including brown vs. the board

of education, the honorable charles hamilton houston he's the person that cultivated and mentored thurgood marshall. thurgood marshall came to howard university after having been a reject at the university of maryland. he tried to get in, he could not, and in a strange sort of way it compels me to say thank god for the university of maryland because had they not rejected thurgood marshall he would not have come to howard university and there's a good likelihood he wouldn't have met charles hamilton houston and may not have acquired the intelligence that charles hamilton houston provided a plethora of lawyers about the constitution as it relates to separate but equal. it was thurgood marshall who became his prize student. thurgood marshall, along with charles hamilton houston, became two of the great

litigators to bring down jim crow. and one of the cases that thurgood marshall and charles hamilton houston brought before the supreme court, the one that stands out more than any other is the case of murray vs. pierson. in that case murray wanted to get into the university of maryland as well. and isn't it ironic who thurgood marshall, who couldn't get into the institution, who went to howard university, had the opportunity to become the understudy if you will, of the honorable charles hamilton houston, isn't it ironic that the circle comes back to the university of maryland with one of his first cases after completing law school? thurgood marshall was the lead counsel along with the honorable charles hamilton

houston against the university of maryland to bring about an opportunity for the use of doctrine of separate but equal being attacked with constitutional provisions. and they were successful. so i'm proud to know that while thurgood marshall is a giant, supreme court justice, thurgood marshall is known far and wide for his legal prowess, he stood on the shoulders of an even greater giant, an unsung hero to some extent where now we do know much more about charles hamilton houston than previously -- in previous years. it's important to note that he is not the person who has received all of the glory, all of the platitudes, accolades that thurgood marshall received, but he was the architect and i'm proud to say thurgood marshall stood on the shoulders of a giant. let's go on. thurgood marshall.

let's talk now about another giant of the civil rights, human rights movement and that was rosa parks. everyone knows the story -- most everyone does -- about how rosa parks decided that she was going to take her seat. rosa parks was a giant. she decided to take a seat in what was at that time a racist southern town. the story is told that rosa parks was tired and that she just had to take her seat because she was tired. not true, my friends. not true. rosa parks was an officer in the local naacp. rosa parks was a person with great standing and credibility in her community. rosa parks had stature. rosa parks had the backing of

the naacp. rosa parks had people who could get her out of jail. she had people who could work with her and help to stage, if you will, in the minds of some this moment in time when she literally decided that she was not going to move back nor stand up so that her seat could be held and had by a person of a different hue. it was a bold thing to do. it was a very bold thing to do in the south, the segregated south at that time. the segregated south where the constitution accorded us all of the rights of other citizens but our friends and neighbors denied us those rights that constitution accorded us. so this was a segregated south and this was rosa parks and she decided to take that seat

backed by the naacp, backed by a host of persons who were prepared to work with her and support her. but the truth be told, the honorable rosa parks, who is considered by many the mother of the civil rights movement, the honorable rosa parks stands and stood at that time on the shoulders of a giant. she stood on the shoulders of a giant that we rarely hear about and rarely read about. the story of a giant who was but 15 years of age at the time she made her mark, if you will, in history. the story of a giant who was arrested nine months before rosa parks for doing the same thing that rosa parks did. 15-year-old girl, nine months

earlier, claudette colton. she was the first person arrested under the circumstances comparable to rosa parks in montgomery, alabama. and she went to jail. little is known about her. little is known because it was thought at the time she was not the ideal person around which to rally. it was thought at the time that a more senior person was needed, a person who had greater standing in the community. she was not that person. awe, but here's where history -- history tells a story. she was one of four people to file the lawsuit the lawsuit that ultimately ended segregation of the bus line in montgomery, alabama, because --

although rosa parks and dr. king and the multitudes marched and protested, they marched, they protested for approximately a year or more. it was not the march of protest that actually brought about the ending of this discrimination. it was really the lawsuit broader v. gail, and it was important to note there were four plaintiffs in the lawsuit and claudette colton was one of the plaintiffs. it was the lawsuit that made a difference in the lives of not only those people in montgomery, but people across the country, because that was one of the first times that the -- that the opinion expressed in brown v. board of education was expanded to include public transportation. that was an important significant event in history.

and it was rosa parks who received a lot of the credit and i love her and i think she deserves all the credit she received, but i think there are those unsung heros who did not receive their fair share of the credit for what they, too, have done and in fact they are the shoulders that giants stand on. so claudette colton, the giant on whose shoulders rosa parks stood on. moving to another giant, we all know of dr. king and last week -- earlier this week we talked a lot about selma and we talked about the march that took place there and in talking about that march we talked about how people assembled at that church and they decided they were going to march peacefully from selma to montgomery.

and as they proceeded to march, they came to a turning point in history. they came to one of those seminole moments in history that will forever define the life of a country, to be quite candid. they came to the he had monday pettis bridge -- edmond pettis bridge and they confronted the constabulary on the other side of the edmond pettis bridge. if you have not gone to the edmond pettis bridge, you should go and see the edmond pettis bridge, and if you understand the times, if you understand the times that these persons were living in, you have to realize that these were some brave courageous, bold souls to be willing to march across the edmond pettis bridge, knowing that constabulary were on the other side with clubs on horses.

you have to ask yourself candidly, would you have confronted what you knew was waiting for you in the form of possible death on the bridge? the honorable john lewis said he thought he was going to die that day because confronted with the constabulary, they marched us back to the church. if you see the movie "selma," you can get a fair depiction and representation of what happened on the edmund pet us bridge. there will be -- pettus bridge. there will be another march this year across the edmund pettus bridge. if you're interested, i'm congressman al green. you can call my office and you can join us. but let's buck about edmund pettus bridge and that march. dr. king was not there for bloody sunday.

there were reasons that compelled him to do some other things in his life. there were other persons there, the honorable john lewis was one of them. so in a sense when dr. king came back or he came to selma following bloody sunday to march, he was standing on the shoulders who had already gone before them and confronted the constabulary. but let's take a closer look at the history, at the history that we rarely talk about and hear about as it relates to the edmund pettus bridge, because there is a person that i conclude is the greatest unsung hero of the civil rights movement who had a hidden hand in the march from selma to montgomery. when they went back to make the final march with dr. king as they moved across the edmund

pettus bridge, they had a hidden hand that had signed a court order. that court order was signed by the honorable frank m. johnson. . frank m. johnson signed the order clearing the order for them to march from selma to montgomery and he was a contemporary of george wall ace. in fact -- wallace. in fact, they were classmates. he and george wallace constant confrontation, mild form of

confrontation. franklin johnson was so much of an impact on the times that he had to be guarded 24 hours a day. he was a federal judge unlike any other. in fact, dr. king said, he put the word justice in the word justice, the honorable franklin johnson. on whose shoulders did dr. king stand on when they marched across the edmund pettus bridge. on whose shoulders did they stand on? the hidden of the civil rights movement, honorable frank m. johnson. he integrated schools. he integrated the jury system. he changed the face of the south and so little is known about this giant on the shoulders of

which many of the great icons of the civil rights movement stood on that day. we can't diminish the role of dr. king or the honorable john lewis but there are others whose stories not told enough, whose stories should be told more. and on a occasion like this where we want to celebrate black history, i think we have to acknowledge that there were unsung heroes on whose shoulders many of the giants stood on and we have to acknowledge that many of these unsung heroes were not of african ancestry. there is a white side to black history. frank m. johnson is a part of this side of history. but we also must note that frank m. johnson, the great hero that

he was is not in the history that we speak of, is not celebrated to the extent that he should be. so tonight, i want to say the family, friends relatives, those who knew him we celebrate him tonight. we celebrate the charles hamilton houston tonight. we celebrate the honorable claude et colvin tonight. these are persons who were in the shadows and giants stood on their shoulders. now to close and conclude. let's go back to the edmund pettus bridge. at the edmund pettus bridge when they marred across at that time there were five african-americans in congress. there were four latino-americans in congress hispanic americans

and three asia-pacific-island americans in congress. well, now, rather than five african-americans. we have 48. rather than four hispanic members, we have 38. rather than three asian-pacific americans, we have 14. there were 14 females in congress at that time. we now have 104. crossing the edmund pettus bridge provided the world an opportunity to see the horror of discrimination, of onerous discrimination, what the human beings in the south had to suffer and provided the president of the united states the honorable president from the state of texas, lyndon johnson, the opportunity to sign the civil rights act of 1965.

that civil rights act is in no small part why i happen to stand before you in the united states house of representatives. i stand on the shoulders of many giants. there are many known to us and good many not known to us. during this time of black history, it is appropriate for us to acknowledge them and celebrate them to make it possible for many of us to have the opportunities that we have. and today as we look back and we revisit the special order hour 50 years ago from selma, where were we, where are we and where are we headed i must tell you in concluding we are headed back to the future, back to the future because the civil rights act of 1965 which accorded us

the many opportunities that we have today, that civil rights act of 1965, section 4 of it, has been aadvice rated. and as a result of that section 4, we have seen, unfortunately the section 5 of the act lows its potency because without section 4, you don't have a section 5. section 5 has been -- is there, but it does not have the coverage areas that it is to address. and so without section 5 we find ourselves back to a point in time wherein we will have to again relegitimate the whole

question of the right to vote, to a certain extent, very limited, but also in this context, the means by which we were able to secure many of the seats in congress that the 48 members presently enjoy. so without that section 5 and important section 5, we find ourselves with a circumstance where we're looking back now to that future. that future that is going to require us to do some heavy lifting to reinstate section 4 of the voting rights act. and as they marred once before, we will march again this year. my hope is that we will be able to in in this congress come to a bipartisan conclusion that section 4 of the voting rights act is still important to a good

many people and we will work together to revitalize section 4 of the voting rights act so as to give section 5 the poetensy to provide the coverage that has been a great benefit to us. i am grateful to share these thoughts at this moment in time about the great heroes and unsung heroes of the civil rights movement. and i thank you and i thank the leadership for allowing us this time to celebrate black history month in these, the great united states of america. god bless you and god bless our great country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman from texas for the education. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska mr. fortenberry,

for 30 minutes. mr. fortenberry: if congressman green wouldn't mind staying a moment. unfortunately i missed the larger body of your talk but i wanted to add a few things if you don't mind. a couple of points and i think it should be acknowledged, we were legitimated at the same time and we are classmates while on different sides of the political aisle. i hope you consider me as much of a friend. mr. green: i do. rarely do i think of sides of the aisle when we talk. it doesn't become a significant factor in our lives as we converse and celebrate our friendship. mr. fortenberry: i want to tell you a quick story and have some other thoughts. i don't want you to stay through my other comments. you talked about the important

progress that has been made and you noted that in this country. and i think that is notable. and you talked about that particularly difficult period in the 1960's. and you referred to black history month as america's history month as well. and i think those are all notable comments. in that tough time, something happened to me that i would like to share with you. i was not born in the state that i represent, nebraska is my home and where i decided to raise my family and has given me a bounty of opportunity and i'm privileged to be a representative from there. i was born in the deep south where segregation and discrimination was extremely difficult. third grade, it was time for my birthday and i invited my classmates and this was basically a white middle-class stable school in a stable neighborhood. but there was one african-american family, either because of the begetting of

segregation or because they lived in proximity to there, they were at the school. and one of the young boys was named phillip brown, not only my classmate, but my friend. i invited all of the boys including phillip to my birthday party. and phillip didn't come. and i saw him on the monday afterward and i asked him, i said phillip, i didn't see you at my birthday party. why didn't you come? he said, i did, they wouldn't let me in. now this is an eight-year-old child. and i remember then thinking during the party my father had come over to me and whispered in my ear and said jeffrey, is phillip a black boy and i didn't think any more about it. my father had to go outside and

talk to phillip's father because the establishment there didn't let in african-american children. now, i want to fast forward, though, i told that story to my little children. i have five daughters and they are grown up now and i told this story a few years ago about progress being made. they were visably upset. they said, daddy, you have to go find phillip. you have to go find him. mr. green: what a wonderful thought. mr. fortenberry: they were wounded by this story. how could this happen to a little child. but i think you rightfully acknowledge that those days are behind us and through all of the difficulties toils and struggles that occurred thankfully they are behind us and what you said is appropriate that black history month ought to be called america's history

month because these chapters are an important and essential part of our national fabric and our national culture. i didn't intend to dialogue thinking of this and i never shared that story publicly but the main part of the story is the painful look on my own little children's face when they heard that. mr. green: would the gentleman yield? i appreciate you sharing the vignette with me because it is very much heartfelt. and good to have a person to tell the actual story. if you have you will know of what i speak and if you don't i will commend it to you, dr. king's letter from the birmingham jail, one of the greatest pieces of literary history saving a few holy books. it is absolutely one of the best stories of what that time was like. and dr. king talks about how he had to explain to his children why they couldn't go to a

certain theme park and how he could see the cloud over their heads as they were saddened by their inability to go to the theme park because of who they were. and i ask people to read that letter because it really parallels what you're saying here on the floor of the house of representatives. you're right. we have come a long way from those times. these times are difficult in a different way, however. there is still great work to be done and you and i can work together to get some of this additional great work done. notwithstanding all i have said tonight i conclude on this, on a bad day, it's still good to live in the u.s.a. on a bad day when your spouse wants to leave you or on a bad day when your puppy that you reared to now a full-grown animal wants to bite you, when

your puppy wants to leave you let your puppy lead you and let -- let your puppy bite you and let your wife still leave you. on a bad day it's still good to live the u.s.a. mr. fortenberry: thank you. and let's continue our robust friendship as we work through differences and difficulties which are inevitable in a body like this, but ought to be certain principles that unite us and i have myself quoted from dr. king's letter in the birmingham jail and other speeches. thank you very much. . i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i won't take all your time. you and i our careers have mirrored we both became lawyers the same year.

we both started at the courthouse in houston, i think the same year. 1973 1974, somewhere in there. you were on one side, the defendants' side, i was on the prosecution side. we worked before the same judges. you and i both became judges about the same time. and then we left the bench at the same time. mr. green: same time. mr. poe: and ran for congress and joined mr. fortenberry in the infamous class of 2000. but i go want to make this comment that things at the courthouse during all that time changed a great deal as to who was at the courthouse, in the courtroom representing either the state of texas or the citizen accused, as you refer to them. were you the first african-american to practice in the courtroom or was it ned wade or ron mock?

which one? mr. green: i was not. probably someone prior to ned wade. there were other lawyers there long before us. mr. poe: and it has changed a great deal. the judge who took my place is an african-american judge. at the courthouse in houston. and it's hard looking back on history to realize things were not always that way at the courthouse. in the legal profession. as they were in many other professions. so i think your accomplishmentings -- your accomplishments as an attorney and a jurist are admirable. they have served the state of texas quite well. but you fought a lot of battles during that time as well. and i want to thank you for fighting those battles. mr. green: thank you. i know your time is of the

essence and you've been very joanus to -- generous with me. i yield back. if the gentleman would allow one additional comment. the honorable ted poe and i have had a friendship for many, many years. he's eminently correct, we were on different sides othey have -- different sides of the table, literally, in the courtroom but we never allowed many of the political maneuvers of the time, the political issues of the time, to prevent us from being friends. and we brought that friendship to the congress of the united ameca. and while there is still great work to be done even in the courts, there's still great work to be done, there's great work to be done in the area of litigation that still is matriculating through the courts. but we still have to acknowledge that it's a better time to do it now than to do it then. we have greater friendships and greater opportunities. on a bad day, still good to live

in the u.s.a. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker i'm sorry to have disrupted your time keeping. can i inquire how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 20 minutes remaining. mr. fortenberry: thank you mr. speaker. before i deviated i had some other thoughts i wanted to convey tonight. mr. speaker, let me start out with this thought. it's a high goal, a principle, that i think across this body we all share and it's this. american december serve a smart and effective government. and i don't think -- americans deserve a smart and effective government. and i don't think, nor do i think any of us think, washington should be mired in mediocrity, nor should we be divided by class or income. but i do think we have to acknowledge several difficult truths. i think our national conversation should also start here. the reality is we have a tale of

two very different economic recoveries. one recovery was working pretty well for transnational corporations. many of which are subsidized indirectly by the state. but the other recovery is not working quite as well for everyone else. too many families are facing downward mobility and stagnant wages and an increase cost of living and many feel abandoned by a washington and wall street axis. there's an incomplete picture being given, i think in the dynamics of the statistics that are now being promulgated about the current economy. yes we have some good news. energy prices have significantly fallen and that's taking a lot of pressure off a lot of sectors and a lot of individuals. some recovery is happening. but as the head of gallup organization points out, recent reports of the unemployment rate that have dropped to 5.6% are really quite misleading. the department of labor doesn't

count those who are trapped in unemployment and who have stopped looking. in fact, the further you unpack these statistics and look at what is causing, the causal relationship here, is unfortunately we are entering into a period of what i'm calling an entrepreneurial winter where there are more small businesses dying than there are being born. in other words, the net outcome of small businesses, small business creation, is in a negative range for the first time in the history of our country. the reason this is significant is this is where most jobs come from. most people in america are working hard and are looking for their opportunity in small business. not talking about larger entities which have an important role in not only economic recovery and in creating employment for many but small businesses are where the majority of jobs are created. it's also where this die nam

exof an interdependent economy, a healthy economy, is really born, an opportunity economy, where the benign forces of competition create a certain interdependency between the one who is making a good with their own two hands or their intellect and selling it to another who needs that good and in turn reinforcing a social dynamic that is essential to personal well being and a healthy economy. how did we get in this position? i think we have to analyze this as well. mr. speaker, i received a phone call last spring and the gentleman was very very eager to talk to me so i called him back. in fact, he was so eager to talk to me, he was sitting at the nebraska spring football game where the white team vs. the red team play it out. it's a big deal in nebraska tens of thousands of people go to this game. he was sitting in the stands he, took his time out from watching the game to talk to me, which is

a high honor. but he wanted to point out that he was a small business person. he owned a -- and started a heating and air-conditioning business and until very recently had fife employees. but because -- five employees. but because he could see what was coming, particularly in health care, he reduced got rid of all of them and it's just him now. if you ask the question why small businesses are not taking proper risks going out into the marketplace to create new products and hire people there's two simple -- this is a bit simplistic but two answers are what come forward. first is health care, the second is regulation. you see, in the name of trying to create an orderly and just and fair economy, when washington overreaches and creates an environment that is setting up the guardrails for

proper economic function, if it's too hey handed and penalizing those who don't have an army of lawyers and accountants and regulatory personnel, that means that the playing field suddenly shifts toward much bigger entities that in many ways can become impersonal. the more washington imposes regulatory burdens that are affecting the outlook and expectations of small business people, the more they are hesitating to hire. the second factor is health care. i think we have to have this hard conversation. we have a broken health care law. the affordable care act, as it's called could be called now the unaffordable health care act. now the law was designed to fix some real cracks in our system that were very evident. people with pre-existing conditions or people being priced out of the market were having a very difficult time finding health insurance. that needs to be addressed and

needs to be addressed through washington policy. but we need a health care system that is focused on decreasing costs and improving health care outcomes while also helping vulnerable persons and what we've gotten now is higher escalating costs fewer choices, and a dampening effect on the entrepreneurial small business economy. again, where most jobs come from. not me saying this. this is what the statistics are bearing out. the research is bearing out. and it's a hard, hard reality. so instead of just saying no to the affordable care act those of us who have said no many times, also have a responsibility to find a responsible replacement in public policy for us. again, one of -- one that is going to increase competition, improve health care outcomes, give additional choice, while also decreasing costs and protecting vulnerable persons.

mr. speaker, i think americans deserve the best possible health care outcomes in the world. the question is, how do we get there? from my frame -- from my perspective, a new framework, a new architecture of approach is needed. it expands a policy we already have. a long time ago i had a very significant headache, i was in my 20's, carried my own health care policy, it was very expensive so i had a very high deductible. and i, instead of -- because the headache was particularly severe i decided well, i assume the family physician will send know a specialist. so i called the ear, nose, and throat specialist directly and got an appointment. she did an x-ray and said i can't really tell from the x-ray so i'm going to have to do a c.t. scan. i said doctor, is that really necessary? i understand the problem of liability and the need to push the boundaries on testing, is it

really necessary? she asked me -- she said i why are you talking about me -- to me about this? i said because i'm paying for this. my deductible is very, very high. i want to know if this is absolutely necessary. help me make that decision. she said yes, of course, it's necessary. but now that you that, i'm looking at your sinuses why don't we call places in town that have the machine and see if they'll wide then cross section and give you a discount. i said great. so in three minutes, she had her assistants call and found a place in town that was about $75 cheaper than normal. the doctor got the test she needed and perhaps most importantly in the aggregate, the resource was more properly allocated. all because i had the incentive to ask a simple question because i was actually paying for the test. now we have a policy that encourages health savings

accounts. some americans have them, some americans don't. they're not appropriate for every american particularly americans who are getting older and at the ending point of their professional careers. because catstrosk insurance in the form of health savings accounts -- health savings accounts coupled with catastrophic accounts are a proper way to manage health care when you're younger and in middle life. we ought to be expanding this. the second point being, how do we get there? guaranteed access to affordable, quality catastrophic health insurance with health savings accounts. what you get for that is you are protected. if something really goes wrong if you're in the hospital in the emergency, you shouldn't be in the position of asking, who is the chief anesthesiologist -- the cheapest anesthesiologistaround here, i need to compare prices. in those cases you're protected. in ordinary health care decisions, in partnership with your doctor and health care provider, making decisions about

what is necessary and what is not. i think this is a mechanism by which we can again significantly empower families to save money, control their health care dollar costs and be protected at the same time. the health savings account is a tax preferred vehicle whereby money is set aside on tax deferred basis and accumulates over time. most people in their lifetimes don't get significantly sick. there's the opportunity here, again, for young people, to begin to set aside money in this tax deferred account that actually helps them pay for when ordinary medical expenses arise. and if something really goes wrong you have catastrophic insurance. over time, these accounts would be become larger and larger and help supplement retirement, help supplement the medicare system, strengthening important retirement security programs. so i think this is a key to reworking our current health care model. not for everyone but an

expansion of this opportunity i think is the right architecture moving forward for the next generation moving forward so we guarantee access to affordable quality health care. i think we carry forward some important provisions. no one with pre-existing conditions can be denied. i think the provision whereby children can stay on their parents' health care longer, now age 26, i actually supported that before the new health care law, i think that's smart policy. carry those provisions forward and remove caps on insurance, that doesn't save money. penalizes those who get really sick. carry those provisions forward, again to protect persons in a vulnerable sirbling and give everyone the access to affordable quality health insurance. there's a lot of details that would go into how you make that happen. whether or not you spread that cost over the entire market through regulation or whether you subsidize it. like the government does in other insurance markets like flood insurance and crop that is the right framework for

a rebus marketplace that is going to improve health outcomes reduce costs and protect vulnerable persons. what will we get if we do this and step forward and say, you know what? we can do better. americans deserve better than the current rangement. we'll get peace of mind for ourselves and our doctors and this will go a long way to resolving the underlying problem of stagnation in the economy, particularly those who want to be small business persons who are creating jobs those who have a gift or idea and want to take a little risk and are empowered to do so to create an environment that has dampened their ability to seize this opportunity. this would be the key to unlocking a healthy economy one that is focused on a healthy economy for all. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under

the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, judge poe, for 30 minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, just a few weeks ago, this chamber was filled with members of the house of representatives and all of us stood up raised our right hand and we took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. same oath the president takes, others take, the military, and we do that for a lot of reasons. but the main reason is, in this country, the constitution is paramount to all other law. and i agree with that philosophy. the constitution is a march vesselously written document as well as the declaration of independence that justified the

reason for us to start our own country. attached to the constitution are what is commonly referred to as the bill of rights, rights to the people and prohibitions against government intruding on those rights. and they call it the bill of rights. originally 12, 10 have passed and i would like to start and talk about only one of those rights. there's only 30 minutes and only going to talk about one of those, and it's the fourth amendment. and let's go through it together, fourth amendment of the u.s. constitution. the right of the people, that's us, to be secure in their persons, in their houses, and papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.

that sounds pretty absolute to me. and no warrant shall issue but up on probable cause, supported by an oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. you don't have to be a legal scholar or lawyer to understand what this is talking about. it's the right of privacy that government to go into our homes and our effects and our things and our stuff generally cannot do that except under circumstances which require that they go get a warrant. i used to be a judge. judge green used to be a judge. what that means is the police

generally go to the judge and say judge, in a written document, in an affidavit that they swear to, the affidavit states we believe, i believe that there is let's say drugs, cocaine, specifically in bobby oglethorpe's home and it describes what it is they are looking for and give the address of where bobby lives in houston and then i read it to see if it states probable cause. what does that mean? well there are a lot of definitions to it. but basically the statement proves with the affidavit of the peace officer that there's probable cause to believe that that item is where the police officer says it is drugs, that would be illegal.

then the judge signs the warrant what that does is order the police officer to go to that specific location in a certain time frame. can't do it like forever. you don't have six months to look for it usually three days you go over there and search that address looking for that specific stuff, cocaine drugs, that are in the possession of bobby oglethorpe. then the police officer would leave a document with the person of the house what they seized. the officer comes back and says i executed the warrant you gave me and i brought you the return on the warrant what i seized, because i was ordered to go get it and files the return into court with the clerk. that various from state, but basically, the concept is before government goes into your house

or other things, an independent person, a judge, has got to separate the law, the police from the citizen and make an independent decision as to whether or not what they're looking for is where it is or they haven't established probable cause. now, that's a generalization of the whole concept. now why do we even have these things. it goes back to our history, our american history. everything seems to be based on history. and it's good that we reflect on it. back in 1761, america's not a country, it's a colony, made up of 13 colonies. and at that particular time this is not a new thing about warrants. this is not a new thing. british subjects who lived in england specifically, they had the right to have what is called

a specific warrant issued against them before they would have to give up the item as opposed to what i will show you is a general warrant. generally speaking before a magistrate would allow a subject's home to be searched the peace officer would have to go to a magistrate and show some speaks physicianity as to where the item was for some type of probable cause. coming to the colonies, that was not true. english magistrates that ruled over the colonies did not give colonists the same protection as other british subjects back in england. so what would occur is this. those colonists, it has been said were hiding rum, rum that

had been brought into the united states, the colonies, and other things and hadn't paid the tax on the rum. and so the british would go to a magistrate and say give us a general warrant to search bobby ogelthorpe great, great, great grandfather to search for things that weren't stamped. the colonists didn't like that. you got a warrant and look for things. these were called writs of assistance and general warrants, pretty much the same thing. i won't go into the difference.

colonists being the type of folks they were massachusetts, they took them to court and took the british crown to court. their lawyer james otis and he protested in a courtroom says your warrant is not specific enough. it's too general. british judge, magistrate, ruled against the colonists and there were several businessmen being sued in this case. now that may not seem like a big deal, but john adams who later became president of the united states observed all of this, and he said that act was the spark in which originated the american revolution. what is that? the act of government invading the privacy of the colonists. he said that sparked the american revolution what we now

call the fourth amendment, because the colonists weren't protected from unreasonable search and seizures or specific warrants saying what they were looking for in a specific warrant. local magistrate, just write out a document and look in this warehouse and see if you can find rum that doesn't have a tax on there. so our history shows that this is an important concept. now, what does it require? it requires a specific warrant as opposed to a general warrant. it requires it be specific as to what you are looking for and has to be based on probable cause. just doesn't give the police the authority to look in someone's home and see if you can find some contraband. sworn to and limited in scope as required under the fourth

amendment, which we will read again if we have enough time. the right of privacy was important to our ancestors. and in the fourth amendment and it's important to americans today. little unique on this right of privacy. really not one of the things that a lot of other countries have. and remember it's not supposed to be violated by government our right to be secure in our homes and our effects. so here we are 2015 and where are we? well, this morning somewhere in the united states somebody woke up, sent out some emails, made a phone call may have made a phone call and pulled up google maps to figure out where to get

where the meeting was. took their vehicle or went on a cab, texted his friend and maybe even played what is now something fun like candy crush on the iphone. after the meeting, this individual may head off to the office log onto the computer g-chatting with a friend and later that evening, he uploads a photo of his supper on instatistic gram. but all during that route of american citizens the federal government has the availability to stalk that individual every step of the way because of the devices that he is using electronicically. maybe until last year until news came out by national media most americans aren't aware that

their every move could be tracked by big brother and through the n.s.a. which i call the national spy agency, government has the ability to read citizens' emails, read their texts, know their phone logs, track the location and travel and movements of citizens snoop and collect information about individuals through smartphones aps and look at private photographs, all unknown to the citizen. the fail tur to disclose any of this information until recently is why americans fear government intrusion and i call it government stalking, into our lives. the stalking government has kept its peeping tom activities a big secret until primarily phillip snowden told us all about it. his issue is a different issue, but now we know about it. so how did we get here.

technology has rapidly changed and given bureaucrats the ability to sift through data and find out more information than ever. and just because they have the physical ability doesn't mean they have the constitutional right or any right to violate the fourth amendment, because this protects americans. the fourth amendment doesn't protect government but protects americans, it protects citizens. the government seems to justify the snooping, the peeping tom for a couple of reasons. the white house, the administration claims that n.s.a. has no interest in monitoring american citizens but just looking for bad guys. well, i have a hard time believing that until evidence came out to the contrary the n.s.a., it seems was snooping and spying on lots of americans in the name of trying to catch the bad guy.

. furthermore n.s.a. when they did a little investigation they found out that dozens of instances where their own employees misused capabilities to spy on people ex-girlfriends and others why? simply because they had the ability. so we have learned for years that the n.s.a. has quietly in my opinion snooped and spied on millions of americans without a warrant. that is the key. and without their knowledge and without their consent. this is justified for a second reason based on the name of national security. it said we live in terrible times, we do got these terrorists all over the world, trying to hurt us, so we at the n.s.a. need to get this information to protect americans from these bad guys. well let's analyze that just for a moment if we can.

we've heard reports that, well we've caught a lot of bad guys because of this information n.s.a. has seized, this mega data. so during a judiciary committee hearing last year, i asked deputy attorney general james coe this question. how many criminal cases have been filed based on this massive seizure of information by n.s.a.? collecting information on americans without the use of a warrant and storing it. and to my knowledge it still exists. how many criminal cases? and he testified maybe one. maybe one. so this nonsense about we're doing all of this because we have to catch the bad guys, they got one criminal case. that they can talk about.

even if there were more it does not justify, in my opinion, the massive seizure of data without constitutional safeguards. let's read it one more time. the right of the people to be secure in their persons and houses and papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, in this case no warrants at all are issued, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. that's not what's occurring. it's just massive amounts of information are being seized. let me try to describe it this way. let's go back to bobby ogle thorpe. -- oglethorpe. say bobby oglethorpe lives close to where i do in texas.

the police say they come to me as a judge and say, judge, we know that bobby oglethorpe lives in this zip code here but we don't know where he lives and he's no good, he's a criminal, and he's in possession of firearms and drugs and all kinds of illegal things he's done but we don't know which house he's in in this particular zip code. so we want to go search all the houses in the zip code. and hopefully we'll catch him. no judge in this country would sign a warrant and say, all right, have at it start searching the houses looking for this one guy with all this bad stuff he's in possession of. no judge would do it? why? it violates the fourth amendment. why? because it's not specific enough. it's a general warrant like the british were imposing on the colony that they, has as john adams said sparked the american revolution. wouldn't do that. or it's an example -- another

example, you know, finding a needle in ha haystack. the government wants to seize the whole haystack. they can't do that. they've got to find the needle. got to define what they're looking for in the warrant. the n.s.a. by seizing lots of data violates the fourth amendment of the constitution. there are other examples, so we'll talk about n.s.a. seizure of data and to my knowledge, they still store this information. may i inquire of the speaker how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 12 minutes remaining. mr. poe: thank you, i appreciate it. n.s.a. let's move on to what is called eca. let's talk about the i.r.s. a little bit. most americans will be filing tax returns. many americans including me, are concerned about the i.r.s.'s ability to take information from

americans without their consent or without a warrant. and sometimes that includes emails. so let's talk specifically about the concept of government seizure of emails without consent of the person who sent it or received it and without a warrant. current federal law is that if somebody has an email within six months of when that email was sent, that email to be obtained by government, not just law enforcement but any government agency, they have to get a warrant to get it. but as soon as that 160 days run, past 160 days, government doesn't get a warrant because the law doesn't require it. i think in the spirit of the fourth amendment, the fourth amendment should require that. email. what is email? that is an electronic mess message sent to another person.

let's go back to regular mail or snail mail, some people call it. if i write a letter and i seal the envelope and put the postage on there and i send it go put it in the mailbox one of those blue mailboxes, i drop that in the mailbox. government does not have the authority to go in that mailbox and take the letter out, read the letter, seize the letter without a warrant. so it flows through the united states postal system from wherever to wherever and it lands in somebody else's mailbox. that mail generally speaking, is protected under the fourth amendment because it violates the fourth amendment if government sizes it, goes into the contents without a warrant. the same should apply to emails. it's communication. it's just done electronically.

but the law does not allow -- let me say it another way. emails are over six months old, americans should be aware of the fact that government may seize those emails from a private company without your knowledge, without your consent, and without a warrant. that's why i've introduced, a a-- introduced, along with representative lofgren of california, that the law should be that emails are protected. that it's a right of privacy and expectation of privacy for americans that emails be protected. and that goth should be getting a warrant before they seize those documents. because it's a violation, at least in the spirit of the fourth amendment. and i hope that that legislation does finally come to the floor and we get a vote on protecting the fourth amendment, the right of privacy for americans when it comes to emails. the same applies not only just to emails but under the circumstances it woult apply to

geolocation devices, that the government knows where you are, i think that government could keep up with you, it needs a warrant to stalk you throughout the united states. the third thing i wanted to mention in the remaining time was a completely different issue but has to do with drones. the right of privacy. we're in the drone age. it's estimated that by 2030, we'll have 30,000 drones over the skies of the united states. 30,000 of them. drones are marvelous invention they are highly technical, they can be very small, you can get one at a local store a size you can put in the palm of your hand. and no question about it, there are good uses for drones. right now law is that the f.a.a. regulates the use of drones throughout the united states. it may permit some, may permit

not, may refuse to permit them. it's an f.a.a., bureaucratic decision. congress needs to weigh in on the issue of drones and set down constitutional guidelines. they need -- people need to know the rules. law enforcement needs to know the rules, and private citizens need to know the rules about the use of drones. fourth amendment ought to apply with the use of the drone except with exigent circumstances that already apply, high speed chases, disasters fires. but we need some guidelines on the issues of drones. congress has the re-- responsibility to protect the fourth amendment by the surveillance of americans by either law enforcement or by private citizens. and develop a standard for both law enforcement and for private citizens to know what the standard is. yes there are reasons why we should use them and law should allow these. but congress needs to make the decision not the f.a.a.

i have a local sheriff, or sheriff in texas where i'm from, generally says he doesn't want to use drones because he doesn't know what the courts will decide down the road as to whether or not that use of drone was lawful or unlawful violation of the fourth amendment. so rather than wait for the courts to decide if this specific use is or is not a violation of the fourth amendment, congress needs to come up with guidelines with the design and the protection of the fourth amendment that drones can only be used in certain circumstances. otherwise, they're not allowed to be used because they violate the fourth amendment of the united states. so those are three issues that have the right of privacy that are being, i think chilled today because there's more and more government intrusion into all those areas. into the massive data of phone information, information that's put on your ifen for example. that's being seized. can be seized.

without knowledge, without warrant. the massive amount of emails that can be seized. we really don't know how much is being seized because over six months, your personal email is not protected by law. government agencies, not just law enforcement, can seize that. and then the skies will be 30,000 of those drones, there needs to be some regulations within protection of the fourth amendment. we need to work with industry and government to outline what those rules out to be to protect the fourth amendment, protect the right of privacy of individuals to be secure in their homes. in their papers. in their effects. from government intervention and government intrusion. and congress should set the standard for what a reasonable expectation of privacy is. especially in those areas that i mentioned and the one regarding drones as well.

so i hope that we see some movement in this legislation once again, zoe lofgren and i have introduced legislation as well as others to protect the right of individuals to be free from searches of their emails after six months without a search warrant, we have that legislation pending as well. hopefully, we can rein in what i call the stalking government about stalking american citizens. america is not about keeping up and following every citizen in the united states by government. that's what other countries do. that's what countries like the soviet union used to do. that's not what america should be doing. congress needs to weigh in on this to protect individuals' right of privacy under the fourth amendment which was the spark, according to john adams, to the american revolution, that concept of the fourth amendment being violated. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced

policy of january 6 2015, the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas ms. jackson lee, for 30 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much for the yielded time. and i thank the floor staff and the representatives of the democratic cloakroom, republican cloakroom for their courtesy. i want to join my good friend who was on the floor earlier this evening and i was detained in a diplomatic meeting, i could not join my good friend congressman al green as he began to commemorate and salute black history month. a story of a proud people of americans who participated in every historic event since the

founding of this country and whose ancestors proudly wore the uniforms on many occasions including the uniform in the civil war and wars beyond. tonight i come to salute both i come to salute heroes from houston, texas and the 18th congressional district. this is the 39th commemoration of black history month and we celebrate the contributions of african-americans, who have contributed to the history and the greatness of our nation. pay tribute to pioneers, heroes and leaders like did dr. king, supreme court justice marshal.

united states senator bruce. the honorable barbara jordan who sat amongst us, retiring from the united states congress in 1978-1979. mickey legal and who lost his life trying to provide food to hungry people in ethiopia. astronauts and frederick douglass and booker t. washington harriet tubman rosa parks. maya angel ou who taught me. and gwen brooks, just a number of well known and unsung heroes whose contributions helped our

nation become a more perfect union. the history of the united states has been marked by leaders, writers and artists. as a member of congress, i stand on those shoulders, whose struggles and triumphs made it possible for me to stand here today and continue to fight for their values and really the values embedded in what america is all about. the values of equality and justice, progress for all, regardless of race, religion gender or sexual orientation. mr. speaker, i have two very special giants. they are my mother and father. ivy jackson a vocational nurse and my father one of the first african-americans who was welcomed for a short period of time into the growing comic business after world war ii or during world war ii. that was the entertainment that many americans found stories

joy, drama various superheroes, monsters and a number of other things, the comic business. and in new york city, a young man by the name of isra jackson was given the door as the youngest son of my grandmother, olive jackson, who sent three of her sons offer to world war ii. my three uncles each fought. youngest son stayed with his widowed mother and in doing so, he found in himself a talent. i'm proud to say that his works have been shown in the smithsonian. just an individual one might say average man african-american man who suffered the indig nights of discrimination and found no place in that industry as being

replaced by white citizens. and so i know that their strength, a mother in her tenacity and long standing work at booth memorial hospital, their strength was the foundation for myself and my brother michael jackson. and now with many who have come behind. they were beloved parents and taught me the value of hard work discipline, and caring for others. i know this is not family night. my husband was the first tenured african-american professor at the university of houston school of law. there are many today that make their pathway standing on the shoulders of others. the most wonderful tribute that i like is to our military veterans who as i indicated when i started who fought in every war since the revolutionary war,

how amazing people who came first in the bottom of the belly of a slave boat can count their history to every single war fighting on behalf of the security of our nation. and i remember joining congressman john lewis and congressman charles rangel, a korean war veteran as we were invited to pay tribute to the airmen at the 555 par troop infantry, the same triple nickles sponsored by the u.s. army commemorating the anniversary of the 1964 civil rights act. everything we have gained is because our soldiers, regardless of their race, religion, background, were willing to put on the uniform. and i'm grateful to say so many of those who put on the uniform, even when they were treated in an unfair manner in this

country they proudly put on that uniform and fought for the nation. i'm reminded of all of them, because you see mr. speaker, they live amongst us in our communities and you don't know, as we have seen in the honoring of the devils yesterday, we see that they are so proud to wear their uniform and they have fought so hard. so let me salute all of our veterans and soldiers and let me be reminded of those from the african-american community who went to serve even as the laws of this nation did not treat them fairly. i'm well aware of the airmen because my father-in-law was a tuesday key gee airman along with his wife who was one of the supporters. both of them now she is 94 years old received a congressional gold medal and we know the story of the airmen achieving one of the lowest loss

records of all the fighter groups and being in constant demand and being in demand is a record unmatched by any fighter group. these brave men and women, no matter as i indicated what race, it's so interesting, they do not tell their story often. that is why i'm so glad the united states congress over these last years have begun to honor all of these groups so that their story can be told and forever embedded in the history of this nation. the impressive feat of them were outstanding and astounding. i believe that their efforts and much of the success of african-american soldiers in world war ii cause in 1948 persuade president truman to issue his famous executive order, number 9981, was directed

to equality of treatment and opportunity in all of the united states armed forces and led to the end of racial segregation in the united states military forces. one person to have that story told in the eloquent way that it's been told is general colin powell, or the famous davis generals, chappy davis, who was one well known. but colin powell tells that story. clearly, these individuals bravely fought for their country, but they showed they had the right stuff. they are american history and they certainly are a testament to black history. clearly what began as a experiment whether colored soldiers were capable of complex aircraft was a success on an

airman, 221 aircraft destroyed. 15,000 and 1,578 missions over italy and north africa. they also destroyed or damaged over 950 units of ground transportation and escorted more than 200 bombing mission. and the anecdote is excellence and performance as retired colonel herbert carter once remarked. i enjoy sharing this with my colleagues. it is black history month but we need to remember to say thank you to all americans who have gone on before us and this month we are focusing on african-americans. who could forget congresswoman shirley chisholm and her first appointment in this congress lady from brooklyn, was to the

agriculture committee. no, she didn't run away from it she ran toward it. and her famous statement a tree grows in brooklyn. she ran for president. made history there. but others like harriet tubman who led slaves to freedom all up and down the east coast. had a little sharp tongue and told anybody who was lagging behind, you weren't going to stay behind and if you did and got caught all the others who got caught. rosa parks was a proud americans and had the great fortitude, although a small woman who did tailoring work to indicate in a way that subjected herself to being put in prison, put in jail, is that, i, too, am american.

i represent the city that loves nasa and loves human space exploration. the first african-american woman to go into space has now dedicated herself to exposing young people to math, science, engineering and technology and creating more astronauts for the restored human space exploration. that's a good thing. that's a very good thing. i believe that as we look to work together in the 50th year of the voting rights act of 1965, which as a member of the united states congress and judiciary committee, led by a man who makes history himself at that time, john conyers, who has served in many capacities but as then chair of the judiciary committee being the first african-american to ever chair that committee but also a man that at every cornerstone of justice whether it's

sentencing, prison reform, whether it's dealing with the issues of copyright whether it is a social justice issues, having been the first or -- let me say the first employer of rosa parks outside of her town of alabama where she made her stand in montgomery, alabama. she worked for congressman john conyers. as i mentioned that, i mentioned this is the 50th anniversary of the 1965 voting rights act. we all knew the story. i knew the story beforehand. i worksd for the southern christian leadership conference right after the death of king. i knew the names as those who worked closely with dr. king. reverend jackson had moved up to operation push. but i say that to say that we know the story that it was the throngs of unnamed persons who

pursued a simple right, the right to vote. and i believe their heroic efforts have made it part of america's history. i always believed one vote one person is not for me. whether you are white, hispanic asian or african-american, it is american. they made the first step that a vote should be unfettered for every citizen and should not be blocked from voting. i hope we get to that point not selfishly for one group over another, but get to that point for all of america. so i think in this month of black history commemoration i need to give a challenge. that challenge needs to be that we need to pass the voting rights act reauthorization as what presently crafted in the last congress. i was prilled to be one of the

original co-sponsors and congressman bachus was on that bill with me. we had seen each other and marched across the edmund pettus bridge. he was a representative from alabama. there was no forcing, no pushing. it was just quiet thought, that this was the right thing to do by a number of republican members that supported that legislation in the last congress, including one of the former chairmen of the judiciary committee, mr. sen sensenbrenner. it is important not to block anyone from voting. i still think it is the right thing. i think the premise is righted. there is no statement about voting in the constitution, but there are statements of philosophy and rights and liberties all driven by someone's right to vote for a

government that will promote religious freedom, freedom of access, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the right to a trial by jury, due process and we know the 13th, 14th and 15 amendments were geared toward the idea of freedom. and you can only secure freedom one, by your wonderful men and women who are willing to stand in uniform and fight for us, many who have gone through and shed their blood but the other is an active and partnership tower civic siving and the actions are their voice and their vote. i plead with my colleagues that let us make the vote and the voice real by supporting the re-authorization of the voting rights act, written to respond to the united states supreme court. i may have disagreed with the supreme court's section 5 but i have a basic internal members of

the committee nesm that says you adhere to the law, you follow the law. you follow the dictates of the courts as they reach their final answer, the highest court of the land. . we went to work on a structure that was not pointed but broad. meaning that you would not point out certain states, you would just say you couldn't violate a person's right to vote. and the good news is, you had the ability to work yourself out of the coverage of that act. that's a good thing. work yourself out. and then if a state though i don't think it might happen with the diverse states we have, wants to work its way in, we find a way to correct. -- correct their laws that might be blocking someone's right to vote. i'm going to have the confidence that we're going to take that up

and make a difference in the lives of all americans. rhett me move on to say -- let me move on to say, i hope my challenge will be accepted and i hope we'll take the words of dr. king, i enjoy reading his writings, he was more than, if you will, a civil rights leader. he was a man that thoughtfully crafted words and messages to inspire and give us a road map. he had these famous words, why we can't wait which was found in the 1960's. what a provocative statement, -- is he trying to provoke people to violence? absolutely not. he was a committed, dedicated servant and disciple of gandhi's nonviolence and his own internal mechanism of nonviolence. it was in his d.n.a. he would not provoke any form of violence. we should know that. because the story looks back, things happen, if you were part of the sclc, they were driven,

trained all their foot soldiers and absolute commitment to nonviolence. if you showed any sign that you could not adhere you would not be part of their efforts. dr. king had some famous words that i like. i know, like many of his words -- i know and like many of his words, but this one anybody can be great because anybody can serve. you only need a heart full of grace and a soul generated by love. let me also say important when you come up and talk about great people, that you don't forget home. and i just want to acknowledge some of the great leaders in my community. i can't call all their names but i do want to acknowledge reverend f.m. williams sr., one of the founding pastors of the ant oklahoma baptist church, his father was a founding father of acres home. dr. s.j. gilbert sr. who led the

mount sinai baptist church. reverend crawford w. kimball pastor of barbara jordan, an erue diet man who wrote beautiful words of challenge. the late reverend stanley branch, in essence, a republican, who was a leader that brought all people together. reverend dr. william a. lawson, founder of wheel avenue baptist church who walks with dr. king and is a go-to person on issues of, again, marching and fighting nonviolently for justice. reverend johnny robinson. who was a great leader of the baptist ministers' association and i remember him distinctly not indicating what politics or party it was but is it right is it just. commissioner al franco lee the first african-american commissioner in the harris county county commissioners.

mr. john bland, one of the texas southern university students who marched to desegregate the various lunch counters. ruby moseley, up in age, a fighter for senior citizens and is a mother of acres home. ms. dorothy hubbard, the late dorothy hubbard, who worked in my office and instructed me about how you serve and help people. ms. doris hubrd a -- hubbard, one of the first young persons to be active in the texas democratic party and a champion for equality and justice. willie bell boone, another one who minces no words about fighting to make sure that everyone's voice is heard. holly overbrooks who again is a great leader as it relates to the civil rights movement and the marching on the counters. mr. lloyd park founder of the great organization called shape that's lifted the boats of inner city children one by one. from that program come

scientists and business people, but they all have a heart. laura carter, a founder of the forward time, i believe the oldest newspaper. you can see that black history is a story telling history. and so as i close my remarks, i have to take a moment of personal privilege to be able to talk about something that i have enjoyed. you see mr. speaker around this time of year in houston, we have something called the houston livestock and rodeo show. it is'ons and decades of years old. it goes back to our traditions as cowboys and cowgirls. and we are not going to let it go. and so every year, we're coming upon it, it's probably going to go for, we say almost two months, that we are legitimately in our cowboy cowgirl attire.

i was privileged to be honored by the houston livestock show and rodeo black heritage committee which i helped found 20-something years ago because i knew the black cowboys and others wanted to be so much a part of it. i want to pay tribute to verna lee booker-booth, the first cowgirl if you will to and her name is verna lee booker, to be in the houston rodeo. and i received that award what a privilege to acknowledge that we are everywhere. and she was a competitor. and i believe it was in the barrel competition. but what an exciting night to recall her history. so we're going to be rodeoing over the next couple of weeks and i want to pay tribute to all the trail riders particularly those of african-american heritage they have carried on this tradition and i want to make mention i know there are many others but allow me to make

mention of the prairie view trail riders association, made its annual trek to the houston livestock and rodeo show in hempstead. they ren due view with a dozen other caravans in memorial mark -- memorial park and join the rodeo. they stay out on the trail. they don't get into a hotel and then get on their horses. they ride the trail for two or three or four weeks and come down to the rodeo on the day of the big parade. the prairie view trail raid was founded in 1957 by dr. francis jr. and others but these are those who started it. their mission was to promote agricultural interest in young americans and to perpetrate those principles and methods which have come to be regarded as the ideals and traditions of the western world as well as the negro western heritage.

i am glad that they wanted to perpetuate this great tradition and particularly among african-americans. a good many of the first black cowboys were born into slavery but later found better life on the open range. i know many of us have heard of the buffalo soldiers, the indians call african-american soldiers that because of the woolliness of their hair and they were on horses and they were fighting as well for the viewpoint of that time. some black cowboys took on rodeo performance or were hired as federal peace officers in indian territory. our history weaves in and out and it is a colorful history. and it mentions a number of people. and i'll mention daniel w. john wallace, started righting the cattle trails in his adolescence and ultimately worked for

cattlemen scott and o'keefe, put his accumulated savings toward the purchase of a ranch near lorraine where he acquired 1200 acres and 500 to 600 cattle. texas has a great tradition. i want to talk about my friend molly stephenson, a fourth generation owner of the taylor-stevenson ranch. i would take my children out there, she would have ponies for them to run and ride. founded the museum to honor indian and mexican american and black cowboys. weekend rodeos featuring black cowboys started in the late 1940's and continue to be popular. the con thoves negro cowboys association, it is evident we have a strong history. and so i think it is important tonight that we salute the long history that we've had in many different areas. and to be able to say as i close again that there's work yet to

be done in the pouring forward of our history, whether it is not to reflect on the cowboys who at times were poorly fed, underpaid overworked deprived of sleep, prone to boredom and loneliness, or is it to fix the criminal justice system of the 1st century, to be able to recognize that for all the cowboys and the historic persons whose names i've called, dr. king and his wife who sat alongside him coretta scott king that we fix the criminal justice system and work to find ways to fix the criminal justice system. we mourn with the mourning mothers, trayvon martin's mother, and all of them, we find ways to ensure the wives and family members of law enforcement that yes, your husband or wife as a law enforcement will come home. over the years i worked with federal law enforcement as a member of the house judiciary

committee. we always find ways to make their life easier in terms of the quality of life and work. expanded cops on the beat program system of now we can come together on training and the grand jury system and prison reform. which are not prone to any one group in america, it's an american issue. and i truly believe that the history of all people, the history of americans no matter what their background is one of clinging to democracy and the principles of the bill of rights that we all have a decent opportunity to be respected by our law enforcement processes, whether it's our courts or whether it is our process of trying cases we all are to be respected. with that, mr. speaker, let me say that i end on the very note that this is a great country and the history of african-americans have contributed to its greatness. let us use the richness of their history to cast forward a new

line that will change america for the better as we move forward for justice equality, and freedom. i yield back. mr. speaker, i move to 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.

how is ashton carter viewed on capitol hill? >> he's pretty widely respected. he's considered a pretty deep thinker on defense issues. and someone who is expected to have a pretty easy confirmation vote. senator mccain and a lot of the other members of the armed services committee walking into this hearing said they didn't expect this to be really a focus on him or his credentials. he's known, he's well liked, he shouldn't have a problem. instead they've seen this hearing as more of a chance to criticize obama on a number of national security issues. looking at his syria strategy, the iran strategy, the afghanistan strategy. >> it sounded like chairman mccain and ashton carter, the nominee, were in agreement in terms of getting rid of the sequester, these pentagon spending caps. how are they going to go about doing that? >> that's the big question. you've heard senator mccain,

you've heard chairman thornberry over on the house side really say they're going to hammer that this year. the mandatory spending cuts are supposed to go into effect again in fiscal 2016. and they're all concerned, you know the nominee included, that that can cripple the military, that's really going to set them back. as of now we haven't seen much of an alternative plan. just a lot of promises that they need to get rid of this, the minimumtary absolutely needs to have that -- the military absolutely needs to have that money. we heard more of that today. we heard carter say he thinks it's a foolish plan, he think it's really -- thinks it's really going to harm national security. still no real alternative out there. >> ashton carter was asked about whether he'd support arming the ukrainian rebels. what did he say and what's the current pentagon thinking on that? >> he was a little fuzzy on the specifics there. he said he would support the idea and would look into it more. this is one of several different issues that he's going to have to wade into

immediately. the pentagon right now has been in a wait and see mode as the white house has been and we'll have to see where that lands when he gets into office. >> another issue that was brought up by several senators, including senators gillibrand and hirono, was sexual harassment in the military. you tweeted about the ashton carter response saying he called it a problem sexual assault, widespread, in u.s. society and particularly offensive in the military. we have to try to root this out. some senators have tried to do that changing pentagon policy. what do we know of ashton carter's intentions in this area? >> he said clearly that he wants to be aggressive on this issue, look for ways to really attack the problem and forward, you know further the work that the military's done already. surely after that tweet came out, senator mccaskill came on and tried to reverse some of the conversation there. obviously the legislation that

she proposed and senator gillibrand proposed has been an ongoing fight between the two of them. the idea of taking the issue completely out of the hands of military commanders, finding a new way of handling this has been a controversial point. but he said this is an issue he's looking at and it's something that he definitely wants to find a solution to. did hedge a little bit and said this is a wider problem than just a military problem. but said that, again the military is a specific -- it's a specifically offensive problem because of the teamwork and camaraderie that's involved in being in the ranks. >> back to chairman mccain. in his opening statement and a couple times in the hearing he complained about a lack of national security strategy on the part of the pentagon. what's he looking for and what did he hear from ashton carter? >> i don't think he heard anything from the nominee that really calmed any of his fears. he's really hammered the obama administration in months and especially since he took over as chairman about having a lack of a could he heernt strategy.

too much -- coherent strategy. too much immediate reaction, -- reaction, not enough continued presence and continued idea of how to combat islamic terrorists worldwide. especially in iraq and syria. but also in their strategy for afghanistan, what's the long-term goal there, how long troops should be there. secretary carter is still the nominee and a lot of his answers were -- i'll look into that i'll see. i know there are plans in place and if those plans don't look right, i'll make sure to pivot from those and give different advice. but for right now, he's sticking with, you know, here's the administration's plans and i plan on stepping in and trying toimplement them. >> you can follow leo's reporting on twitter @leoshane. thanks for the update. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the confirmation hearing for the nominee to be defense secretary ashton carter is tonight on c-span at 8:00 eastern. and on facebook, we've been

asking, what should be the defense department's priorities? join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan. two comments from our facebook page -- >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate there's also 108 women in congress, including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional "chronicle" on cspan.org. the congressional "chronicle" page has lots of useful information there, including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress best access on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio and cspan.org.

>> and today's white house briefing, press secretary josh earnest declined to make a statement on jordan's execution of two prisoners in response to isis burning alive a jordanian air force pilot. but he reiterated u.s. support for jordan and the country's fight against islamic extremism. >> good afternoon, everybody.

nice to see all of you. for those of who you are paying close attention to my personal schedule today, you know that i went and appeared at a forum with the center for american progress to talk about men and fathers in the work life-family balance. i'm much less nervous in here talking to you about a range of foreign policy issues and some domestic ones than i am talking about my personal life with my wife and child in the front row. for one day i can at least walk in here and say i'm relieved to see all of you. i think -- you should ask my wife. she may have a more unbiased assessment. you want to get us start to today >> thanks. i had a couple questions on the islamic state and jordan. congressional lawmakers are calling for increased military assistance to jordan, including weapons. would the president support that? >> well, we do have a very powerful and important counterterrorism and security relationship with the nation of

jordan. and that relationship has significantly benefited american national security interests throughout the middle east. we have also found that jordan has been a strong partner when it comes to our broader international coalition against isil. we've talked about and tragically it's been widely discussed that jordanian military pilots are flying alongside american military pilots, striking the isil targets in syria. that is just one indication of the depth of the commitment from the jordanian people to this broader effort. we certainly value that rich: and we -- that relationship and we certainly interested in maintaining that strong military-to-military national security ties we have with that country. >> do you feel there's a need to increase military assistance to jordan, specifically by giving them weapons? >> i don't know -- i'm not

aware of any specific requests the jordanians have made for additional -- >> lawmakers on capitol hill are talking about -- [inaudible] >> we certainly would consider anything that they were to put forward. but i do think what would drive a decision like that is a specific request from our partners in jordan. >> you talked about the commitment from jordan to fly and launch air strikes at the u.a.e. which had been part of that coalition and has stopped doing that. what does that say about the strength of this coalition and what's the reason that the u.a.e. has given the u.s. for stopping launching air strikes? >> i did see that announcement from them and i'd refer to you them for the latest update in terms of their military participation in the campaign but i don't think people should take away from that announcement that the commitment from them and other arab countries in the region to this broader coalition has a winned in any way. there's a -- waned in any way. there's a very important role for them to play in terms of the range of other aspects of our counterisil -- counter-isil strategy which requires broad international support. whether it's providing humanitarian assistance to

those who have been displaced by isil's violencer, or helping us in the fight against foreign fighters, or working to try to counter the messaging from isil that it attempts to radicalize people all across the globe. there still and continues to be an important role for united arab emirates to play in this broad international coalition. >> the military was still listing the u.a.e. on daily news releases as being part of the coalition, launching air strikes against syria, even after they had stopped doing that. are there other countries that were part of this coalition that changed their participation that we don't know about? >> not that i'm aware of. but obviously what we have tried to do, aside from some of the documentation that you just cited, is to allow the individual countries to discuss in detail the kind of military operations that they're engaged in on a daily basis. my guess is without knowing exactly which document you're referring to it might have been a list of the countries

that had to date participated in military air strikes alongside american military pilots. >> at this point, all of the countries that you have said are participating in air strikes are still part of the effort? >> i'm going to let the individual countries speak to the details through day by day accounting of their military activities and their participation in military operations. >> one more on the topic. is the white house, the president, giving any consideration to increasing the resources that you have in the region to be available to rescue pilots if something were to go down? >> i know there has been some reporting that raised questions about whether or not there was sufficient resources available to try to rescue captain when his plane went down. the department of defense have spoken to this and they did indicate that as soon as the plane went down, an intensive airborne search was immediately initiated and personnel recovery forces were moving toward the pilot's last known location. for obvious reasons we're not

going to be in a position to discuss specific response timelines, for personnel recovery. but that was not in this case a major factor. the simple fact of the matter is we were not in a position to locate the pilot before he was picked up by isil forces. >> the president feels comfortable with the resources he has on the ground if something were to happen with an american pilot? over syria or iraq? >> certainly we would take -- we already have taken the necessary precautions to do everything we can to try to make that very dangerous mission as safe as possible for american fighter pilot who are putting themselves in -- pilots who are putting themselves in harm's way. the president relies significantly on the advice he gets from the leaders of our uniformed military, for questions like this. i can tell you that the president is always pushing his team to re-evaluate assumptions and to take a look at the strategy to make sure that all of our strategies are pressure-tested, that

assumptions are challenged and that we're doing everything that makes strategic sense to do to make this mission effective, to optimize its impact and to try to put in place precautions that allow our men and women in uniform to do their very important jobs as safely as possible. >> the european union has criticized jordan's execution of the two iraqis yesterday. i'm wondering how the president feels about that execution and whether that came up during his meeting with the king yesterday. >> we did see reports that the jordanian government did carry out the execution of two prisoners that have been serving time on death row. these were two individuals that did go through the jordanian justice system. they were convicted of very serious terrorism-related crimes. these were individuals who were sentenced to death and were serving time on death row and we did see reports that their executions were carried out overnight. for questions about the circumstances of their

confinement or the decision to move forward on the execution, i'd refer you to jordanian authorities who can provide a great deal more insight into the jordanian justice system than i can. >> the white house is not criticizing it unlike the european union? >> again, for questions about that specific situation i'd every refer you to jofferedan -- i'd refer you to jordanian authorities. >> today ashton carter said he'd be in favor of sending arms to ukraine and that seems to go further than what was said the other day and what you've said. i'm wondering if the white house agrees with ash carter or if he's gone out ahead of the white house on this issue. >> the other thing i noticed that dr. carter mentioned in his hearing is that he's a strong believer in the chain of command. and he certainly understands that the commander in chief is the top of that chain of command and that a decision like this will be made by the commander in chief. that said, the president certainly is interested in the view and opinion and insight of his national security team, including what we hope will be his soon-to-be confirmed new

secretary of defense. the president will certainly take that advice into account. what week of made clear is that -- we've made clear is that substantial military assistance has been provided to the ukrainian military. we've made clear that an effort to try to bring the ukrainian military on par with the russian military is unrealistic, that when we're talking about the russian military, we're talking about one of the largest militaries on earth. so the idea that we're going to provide enough assistance that would allow the ukrainian military to be on par with the russian military is unrealistic. that's why we know that the only way this situation is going to be resolved is around the negotiating table. that is why our strategy has been focused on applying pressure to president putin and other members of the russian rescream, to try to compel them to come to the negotiating table, to resolve or to de-escalate the situation in ukraine. that's going to continue to be our strategy. i know that there are some, including dr. carter, who articulated his view at the

hearing today, who believe that there might be a benefit to providing additional military assistance to ukrainian military authorities. that is consistent with the president's view, that we should, as i was mentioning earlier as it relates to our strategy against isil, that we're always testing and probing our strategy to make sure that it's optimized. >> on net neutrality. the chairman put forth his new proposal today. how does the white house feel about his new proposal? >> i understand from published reports that the f.c.c. chairman has pub accomplished an overview of his plans -- published his overview of his plans to save net neutrality and we're encouraged to see that the f.c.c. is safeguarding net neutrality with the strongest possible protections. this is consistent with the view that the president articulated back in the fall and the president has indicated that as this process moves

forward, that additional legislation is not needed. but we're going to continue to withhold a detailed comment about their proposal out of respect for the independent process that the f.c.c. is engaged in right now. this proposal will be subject to a vote of the five members or five commissioners of the f.c.c. and we'll have a little more to say about this after that vote has taken place. >> if the speech by prime minister netanyahu goes forward, will the president ask vice president biden to go to the speech? >> the vice president takes his responsibilities as the president of the united states senate very seriously. that includes even his ceremonial responsibilities. many of you have watched the vice president dig in with gusto as he swears in new members of the united states congress. he's done that a couple of times. i think that the ratings for c-span have gone through the roof when he's had the opportunity to do that. but another of his ceremonial

duties is to be a part of any joint session of congress that is convened. in fact, there have been a number of joint sessions that have been convened while he's been vice president and the vice president told me he missed one. he missed one back in march of 2011, when then australian prime minister spoke before a joint session of congress. unfortunately at that point the vice president was out of the country and did not attend. but as if relates to this speech that prime minister netanyahu has, i can tell you that the vice president's schedule for that week has not yet been set. so as we get some more details worked out on his schedule, we'll be able to let you know whether or not he'll be able to attend that joint session. >> does the president want the vice president to be there? >> again this is going to be contingent on his schedule and as i mentioned, there's only one time in which the vice

president hasn't been there and it's when he's been out of the country. as we get more details for that first week in march locked down on the vice president's schedule, we'll have more to say. >> do you think it's dangerous, there are some democrats who are talking about skipping the speech, do you think it's dangerous for american-israeli relations were democrats to boycott the netanyahu speech? >> well, certainly individual members of congress will have to make their own decisions. some of which will be driven by their schedule and some will be driven by their own views about what has transpired over the last several weeks as it relates to this speech. let me just say that when i was asked about ambassador dermer's status, maybe even last week, that the president believes that it was important to uphold a broader tradition of ensuring that the strong relationship between the united states and israel was not in any way subjugated to partisan politics in either country, frankly.

one of the concerns about the breach in protocol that we've seen and articulated is that it might cause some to view the relationship between the united states and israel as a relationship between one political party in israel and one political party in the united states. the president does not believe that would be a positive development in our relationship. and so the president certainly is doing everything that he can to try to avoid that and in fact that's one of the reasons that the president said he will not meet with the israeli prime minister when he's in town the first week in march, because the president does not want to leave anybody with even the appearance of interfering in the israeli election that's scheduled for just two weeks later. >> given that, does he think that democrats should go to the speech if it happens? >> i guess to give you a more direct answer, the president believes that individual members of congress often decides for themselves. >> coming back to the u.a.e. do you believe that the coalition has been strengthened or weakened by this whole

episode involving the jordanian pilot? >> i think you heard from the president yesterday that the commitment of the united states and other members of the coalition has only been strengthened and i think he referred to redoubling our efforts to carry out this strategy against isil. i think you saw that sentiment he can beowed in the statement from -- echoed in the statement from the king yesterday as well who indicated that the people of jordan would not show weakness in the face of this barbaric act and i think that's an indication of their strengthened commitment to this broader international coalition and i think that's representative of the sentiment of others who are participants in this coalition. but i only speak for one member of the coalition. >> the u.a.e. had been perhaps the biggest contributor to the air campaign. and it's been now over a month since they have taken part in

any air strikes over iraq or syria. it seems like a pretty significant blow to the coalition. and one that, you know, we weren't informed of. you talked excessively about the strength of this coalition over the past weeks and months. this seems to be a pretty significant setback, to have the u.a.e. no longer flying with american pilots. >> we certainly have appreciated the wide range of commitments that the united arab emirates has made to this broader coalition, including their military commitment. but i can tell you that the pace of operations in syria has not slowed. there are to date more than 1,000 strikes over syria that have been carried out. these have targeted a wide range of things. everything from isil fighters themselves to their commanders hundreds of vehicles and tanks. nearly 260 oil and gas facilities. and just recently -- let me say one other thing. just recently we learned, and it was reported by some of you, that isil fighters have abandoned the city of could he

been ay. they've been defeated there. and they've been defeated as isil fighters themselves said because of the strong coordination between forces on the ground and the air strikes carried out by coalition pilots. so i think that is an indication that the air campaign that's being waged over the skies of syria remains incredibly and in some cases even devastatingly effective. >> what percentage of those air strikes over syria, over the last month, have been u.s. pilots? >> i don't have that information in front of me. you can check with the department of defense about that. >> a direct answer to the concerns that have been expressed by u.a.e. about the -- what they see as a lack of an effective search and rescue, clearly it wasn't effective, but a lack of a timely search and rescue after effort to get that jordanian pilot back. >> as i mentioned in the statement that the department of defense issued they did

commence an intensive airborne search immediately after the plane went down. and that there were personnel recovery forces en route to his last known location. >> the u.a.e. does not have a legitimate point? >> i guess what i'm saying is this. the response timeline, as the department of defense has said, as it relates to this case of the pilot, was known a -- was not a major factor in this case, the timeline was not a major factor. but the other thing that i think is relevant is that the american pilots, the american military pilots, continue to fly over syria. and that -- they only do that because the president believes that we have taken the necessary precautions for them to carry out what is admittedly a very dangerous mission, as safely as possible, and there are resources available for con fin tin generalsies should --

contingencies should they arise. i don't think anybody would suggest that this commander in chief at least takes lightly his responsibility to make sure that those kinds of strategies are in place. >> one more question on iran. we heard from president rouhani saying in his words, differences have decreased between the iranians and the european and u.s. powers on this. is it your assessment that president rouhani is right, have differences decreased, have the two sides gotten closer to coming to an agreement on the iranian nuclear program? >> i can tell you that for quite some time now, these negotiations have been ongoing. i think it's fair to say that progress has been made but i don't want you to leave with the impression that there aren't still very difficult sticking points that remain. >> are we better than 50-50? >> i would not change our assessment, that we are at best

at best 50-50 in terms of the likelihood that an agreement is reached. >> talking about the u.a.e. you've mentioned it many times in here, as a significant partner in the coalition, but it sounds like you're saying that the loss of their air strikes over the last month hasn't really made much of an impact. so isn't that saying that their contribution really wasn't so much of an impact positively in the first place? >> i wouldn't say that at all. we certainly valued the very important contribution that they have made to this broader strategy. that includes their military contribution. but it is not limited to it. their important financial contributions they've made to this broader effort, some of which are related to dealing with urgent humanitarian crisis that's been created by isil. certainly they have an important role to play in the muslim world to countering some of the radical extremist messaging that we have seen from isil. we've talked quite a bit about how isil has attempted to use

social media in rather sophisticated ways to try to radicalize populations in other countries and one part of countering that messaging is to ensure that moderate voices in the muslim world are also heard and those messages are countered and certainly the emiratis have a lot of credibility when it comes to that. that's to say nothing of the efforts of our ongoing strategy to choke off the funding for isil's operations. just a couple of months ago the u.a.e. has been helpful on that front as well. >> this element might be very important in the long run. it doesn't really stop isis on the ground in the short-term.

for the loss of the u.a.e. air strikes not really making that much of an impact, as you say, that the pace has continued, doesn't that just again point to the fact that the u.s. continues to do the lion's share of the work militarily? >> there's no question that the united states of america is playing a leading role in this international coalition. i think the president is proud that as a commander in chief of our armed forces that the united states is leading in this effort. there's no doubt about that. but it does not in any way diminish the contributions of others that have an important role to play here. we are certainly proud to continue to have the support of the emiratis as we pursue this strategy. >> we've heard from the president and others about redoubling the commitment, reinforcing the vigilance of the coalition. now that we're hearing from jordan that they want to do more air strikes is it likely that everyone is going to be contributing more at this period of time including the u.s.? >> we certainly would welcome additional contributions from other countries. and we're going to continue to work to make sure that this

wide variety of efforts is carefully integrated and that is an important part of this coalition as well. that we want to make sure that we're working closely to make sure that we're not duplicating efforts and that our efforts continue to be very carefully integrated. we certainly welcome the kind of support and continued willing -- willingness from the jordanians and all the other members of the coalition toward executing this strategy. >> we've heard from some in the pentagon that some would like to see the u.s. pace increase. but that the white house has favored more of a steady pace as it's been. do you feel that that is the case? will we see the u.s. contribute more? >> i haven't heard those complaints firsthand. i guess in order to respond to them i'd want more detail about what they're talking about. this is something that the president feels strongly about and the president is pleased with the way that members of our military have handled their responsibilities in this effort. that the challenges put before our military are are

significant. and their success in carrying out this operation and doing so in close coordination with more than 60 countries is no small feat. and the national security interests of the united states are incredibly well served by it. >> if you don't mind one quick question. when the president was talking or it came out in a read-out i guess of the vice president's meeting with the king. this ironclad support for jordan. would that then include support for its reaction to the murder of the pilot? through these executions? >> i don't have the specific reaction to the news overnight that a couple of individuals who had been convicted of crimes related to terrorism, that they'd been executed. they'd gone through the jordanian justice system they'd been convicted, they were sentenced to death, they were serving time on death row and their executions were kayried out overnight -- carried out overnight. i'd refer you to the jordanian officials on that.

>> on afghanistan, they had their confirmation hearing -- [inaudible] -- he will commence changing the plan in afghanistan -- [inaudible]. is that the final plan or is the president willing to change the plan? >> i think the last part is the key part of. this i don't think that -- part of this. he don't think that -- i didn't watch the testimony firsthand my understanding about the way that he had described his view was that he was opening -- open to changing the pace based on conditions on the ground. but i think that as things stand right now, i believe that he's supportive of the strategy that the president has laid out. so the president's been very clear about what he believes our strategy should be. it's impossible to predict with 100% certainty exactly what security conditions are going to be. but the president is committed to the strategy.

and the president believes it serves our national security interests very well. for us to responsibly wind down the war in afghanistan and to reduce our military footprint there. the president's laid out a clear strategy for doing it and the president's pleased that we're pursuing it and is hopeful that it will be effective. if i might just before you ask your question, your colleague was here yesterday and asked a question about the affordable care act and i think this is one of those awkward situations where i didn't quite understand the question that he was asking. so if you don't mind me eating into a live your time, which i'll repay on the back end, let me try to better answer the question that i believe he was asking. i think he was raising a question about individuals who will be assessed a fee for not purchasing health insurance in 2014, even though they could afford it. it is true, according to c.b.o. estimates, that it's possible that millions of people could be affected by this. so let me say a couple of things about that.

the first is it is, as i mentioned yesterday, also true that millions of americans saw their taxes reduced so that they could afford health insurance. it's also true that the, as i mentioned yesterday 3/4 of americans will only have to check a box on their tax forms to confirm that they have -- that they did have health insurance in 2014. and the likelihood of this fee affecting a taxpayer, we're only talking about a range of 2% to 4% of taxpayers who are affected. the last couple of things, the first is, it is possible for people to qualify for an exemption in certain circumstances, so that possibility is held -- i think that was essentially the essence of his question, is there anything that people in this situation can do? there are certain cases i think that are rather complicated, where individuals could apply or qualify for an exception. i think the last piece of advice i would have for individuals who may be watching us or reading this, who are concerned about having to pay a fee in 2014, is to make sure it doesn't happen again.

fortunately they have until february 15 to sign up for health insurance at healthcare.gov, for 2015 to ensure they don't have to pay this fee in 20156789 i appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify all that. >> i'm glad you gave that answer. i want to go back to jordan. and isis. i'm confused by your answer to michelle's question about the executions that happened overnight. when you said, i don't have a reaction to it. how can the president yesterday say, you know, we're here, we support jordan, they're a key member of the coalition, they make this decision overnight and you can't say whether or not you support the executions? >> it is certainly possible for us to continue to support and stand with the people of jordan at this very difficult time. clearly their nation, in the same way that we are are shocked and appalled at this terrible act of violence that was captured on video by isil and released to the world. the united states stands with our friends in jordan as they

confront this awful, barbaric act. but as it relates to decisions that are carried out by the jordan justice system, i'd refer you to them. i don't have the working knowledge of the jordanian justice system to render an opinion on this. all i know is that the individuals that we're discussing here were individuals who were convicted of terrorism-related crimes, they were individuals who were sentenced to death and these were individuals who had been serving time on death row. >> what about direct support for jordan? one of julie's first questions, you seemed to be suggesting that the white house was not aware that the king was in washington to in large part get more support from the misdemeanor administration and the congress for weapons, right? >> -- from the administration and the congress for weapons, right? >> the administration is standing squarely behind the people of jordan and the king. and we are certainly supportive of any efforts that are under way to try to strengthen his national security and to strengthen his ability to make tangible contributions to this

broader campaign. >> you are aware of a request, are you suggesting that the king in the oval office last night didn't ask problem pobe conscious president obama for more help, or in recent weeks there hasn't been a conversation vice president, national security advisor, are you really saying jordan hasn't asked for more weapons? >> what i'm saying is i'm not going it read out any of the detailed conversations at least in a detail way that the king had while he was here in the united states. as has been reported, he did visit with the president yesterday. he had the opportunity to talk to the vice president. and he spoke to the secretary of state as well. he had a number of conversations. i'm not going it read them out in a detailed way. >> he wants more weapons, he wants to step up the campaign against isis. that's on the record. a, did he ask the white house for that support? and b, is the president going to give him that support? >> i don't have a detailed accounting of the conversation that the president had with the king in the oval office. and the united states continues to stand with the people of jordan and our ally, the king of jordan, as they -- >> why can't you say you're going to support them and give them more weapons? i'm struggling to understand. >> a lot of this requires

important coordination. not just in terms of the work that we have to do with the congress but also in terms of the work that we'll do with the jordanians to ensure that we are providing the actual assistance that they are requesting and that they need. >> it seems like a lot of your answers, there doesn't seem to be anything new coming from the white house today in the wake of what happened yesterday. it seems in the case of the king, he really seemed to believe this was a game changer. i understand there was a horrible impact on his country. but on the sfwire coalition, this was a pilot who was work on behalf of a coalition, led by this president. so my question is, it seems like the strategy here in terms of debt feeting isis is status quo. that nothing changed yesterday. is there anything the president is committed to do, is there anything to step up the campaign against isis at all from the white house? >> we have talked about how these kinds of ongoing efforts are going to be difficult and that it's going to be difficult to measure success or failure in one day incremeants.

what we're focused on is the long-term arc. the best example i have for this is that last fall there was extensive, even breathless coverage about the success that isil has had or did have at that time in making significant inroads into this border village called kobani. and just last -- over the weekend we saw news reports that isil has been repeled from that village. and that isil fighters themselves attributed their retreat to the success of ground operations that were supported by air strikes from coalition pilots. that is an indication that yes, the situation in kobani was concerning but over the long-term this administration led the international coalition to implement a strategy that was successful in repelling that isil advance. there are any number of similar stories to be told in iraq. this is not a matter of sort of doing a minute by minute play

by play here. this is a matter of staying focused on our broader goal. one of those goals is keeping together this coalition. and that's why the president has been so clear and why i'm doing my best to be as clear as i can. about our commitment to standing shoulder to shoulder with jordan as they deal with this terrible tragedy. >> he's got a summit on violent extremism coming up in a week or two. has there been thought about moving that up given the events of the last 48 hours, this should be the top of the mind at the white house, this should happen today, tomorrow? where's the sense of urgency? >> the fact of the matter is, this issue of foreign fighters encountering violent extremism is something this administration has been focused on for a long, long time. and this is something that even in the earliest days of the administration, john brennan went to n.y.u. and gave a pretty important policy speech about our ongoing efforts to work with communities all across the country to try to counter violent extremism. this again is part of this ongoing effort. the president for just the second time in united nations

history convened a meeting of the united nations security counsel to talk about the broader -- council to talk about the broader international effort to shut down the movement of foreign fighters. so this is something that is ongoing and there is work that is done here in this white house on a daily basis to try to mitigate this threat to the american people. and the countering violent extremism summit that we're convening next week or in two weeks will be a very important part and an important contribution to that effort. >> this morning the new surgeon general said preliminary data shows that marijuana can be helpful in certain medical conditions. i'm wondering if you have any comment on that, if this is a sense that the white house is changings i to -- its position on medical marijuana? >> i didn't actually see those comments. so i'll take a look at your comments a little more carefully before i give a reaction. >> my second is issue son the

budget. the president seemed to issue a veto threat on the budget. he said he wouldn't except sequester levels -- accept sequester levels going forward. it sounds like that's almost a threat -- of a government shutdown if the republicans do not increase spending. is that the right way to look at that? is that a veto threat that if the republicans don't increase spending, he's not going sign any of those spending bills? >> i know there has been an effort to do a little running tally of a veto threats issued by the white house. i'm not sure this qualifies. simply because we haven't seen a piece of legislation from congress. we typically issue veto threats around specific bills. but i do think that the president is very firm in his belief that the mindless, across-the-board cuts that we've seen as a part of the sequester have been bad for our economy and they certainly have not been helpful to our national security. i recognize that there is actually some bipartisan agreement around that. so we're going to be working --

in bipartisan fashion with congress to make some of those changes to the budget in a way that reflects bipartisan common ground, because that's what's going to be required to actually pass these funding bills. but also reflects a focus on our core priorities which is protecting the country and protecting the middle class. >> a veto threat he's issued in past years on the sequester was absent this week. two years ago when he was talking about the sequester at that podium, he basically said, i will veto a replacement that did not include new revenues through taxes. is the president open to doing what the republicans are insisting, john boehner and others, that you replace the sequester with other cuts? there's certainly plenty of other cuts the president has in his own budget $400 billion in health care savings, that in the past few years the president has put in a lock box basically, says, i'm only going to touch these entitlement cuts

if the republicans come to the table with a tax increase. >> again, we haven't seen specific proposals from republicans but there is a principle that does endure to this day which is the president believes that to the extent that we're looking to reduce the deficit even further that we need to pursue a balanced approach in doing so. just asking the middle class or the elderly to bear the burden of reducing our deficit it's not fair, it's also not the best way for us to keep our commitment to our seniors. it's also not the best way to grow our economy. our economy grows best when it's growing from the middle out. asking our middle class to bear the burden alone of reducing the deficit, that doesn't make a lot of economic sense. that is a principle the president has previously articulated and it's one that continues to apply today. >> that's still a veto threat, though. in the past he said, i will votoe -- i haven't heard that v word on a sequester replacement that does not include revenue. >> the reason simply is that we haven't seen a specific piece of legislation from

republicans. and that is typically when we'll use the v word, as you described it. i'll withhold that word for now. but that principle is firmly in place in. >> speaking of taxes, you guys put out your proposal on international corporate taxes and the republicans who haven't always been kind -- [inaudible] -- representative boustany said it was the right direction. the chairman of the house ways and means said constructive. a step in the right direction. is the white house encouraged by the republican reaction so far? >> we certainly welcome that kind of constructive response from republicans. that again reptsive boustany is not somebody with whom we're going to agree on a lot of things. but we can't allow those disagreements on those other issues to prevent us from trying to find common ground where it does exist it. sounds like, based on his comments, that there might be an opportunity for us to have a conversation and a constructive

one, no pun intended, about -- nobody's going to laugh at that -- about international tax reform and using that revenue to invest in infrastructure projects. >> is there an active conversation then now going on with leaders about some tax thought? >> this is something we've been talking about for quite some time. it's going to continue to be a part of the conversation. i know that the director of the o.m.b. is testifying on capitol hill today about some of these issues. we certainly are interested in preserving an open dialogue on this. >> since you've released that, have you had actual active discussions with republicans on this? >> again, i'm not going to detail all of the discussions that have been under way. i don't know off the top of my head what committee congressman boustany serves on. do you? do you have it in front of you? no. >> i'm sorry. 12 years ago i would have

known. >> the point is, there have been extensive conversations on capitol hill both in the run-up to and the media aftermath of the submission of the budget and that's included congressional testimony from people like secretary lew and the director of the o.m.b. those lines of communication are open. clark's tonight on c-span, the senate confirmation here for ashton carter. jeb bush resisted detroit to talk about the economy, foreign policy and presidential politics. and the house foreign affairs may looks in negotiations over restoring diplomatic ties with cuba. >> ashton carter, the pic for defense secretary, testified at his confirmation hearing today. leo shane noting that the largely uncontroversial nominee answered questions about national security threats and military pol