other states to bring in resources. governor christie in new jersey has agreed to send in 150 new jersey state troopers and a lot of assets to help us. the guard is calling up another 1,000 who will be here by tonight. and we're going to make sure that the city is brought back to peace. incur objection unde r ause 6 of rule to -- 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1075. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1075, a bill to designate the united states customs and border protection port of entry located at first street and pan american avenue in douglas, arizona, as the raul hector castro port of entry. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr.

ryan, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1075, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection so ordered. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. ryan: mr. speaker this bill would designate united states cuss toms and border protection port of entry located at first street and pan american avenue in douglas arizona, as the raul hector castro port of entry. raul hector castro was a distinguished public servant who served in both elected and nonelected public services, in offices such as the governor of arizona and the united states ambassador. mr. castro was the first mexican american to be elected governor of arizona and he served as united states ambassador to bolivia,al

salvador and argentina. he will be remembered with respect for his life-long dedication and his many contributions to his country. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time and, mr. grijalva, i'd like to congratulate him and thank him for bringing this to our attention and for being the author of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use under the rule. mr. grijalva: thank you. i'm going to thank the gentleman from wisconsin and the leadership on the other side of the aisle for expediting this particular request. very appreciative and to all the members of the arizona delegation for their concurrence with this designation and i'm proud to offer this bill today, to recognize a man that not only led a tremendous life of public service, but served as a personal hero to many of us in arizona, as well as the nation.

his story is one worth sharing and by designating the douglas port of entry as the raul hector castro port of entry, we will ensure the story continues to be memized and told -- memorialized and told and if the future when a port is designated for douglas, arizona, it will continue to bear his name. mr. castro was the embodiment of the american dream and despite all the odds, he proved that with perseverance and courage, all dreams can be achieved. mr. castro's story, like many americans today, begins south of the border. born june 12, 1916 in mexico, mr. castro grew up in arizona graduated from douglas high school he was the second youngest in a family of 12 children. his father was a union leader forced out of mexico for organizing the mine in mexico. his father died when castro was only 12 years old. his mother became a midwife to feed the family. growing up in the u.s.-mexico

border near douglas, ashese, -- arizona, castro learned many life lessons. especially when it came to the issues of prejudice and injustice. he often spoke of walking five miles to a segregated school while white children rode a bus to that -- to another school. he was keenly aware of the difference in the quality of jobs available to men and women that look like him. this certain prejudice and discrimination ultimately became his enduring motivation. a moment engraved in his memory is when, despite not being able to properly pronounce his name, castro realized his grammer school teacher truly cared for him and wanted him to be a good student. castro embraced this encouragement and became an even more determined student than he was. a stellar student, an athlete, his enthusiasm continued through college. after graduation, after being denied a teaching job because of his race, he went on to work

in the field, making sugar beats and at the douglas mining smelter, where he was paid half the wages of his white counterparts. still, undeterred, he landed a job with the u.s. cons late in the border city -- consulate in a border city, then despite being told it was impossible, he fought to enter law school and eventually graduated with a g.e.d. from the university of arizona. he compelled and went on to be the first elected mexican american county attorney and later the first mexican american judge in a superior court. this was just the beginning of castro's improbable journey. he went on to serve as u.s. ambassador to three latin american countries, lyndon johnson sent him to el salvador and bolivia, where he stayed for a short time under president nixon, before returning to arizona and making the first of two bids for governor. after two of the closest gubernatorial elections in state history, castro once again trumped all odds and became the state's first latino

elected to serve as governor. he defeated his opponent by less than one percentage point and recalls being 4,000 votes behind until the navajo voters' ballots were counted and that turned out to be the margin of his victory. castro served 2 1/2 years as governor before resigning. when president carter asked him to be ambassador to argentina. let me quote detectly from raul castro's memoir published in 2009. appropriately entitled "adversity is my angel." raul h. castro's unlikely but distinguished professional career suggests that the adversity inherent in his humble beginnings only hardened his resolve and strengthened his determination. he was born into grinding poverty and minority status on the u.s.-mexico border but eventually overcame these

obstacles to become, among other titles, arizona's first hispanic governor. castro's story, which suggests much about the human spirit and the hope of the american dream, is one that ought to be told. in that introduction, it continues yet in spite of such disadvantaged beginnings, castro found a way to get an education and embark on his path to the prominent positions that he held in his lifetime. beginning as a teacher then a lawyer, then a county attorney, superior court judge, the governor of arizona and ambassador to el salvador, bolivia and argentina. though castro suffered innumerable instance of social and racial discrimination he overcame institutional and personal prejudice to attain the life he desired. raul castro's career has served as dual role model, not only for american can americans but for -- mexican americans, but for all americans.

he said at the time i moved to tucson, the public school system was instrumental in the insbord nation rather than the advancement of mexican students that were put in vocational classes and discouraged from attending college. i decided what a terrible waste of brain power. in governor castro's own words, he said at time, i intended to take a different track and buck that trend. indeed he did buck that trend. and a new path of public service for many of us, including myself. castro said the challenges faced -- credits the challenges faced to shaping his character and understood that education was the ultimate path to a better life. to him far most important, part of the legacy was to inspire mexican american children and all children to aspire to do great things. even in the face of adversity. even in his 90's castro continued to work with under-represented and poor

students to encourage them to pursue higher education, to get their education and to use the obstacles as motivation to make their lives better for others. this bill recognizes an extraordinary pioneer that dedicated his life to public service and to the fight for equality. i appreciate the support of the entire arizona house delegation , for honoring this american legend, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i have no further speakers. we're finished with our speakers and i'll yield to the gentleman from arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gallego: i'd like to begin by thanking my good friend, congressman grijalva, and the gentleman from wisconsin, for yield their time and authoring this important legislation. governor raul castro was a trail blazer figure in arizona. history and renaming the city

at the douglas port of trin in his honor is a fitting tribute to all that he did for our state and its people. mr. speaker, governor castro was the first mexican american governor of our fine state. he also served as ambassador to argentina, bolivia and el salvador. he pavinged the way for a new generation of politically active latinos and immigrants who followed in his footsteps and fought to make his voice heard. he played a strong role in the latino movement and we will be indebted to him for his work on behalf of our community. governor castro devoted his entire life to public service. he sought that -- saw that latinos in arizona needed a voice and he accepted that challenge. he worked tirelessly to encourage hispanics to get involved and participate in our democrat sifment mr. speaker, governor castro's inspiration to arizonans and latinos in public service throughout this country. i want to thank again

congressman grijalva, for his tremendous work on this legislation, and i urge its passage. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the other gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: we have no other speakers. let me thank my colleague, mr. gallego, for his support and his eloquent statements and to mr. ryan thank you again for expediting and having this vote today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields his time back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'll simply say i congratulate the arizona delegation for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor had, it's fating tribute to man who has an important place in history. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 1075. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 651. to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 820 elmwood avenue in providence, rhode island, as the sister ann keefe post office. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 651 a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 820 elmwood avenue in providence, rhode island, as the sister ann keefe post office. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia, mr. highs, and the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. hice: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. hice: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hice: thank you, sir. i rise today in support of h.r. 651 introduced by representative dave cicilline. it is for the purpose of designating the united states postal service located at 820 elmwood avenue in providence, rhode island, as the sister ann keefe post office. sister ann keefe was a dedicated public servant and a community activist who touched the lives of many, many people in providence rhode island.

in fact, for over 30 years sister keefe led the social justice ministry at the st. michael's church. she was instrumental in founding nearly two dozen community organizations. unfortunately sister keefe passed away from cancer earlier this year, on january 18 at the young age of 62. sister keefe will be remembered for her incredible ability to get things done and to turn an idea into reality. she will be remembered for her many accomplishments and as an example of self-less and faithful service -- selfless and faithful service. naming a postal facility for sister ann keefe in the community, as she served and lived for so many years, will help memorialize her dedication to the people of providence and encourage others to follow her example of public service. so i urge my members to support this bill and i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use under the rule. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman from georgia for his kind words, with respect to sister ann keefe. i rise today to speak in support of h.r. 651, to designate the facility of the united states post office located at 820 elmwood avenue in providence, rhode island, as the sister ann keefe post office. . sister ann was a dedicated activist for the poor and disenfranchised an advocate for equal opportunity and a beloved member of the rhode island community. st. anne was born in warren massachusetts, in 19 -- st.ian was born in warren, massachusetts, in 1952. she was part of the st. arc michael catholic church.

she spent over 33 years at st. michaels and left an indelible mark on rhode island that will not be forgotten. st. ann was in the founding or development of over 22 organizations that aimed to improve the lives of the members of the community most in need. these organizations include the institute for the study and practice of nonviolence, providence city arts for the youth, the community boating sister and aids care ocean state. these organizations embody the partial and relentless work that sister ann dedicated her life to and serve as a selfless commitment to others. i offer this legislation today including along with my colleagues in the rhode island -- colleagues from rhode island to create a permanent reminder of sister ann's accomplishments in her community. i had the extraordinary honor of working with sister ann for

many years and treasured her friendship. her life was sent mag in an mussly and her spirit and generosity to others will be missed by those that knew her. i want to thank chairman chaffetz and ranking member cummings of the house oversight and government reform committee for passing this legislation and urge my colleagues to support h.r. 651 to honor sister ann's memory and extraordinary legacy. i reserve my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. hice: thank you. i'd like to make cicilline aware i have no speakers and am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i have no additional witnesses but, again move passage of this legislation which honors a great woman that contributed so much to my great state and i thank the gentleman from georgia for his accommodation. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back? mr. cicilline: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. hice: mr. speaker, i'm very much pleased to support this

legislation honoring sister ann keefe lending her name to the elmwood avenue post office in poff dense, rhode island. with that, mr. speaker, i urge adoption of the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 651. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from georgia. mr. hice: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1690. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 26, h.r. 1690, a bill to designate the united states courthouse located at 700 grant street in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, as the joseph f. weis jr. united states courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. carson will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1690. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barletta: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. barletta: h.r. 1690

designates the united states courthouse located at 700 grant street in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, as the joseph f. weis jr. united states courthouse. joseph f. weis jr. served as a federal judge on the united states court of appeals for the third circuit from 1973 until assuming senior status in 1988. he served in that capacity until his death last year. prior to his appointment to the united states court of appeals judge weis was appointed to the united states district court for the western district of pennsylvania. prior to his appointment to the federal bench, he served as a judge on the court of common pleas of allegeny county and was in the private practice of law. judge weis served our country during the second world war as a captain in the united states army and is buried in arlington national cemetery. given judge weis' service and dedication to our country, it is fitting to name this

courthouse after him. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. carson: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker hrl 1690 names the u.s. federal courthouse in pittsburgh pennsylvania, for judge joseph weis, a distinguished jurist who made significant contributions to the surrounding community. judge weis was a world war ii veteran who received the bronze star and the purple heart with oak leaf cluster for his service in the army. judge weis went on to graduate from the duchesne university and the university of pittsburgh law school. in 1970 he was appointed to the western district court of pennsylvania. three years later he was appointed to the third circuit

court of appeals and went on to serve 44 years as a distinguished federal judge. judge weis won numerous awards while on the bunch including the de witt award, considered the highest award for a federal judge. the pitts distinguished alumni award and he served as an odd junket faculty member at the -- adjunct faculty member to the pittsburgh school of law. during his exemplary time at the courthouse in pittsburgh, it is fitting that he receive this honor. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. barletta: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: also reserves. the gentleman from indiana. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i want to yield the balance of my time at this time to my very distinguished colleague from the east coast.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. doil: i thank my good friend for yielding me -- mr. doyle: i thank my good friend for yielding me time. i want to thank him for support of this bill in committee and here on the floor. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1690 legislation to designate the federal courthouse in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, as the joseph f. weis jr. united states courthouse. i have the honor and privilege of representing the city of pittsburgh in the house of representatives. joseph f. weis jr. was a well-known and respected individual in western pennsylvania who served his country both as a soldier and as a judge. naming the federal courthouse in pittsburgh would be fitting recognition for an individual with such a long and distinguished record of service to his country. joe weis left college and enlisted in the u.s. army during world war ii. later in life he described

that decision simply as the thing to do. the country was at war and i felt i should be out there doing my share. and he clearly did. he was wounded twice fighting in france with the fourth armored division. he was awarded the bronze star for valor and a purple heart with an oak leaf cluster for his action in combat. after the war, joe weis completed his undergraduate degree at duchesne university and then pursued a legal career. joining his father's practice after graduating from the university of pittsburgh law school in 1950. after a number of years in private practice, he was elected to the allegeny county court of common pleas in 1968 as the first choice on both the democratic and republican ballots. as a judge he rapidly earned a reputation for dedication integrity and hard work. two years later judge weis was appointed to the federal bench,

and in 1973 he was appointed to the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the third circuit, one step below the supreme court. he served on that court for 40 years retiring just two years ago when he was 90 years old. he worked tirelessly to improve the judicial system advocating for innovative courtroom technologies and enforcement of judicial ethics. he was recognized for his outstanding service on the bench with a de witt award the highest award given to federal judges. amidst this impressive list of accomplishments he was known most of all for the strength of his character. joe weis was beloved by his colleagues and his law clerking who to this day call themselves weis guys. joseph f. weis jr.'s life is a model that everyone should implate. naming this courthouse in his honor is a fitting way to honor this long, faithful and capable

service to our country and to hold him up as an example of a true public servant. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, to name the federal courthouse in pittsburgh in his honor. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. also reserves. the gentleman from indiana. . >> i want to thank my colleague from pennsylvania and i yield back. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 1690. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 172. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar

number 25 h.r. 172, a bill to designate the united states courthouse located at 501 east court street in jackson, mississippi, as the r. gentlemen's brown united states courthouse -- jess brown united states courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania and the gentleman from indiana will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 172. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barletta: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. barletta: h.r. 172 designates the united states courthouse located at 501 east court street in jackson, mississippi, as the r. jess brown united states courthouse. mr. brown was a civil rights attorney who worked against racial discrimination and was credited in a 19 -- in the

1950's with filing the first civil rights lawsuit in mississippi. a native of oklahoma, mr. brown attended illinois state university, indiana yoompt and the texas southern -- university and the texas southern university law school. in the 1960's, he was one of only four african-american lawyers in mississippi and one of three who took civil rights cases. in 1962, he worked on behalf of james meredith who's successful lawsuit allowed him to be first african-american student to enroll in a university of mississippi. later, mr. brown worked to fight against discrimination in transportation and other public accommodations. given his dedication to the law and civil rights, it is appropriate to name this courthouse after him. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time.

the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 172 a bill to designate the federal courthouse in jackson, mississippi at the r. -- as the r. jess united states courthouse. attorney r. gentlemen's brown was a tiring champion during critical moments in the civil right it's movement in the south and especially mississippi -- rights movement in the south and especially mississippi. jess brown received his law degree from texas southern university and practiced law in mississippi through the 1960's and 1970's. as an associate council for -- counsel for the naacp, he filed first civil rights suit in mississippi in the 1950's. in 1961 he represented james meredith in his suit to be allowed to enter the universities of mississippi. his victory in this case opened doors that the university of

mississippi citizens had to walk through quite boldly. and i think that he doesn't get the credit that he deserves, mr. speaker. it's important to note that while with the naacp's legal defense fund, he played a major role in fighting racial discrimination in the areas of transportation and other public accommodations. i support this legislation, mr. speaker, and i urge my colleagues to help me pass h.r. 172. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. carson: mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, mr. brown was a courageous american who stood and fought for what was right and he's deserving to have this courthouse named after him and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the

bill, h.r. 172. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 373 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 373 a bill to direct the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture to expedite access to certain federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of each secretary for good mar tan search and -- samaritan search and recovery missions

and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from nevada, whose bill we are discussing here to introduce the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for three minutes. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the house natural resources committee for working with me in a bipartisan manner to bring our h.r. 373, the good samaritan search and recovery act of 2015, to the floor. h.r. 373 tears down bureaucratic road blocks that prevent families from achieving closure when their loved ones go missing on federal land. this issue was first brought to my attention but the separate but similarly tragic cases of las vegas taxi driver keith

goldburg and air force staff sergeant antonio tucker. mr. goldburg and staff sergeant tucker were presumed dead and their remains were leaved -- believed to be in a recreation area. in both cases local experienced search and recovery groups volunteered their time and resources to help locate thery mains of these missing -- the remains of these missing individuals. unfortunately, due town necessary bureaucratic hurdle from the federal government, the group volunteering to help locate and recover mr. goldburg's remains was denied access to park service land to conduct its search for 15 months. the group volunteering to help locate the remains of staff sergeant tucker was denied access for 10 months. needlessly delaying the closure these families sought. this is unacceptable, it must change, and my bill does just. that once these bureaucratic hurdles were cleared and these good samaritans search and recovery groups were allowed access to the land, mr. goldburg's remains were recovered in less than two hours and the remains of staff sergeant tucker were recovered in less than two dales.

as a form member of the las vegas metropolitan police department search and rescue team, i introduced this bill because unnecessary red tape simply must not continue to get in the way of providing closure for families faced with similar tragic circumstances. a similar bill, h.r. 2166, passed the house in the 113th congress with a unanimous vote of 394-0. showing real bipartisan support. unfortunately the senate failed to take action on the measure. we must pass this bill so that future families won't have to suffer the mental anguish that the families of keith goldburg and antonio tucker did. again, i thank the chairman and the ranking member of the house natural resources committee for diligently working with me on h.r. 373. i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves his time and the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for as much time as she wishes to use. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, in january 2012 when keith goldburg went missing, finding

him was all his family wanted. investigators presumed that he had been murdered and that his remains were somewhere in the lake mead national recreation area, a unit administered by the national park service. after several months passed, local law enforcement was unable to recover mr. goldburg's remains and they gave up the search. his family wanting what any family would want, reached out to a private, nonprofit search and rescue outfit for assistance. unfortunately it took 15 months for the professional search and rescue company to acquire the permits and insurance required to conduct the search. within two hours of receiving the necessary credentials, mr. goldburg's body was recovered. h.r. 373 will help speed up the process for granting private search and rescue companies access to federal lands. the bill strikes the fair balance between guaranteeing safety, ensuring sufficient liability insurance for the american taxpayer, and improving the process.

under h.r. 373, private search and rescue operations when appropriate, can have timely access to public lands. the natural resources committee held a hearing on this bill in the 113th congress and the national park service recommended some technical changes to the legislation. i'd like to thank the majority for working with us to incorporate these suggests suggses into the legislation -- suggestions into the legislation that we are considering today. i also want to thank mr. heck for his leadership on this legislation. i support h.r. 373 and urge its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: i recognize myself for as much time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, we have this assumption here that a suspension is simply an easy bill, one where everyone agrees to it it simply will happen. last session we were wise

enough to pass this bill in committee and on the floor and the house should be commended for the actions that it took last year. the senate did not and should not. this year it is with us again, but sometimes these suspension bills are far more significant than one would think. this is one of those bills that is extremely significant, even though we simply label it as a suspension. because it illustrates a problem, a larger problem that we have here in the nation, one in the way we define public lands versus federal lands. public lands are those lands which actually should be dedicated to local people who live there, where their decisions should be tolerated and their ideas should be respected. the lands should be there to help people. federal land unfortunately, are lands that -- lands unfortunately, are simply lands where the federal government controls them and the federal government has grown so big they can't actually see the value of those particular

lands. where the government has become too big to be concerned, too big to be creative, and instead simply tries to cross the bureaucratic t's and sometimes to cover themselves for future action. too big simply to care about people. and these two situations which the good representative from nevada has shown, illustrates exactly how that happens. the first family trying to find the remains of their lost relative, was required, was required, along with the group that was trying to help them in recovering the body, was required to pay a high indemnity. because the agency fears that -- feared that there might be some potential harm done to the land which would trump the ability of helping people, of doing something for someone. and be creative in the process it. took the family and this entity

15 months to raise the money to pay off ultimate -- off. ultimately they decided to waive it. within hours when they were actually allowed to do things, they found the body. 15 months. 15 months of waiting. when it should have only taken a matter of hours to bring closure to a family. why? because our land agencies have become too big, too doing matic too -- too dogmatic, too bureaucratic to do things that actually help people. instead you have to follow the rules. for the air force sergeant it was the same situation. he was unfortunately drowned. the company that is an expert in this kind of recovery systems volunteered to go in there and find the body. and once again, months -- month after month, the agency rejected who was trying to help people, instead they treated the lands as federal lands and insisted that the bureaucratic rules were supreme because there might be some damage that could potentially happen. .

and therefore that's the ultimate goal to make sure that doesn't take place. that entity went to court and the court finally said this is a ridiculous approach, let them go in there and within months of their ability to go in there once again they found the body. the bill that mr. heck is presenting to you is nothing more than common sense. this is the way all agencies should behave. and it is sad that we actually have to pass legislation to get our land agencies to do what they should be doing in the first place. sometimes, you know we're criticized here in congress for having a lack of common sense, but it is sad that it is up to congress to try to insist that our land agencies actually use common sense. so the most important issue should be how can we actually help people, that is our first responsibility and in these two situations, it was an utter failure to actually realize that people are the most

important element and that if we do have federal lands they better be used to help people or they shouldn't have them in the first place. this bill is not just a simple suspension bill. this is a significant piece of legislation that should set the standard for how agencies deal with people in the future. i commend the good gentleman from nevada for bringing this back up and giving it to us again. i promise that we will continue to pass this bill until it becomes reality, until it becomes the standard by which people are treated by the federal land agencies we have here in this nation. i urge its adoption, i urge its passage. with that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 373, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. bishop: mr. speaker. on that i would ask -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: on that i would ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays

will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i above to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 984. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 57. h.r. 984 a bill to amend the national trails system act to direct the secretary of the interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the chief standing bear national historic trail, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. seungas -- ms. tsongas each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i again ask

unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: with that, mr. speaker, i wish to yield to the sponsor of this piece of legislation, the gentleman from nebraska, five minutes for an explanation of his piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, is recognized for five minutes. mr. fortenberry: thank you mr. speaker. first, mr. speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, the chairman of the house committee on natural resources and the distinguished gentleman from arizona as well, mr. grijalva, who is the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from california mr. mcclintock, the chairman of the federal land subcommittee and the distinguished gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas the ranking member of the committee, for their outstanding work and help to me in bringing this legislation to the floor. this is important. this legislation directs the secretary of the interior to conduct a feasibility study for the chief standing bear national historic frail. now, chief standing bear holds

a very special place in native american and the history of our country. establishing a trail in his name would be an outstanding way to recognize his contributions to our great land. i'd like to provide some additional background on this extraordinary individual who prevailed in one of the most important court cases for native americans in our country's history. chief standing bear was a ponca chief. in the 19800's -- 1800's, the ponca tribe lived in nebraska. the united states government forcibly pressured the poncas to that homeland compelling them to move to the indian territory in oklahoma. not wanting to subject his people to a confrontation with the government, standing bear obliged and led them from their homes on a perilous journey to the territory of oklahoma. that journey was harsh and the

new land was inhospitable. nearly a third of the tribe died along the way from starvation, ma layera and other diseases, including chief standing bear's little girl and later his son, bear shield. before bear shield died however standing bear promised his son that he would bury him in their native land. so standing bear embarked on the trip in the winter of 1878 to return to the homeland to bury his son leading a group of about 67 other poncas. when they reached the omaha reservation the united states army stopped standing bear and arrested him for leaving oklahoma without their permission. he was taken to fort omaha and held there until a trial. in the meantime standing bear's plight attracted media attention first in the omaha daily herald and the story

became well publicized nationally. at the conclusion of his two-day trial, standing bear was allowed to speak for himself and then he raised his hand and he said this. that hand is not the color of yours, but if i pierce it i shall feel pain. if you pierce your hand, you will feel pain. the blood that will flow from mine will be the same color as yours. i am a man. god made us both. and with these profound words in that late spring day of 1879, i believe chief standing bear expressed the most american of sentiments, the belief in the inherent and dignity and rights of all persons, no matter their color, no matter their ethnicity. judge dundee concurred and he ruled that native americans are persons within the meaning of the law. now this is notable. this is 1879, and for the first time native americans are

recognized as persons within the full meaning of the law. the story of the ponca chief is a story of strength and grace and determination. i think it's a story that we need to tell over and over again so that it is understood and cherished by all americans of future generations. mr. speaker the establishment of a chief standing bear national historic trail would honor both the courage of this man and the great contribution to the freedom and the civil liberties of our nation that he brought about. this bill is an important first step toward establishing a trail and i look forward to continuing to work with the committee and the national park service to make this a reality. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from utah reserves his time. the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she wishes to use.

ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, h.r. 984 direction the secretary of the interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the chief standing bear national historic trail in oklahoma, nebraska and kansas. the trail extends 550 miles following the same route taken by chief standing bear and the ponca people during federal indian removal in 1877 and their subsequent return to nebraska. chief standing bear played an important role in american history as the first native american recognized by the united states government as a person under law. following his arrest and ensuing trial for leaving his reservation in oklahoma without permission. chief standing bear was honoring his son's dying wish to be buried in the land of his birth and traveled with his son's remains, along with other members of his tribe, through harsh conditions from oklahoma back to their ancestral lands in nebraska. unfortunately at that time leaving the reservation was a

violation of the law. at the very least, 135 years later, it is only right that we look into the feasibility of including this trail as part of the national historic frail system. to reflect on a not so proud period of history in our country when native americans were treated as second-class citizens and to honor the courage of chief standing bear and the ponca people. this bill passed the house last congress. i thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for advancing this legislation again and representative fortenberry for his leadership on this bill. i support passage of this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the balance of my time as well -- as much time as i shall consume. as was just mentioned before, this bill authorizes the study, which is the appropriate first step in all these type of procedures, any designation of

a trail would require additional action from this committee and this congress. with that mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: this is a very good bill. i appreciate the gentleman from nebraska for bringing it to our attention. i appreciate him saying i'm distinguished. it's obviously the new shirt i'm wearing, right? with that i urge adoption of this particular bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields back his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 984. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1324.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 59. h.r. 1324 a bill to adjust the boundary of the arapaho national forest, colorado and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. seungas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i again ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: and with that i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wants to use. mr. bishop: h.r. 1324 would adjust the boundaries of the arapaho national forest in the state of colorado to incorporate 93 acres. this land may be acquired only with the written permission of the landowners. this bill provides motorized access to the landowners within the new boundary. an identical bill passed this

congress by a voice vote last year. and it is appropriate that it's with us again, and i am here to make sure that everyone mentions the fact that this is found in colorado, not colorado. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he wishes to consume to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, the sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. polis: the name colorado is a spanish word. it means the color red. rados is the better known red. colorado was part of mexico prior to the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo which cede

the state to the united states after our troops took mexico city. i rise in support of legislation i was proud to sponsor this legislation which involves a parcel of 10 lots in grand county, colorado, nicknamed the wedge. as indicated by its name this parcel of land is wedged between arapaho national forest and rocky mountain national park effectively separating the two. although the wedge is integral to the successful management of both of these places it currently remains outside the national forest boundary. . this area's beauty is enjoyed by visitors as they come by from the rocky mountains along the trail ridge sector byway and into the destination town of grand lake. the wedge is currently undeveloped and seven parcels are under control of the land

management. the owners of the remaining parcels are in agreement with this bill. in recognition of these potential threats to the quality and character of the area and to protect the enormous number of recklation -- recreation industry jobs on both sides estes park in laramie county and in grand county, there's been enormous local support for this locally driven bill, including support from the grand county board of commissioners, the town of grand lake, the headwaters trails alliance, conservation colorado, rocky mountain nature conservancy. h.r. 1324 responds to my constituents, particularly those living around the edge and those who operate in the tourism and

industry and adding the lots owned by the forest service into the area. -- this is a strong bipartisan bill that has the express support of my colorado colleagues in both chambers. it was passed by unanimous consent in the 113th congress and was voice voted out of the house shortly thereafter. when the clock ran out on moving this legislation through the senate i'm confident we can get that done here in the 114th hopefully the sooner the better. i'm grateful for the house -- house natural resources committee quick consideration of this bill. i urge passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i have no further speakers, i reserve until the gentlelady concludes. ms. tsongas: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop spb we yield back an

encourage people's votes for this great bill for the gentleman from colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields back his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1324. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider -- the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

this spring. in the middle of may we visit maryland for a look at the gaithersburg book festival with tom davis and martin frost and

we close out may at book expo america in new york city where the publishing industry showcases upcoming books. in the first weekend in june, we are on printers row -- we are at printers row lit fest. including an interview with lawrence wright. that's this spring on c-span2's book tv. earlier today the chair of the house transportation committee bill shuster, talked about the highway trust fund expiration deadline and future changes to amtrak. he also discussed what's being done to re-authorize the federal aviation administration at this event, hosted by national journal. >> conversation with the chairman of the house transportation and infrastructure committee. so we can have your full attention, please silence your cell phones. we encourage your comments via

vase falk, twitter and instagram. for those of you with questions for chairman shuster, submit your questions to the moderator via twitter via #asknj. this morning's conversation is the second of many conferrings we'll host over the year. in addition to featuring chairs of the congressional committees like this morning, these conversations will also feature senate and house leadership, cabinet secretaries and other high level government officials and presidential candidates. we are so pleased that the honorable bill shuster has joined us this morning. as you probably all know representative shuster is the chairman of the house transportation and infrastructure committee. this is his second term as chairman of the -- one of the largest committees in congress. since coming to congress in 2001, he has been a member of the transportation committee and has played an important role in transportation policy. ladies and gentlemen chairman bill shuster.

[applause] representative shuster: thank you, poppy, thank you for having me back. i was talking to fawn back stage, last time i was hering we bolt shrugged our shoulders, it was three years ago. it's been a while. time flies, i guess, when you're having fun. good to see you folks here. i see a lot of usual suspects that show up when i'm talking about transportation issues and i have to warn you as i told fawn, she said what are you going to say in your opening remarks and i said, probably a lot of what you've heard me talking about for the last couple of years system of here goes. again, appreciate the opportunity to talk to the media, the folks like you that kear deeply about transportation. i think we all know that the quality of life issue, it's about creating jobs, it's about convenience, it's about getting us to and from, getting the products to and from to make sure we have them on our

shelves and we get to our families to the playground, to wherever we're going in this country system of when i look out at a crowd like this -- like this, i look at every crowd, and i say, we're all in the transportation business. everybody today was touched by the transportation business. everybody in this room obviously but even back home, when mom or dad was getting the milk out of the -- milk out this morning that got to the house by transportation. i believe there's a federal responsibility, as i've said to this room and others over the year article 1, section 8, clear to me that there's a role for the federal government, not to do it all but to be a partner, to be a good partner with the states and local governments to make sure again, that we are connecting this country. what we tried to do over the last couple of years in the committee is work on a bipartisan basis. that's always my goal, to start out sitting down with my colleagues across the aisle and try to develop common ground

where we can move forward. i think historically that's been the committee's history, sitting down, working things out. we continue to do that every day. peter defazio is a good partner. he's somebody that's very smart and he's been around this town for more than two decades system of he knows where all the bodies are buried when it comes to transportation. he knows what was tried before system of it's good to have somebody that you can work with. peter is passionate. as you might have seen the article that fawn wrote, i said he rants on the house floor. i probably shouldn't have said rants but he's very, very passionate but again when you sit down with him you can work with him. the priorities for the committee, first of all a -- a surface transportation bill. we're working through. it looks like we'll have to do a short-term patch to get to a longer term bill. we're working closely with leadership and paul ryan to figure out how to do the short-term patch and move on to a longer term bill. i feel fairly confidence that

we're going to get a long-term bill because both sides of the aisle, both sides of the capitol and both ends of pennsylvania avenue want a long-term bill. as i travel this country and as members travel back to their districts and states, that's what they hear. we must have a long-term bill. that's the goal. again, we need to continue that federal partnership. i spent a week -- not a week but a couple of days in my district with four or five secretaries of transportation from around the country to see pennsylvania's infrastructure, to raise awareness and talk about the need for the federal partnership. i have yet to have one single governor ask me or one single director of transportation to ask me to send it all back to the states. they know it's a responsibility that needs to happen at the federal level to make sure we're connected. we want to empower states and local governments to be able to move faster. map 21 did a lot of that. we're waiting to see how some of that rolls out and some has.

public-private partnerships we need to focus on having an intelligent title in the bill, talking about the car the transportation of the future. not that we deal with regulating those cars, that comes under another committee's jurisdiction, but how do we build roads in the next five or 10 years that will have cars and trucks with this technology on it, driveless vehicles. i think we need to start thinking about that in this bill. accelerating project delivery, streamlining and focusing on freight movement is critical and should be the focus of where the federal dollars go. finally and most importantly, we need to be fiscally responsible. got to find a way to pay for it that doesn't add to the deficit in a day. second major piece of legislation we are focused on is f.a.a. re-authorization. we've come to a point in time that we are losing our lead in the world, whether it's manufacturing, whether it's airline service, whether it's component manufacturers, we

have to make sure that our government is out there able to push the ball forward, help them get out of the way so they can continue that lead in the world. when you look at the airline industry there's going -- we're moving toward a billion passengers in the next several years. a billion passengers flying around the country around the world. i believe we're going to need to do something that's transformational. that makes it easier for passengers makes the system more efficient makes it so when manufacturers are looking for certifications on aircraft or components it moves much faster. again we can't allow the rest of the world to be moving fwaster than we are. we need to modernize the air traffic control system. which is a big part of what we should be doing. next gen which we have been working on for the last 10 year well, spent $6 billion but have very little to show for it. at the same time, verizon over that last 10 year, upgraded its operating system four times.

while we here at f.a.a. can't move forward on much of anything. stake holders lost confidence in the f.a.a. bureaucracy. i think we're seeing all the groups out there saying, and we spent the last 16, 18 months talking to everybody about the need for transformation, about the need for change at the f.a.a. and we are all in agreement, stake holders are in agreement that there's a problem. now we need to figure out the solution and figure out how to move forward hopefully in a bipartisan way but making sure stake holders are at the table helping us craft what would be a good bill. in addition to that, on the committee we have a very, very busy agenda. we passed out a passenger rail bill in march, hope to see senate action on that we passed out of committee last week a fema reform bill. we're going to have on the floor this week watts of the united states piece of legislation, try to stop the e.p.a. from putting out a rule that i believe would be very, very bad for the economy. we introduced a coast guard

bill last week and next year we hope to do, in this congress, next year, another resources bill. of course a pipeline safety bill re-authorization will be needed here in the next several months and we're working on g.s.a. reform. a lot on our plate on the committee but i believe if we work together we can accomplish a lot of these things that are going to make america a better place, transportation system will be vastly improved as well as some of these government agencies being reformed. they'll be positive not only the country but the products -- not the product bus the services they provide. thank you all very much for having me here today i look forward to hearing your questions. [applause] >> paung mr. chairman. joining the chairman at this time is fawn johnson a correspondent with "national journal." she covers domestic policy issues such as gun control transportation and education. she's a longtime student of

washington, d.c. policy and politics with more than a decade of experience covering congress and the administration. fawn johnson, ladies and gentlemen. >> thank you, poppy. so i have an ipad right here with -- wait if your questions. so my goal is to get through -- we probably all have the same questions, i'll ask him, then we'll get to q&a. keep sending them along, hopefully we can take care of them. i realize you and i are boring compared to protesters outside of the supreme court but thank you all for being here anyway system of let's talk about and you touched on this briefly, the most immediate problem facing congress. i counted 33 days until the highway trust fund authority expires. and you mentioned in your remarks we'll need some sort of extension. how long do you think we will need for the -- for your committee and the ways and means committee to work out a

long-term bill? representative shuster: the patch is going to be driven by the amount of money we find. we hope to do several months to give the ways and means committee to then do a bill. paul ryan wants to do tax reform that's where i believe he'll be able to come up with the dollars to do a long-term patch, a long-term bill. so again the timing working with ways and means and leadership new york decision has been made for how long. fawn: what's your preference? representative shuster: i think it's important to get us through the construction season states like texas and florida, their construction season lasts all year but states like pennsylvania and wisconsin have a shorter window. so making sure we get through that construction season. fawn: in the immediate future there needs to be an extension on the floor. you guys are out next week, i believe system of you need to come back and have something ready to go to get through the senate relatively quickly. what's the time frame on that?

are we going to be seeing some sort of countdown to the 31st as probably many people in the room have seen many times? representative shuster: sounds like the countdown has already started. so we are out next week, back for two weeks and then we're out for memorial day. so it's going to have to be the second and third week. we're working with the senate, talking with senator inhofe and senator boxer. i think senator inhofe, i'm not sure what he said but he would leek a shorter term. fawn. he told me -- fawn: he wanted it to be before the end of the fiscal year, that's not quite enough time, i would think, for you to come up with a robust tax package. representative shuster: that doesn't get us through the entire construction season. fawn: let's also talk a little bit about, i have one question from one of our listeners here

about how long is long-term when it come to a bill? we've got to deal with the extension but then what do we do next? representative shuster: i believe fiver or six years is a long-term bill. that's my goal, that's what we're working toward. both sides of the aisle, house and senate and the administration, all talking about a long-term bill. fawn: same level of funding? more? less? representative shuster: i'm nudging paul ryan to do more but it's going to be at least the same level. what i learned traveling the country, giving people the choice more money and a short-term bill or longer term bill, it's unanimous, everybody wants the five or six years of certainty. fawn: it's been a while since that happened. let's talk about -- we talked a little bit about this when we had our private interview about the tax, the tax debate that's come around.

we know that we can't do something as big and audacious as dave dave camp, the former ways and means chairman proposed but in order to actually make a move forward in terms of tax reform that doesn't hamper other changes in the future there needs to be something more than just a small tweak on overseas taxes, as you and i talked about. how do you see this playing out? you must be working very closely with paul ryan to be able to figure this out because whatever number he comes up with is going to determine how long you cab do a bill. so what do -- what are you looking at? what do you expect to have happen in terms of the tax conversation? representative shuster: i believe, i read the papers, everybody is talking about tax reform, president, senate, house. obviously it's going tissue it's not going to be the big

large reform cave camp -- dave camp was talking about but there's the opportunity to do smaller things on tax reform and that's where it's up to paul to figure out where the dollars are and do a five or six-career bill, we need $70 billion or $90 billion to make that happen. in our conversations he's working very hard on trying to figure that out. fawn: one thing i have observed after having covered this for a while, a lot of -- the kind of conferrings most everybody agrees on the need for some sort of robust surface transportation bill and the plcy around that. so really the question is, how do you pay for it? but are there any outstanding policy issues that you guys are working on or expect to include in a bill once you get the funding structure put together? representative shuster: yes, focusing on freight, the freight corridors in this country which carry passengers, having a focus, taking that focus back because that's what

the system was set up to do and making -- giving the states more ability to move quicker, move faster and look at what we did in map 21 and see how the department is implementing those reforms. some of them we think are going in the right way. some of them we have concerns about will have to tweak those. fawn: do you have an example? representative shuster: there's a couple out there. one is making sure reports are done not consecutively but at the seam time, they're all coming together concurrently. that's starting to happen but again we want to make sure it moves forward. one of the things we put in there, the nepa review process, two states, california and texas, are taking over the nepa reform process. they're going to have to do the same as what the federal government does, but the states are going to do it. texas director of transportation was traveling with me in pennsylvania, they only been at it a couple of months but he feels confidence

they'll be able to speed that process up and it will make a big difference in building roads in texas. fawn: and you talk about a technology title that's brand new. you want to give us some details? representative shuster: i had the opportunity to ride in a driverless vehicle. fawn: and it was documented on a web cam. representative shuster: one was in pennsylvania, they brought the same car to washington which was a little more intense. fawn: can't bes were than the drivers here. representative shuster: the car was not very aggressive. i think when the cars start talking to each other we'll start bringing courtesy back to the driving public. fawn: i'm derailing the conversation. technology title. representative shuster: these

cars are coming. probably several year you'll be able to buy in the showroom a high end car, probably cost you $15,000 extra, to get a car that can drive itself. they believe in about 20 year, 75% of the fleet will have the ability to talk to each other. the technology title, just to start to think about it how do we build -- is there anything different we have to do? i don't have the answers. pennsylvania for instance, carnegie mellon won the contest, they contracted to do a three-year study on how do we build rolds to take these cars, to be able to interact with these cars? is it different materials? does the paint need to be different? so the sensors pick up on it? that's what we need to start the study to understand. when we build a road in the next five or 10 years they are going to have a driveless vehicle. -- a driverless vehicle.

fawn: are there other parts of government that are not in the transportation department that should be raging in on some of the rules and regulations? representative shuster: absolutely. the electronics industry, we talked to folks in silicon valley because of technology coming out of there. they're very involved and very engaged in what's going to happen. they're also going to have to deal with the cars and technologies when they're built, that will be energy and commerce committee that deal -- that deal with the regs on those things. but getting on the highway and how we build the roads is what we're interested in. fawn: there's one question from our audience on surface that i don't want to forget and then we'll move on. the question is do we know what the offsets are for the short-term stopgaps that we have? i had been in the sense we're looking at $8 fwol $10 billion by the end of the calendar

year. representative shuster: it's about $10 billion. we don't know the offset. fawn: i feel like we've run out of all the gimmicks. so to be announced further. i have a few more questions on surface but let's move on to f.a.a. which is -- i'm putting this in order of the things coming up that you have to deal with. f.a.a. expires at the end of fiscal year. you've talked about your f.a.a. plan. can you give a little more detail. you and i talked about this, about what you'd like to see the f.a.a. transform into. representative shuster: i can't give you much detail because we haven't gotten to the detail part. what we've spent the last 18 months i guess it is now, if my math is right, is starting this conversation with the stake holders. i think we've had every stake holder group in a round table new york a listening session, try to figure out what they think the problems are. as i said in my talk earlier

everybody agrees there's a problem. now we have to figure out the solution. that's why we spent time looking at what do other people around the world do? and there are all the industrialized countries as well as 50 total have take then air traffic control organization out of government. fawn: completely. representative shuster: you say that, but you have to qualify that. germany took it out and formed a wholly owned -- a corporation wholly owned by the german government. the british have a pure for-profit air traffic control system that acts kind of like a utility would act. the canadians have a not for profit corporation it's like a co-op and they have some benefits to them but we're the largest system in the world so we've got to figure out how do we -- is there a model out there we can use to help us

scale it? so that's what we're going through the conversations right now with all the stake holders. fawn: i have been under the impression that at least your initial thoughts that the nonprofit model like canada or something like that is something you're most interested. in representative shuster: i think that's a fair statement. i think we need to look at the metrics on what each do and first of all, safety is paramount. that has to be our number one priority. and it is in these systems. they're very safe. and then how we go through, again, what scale is best for the -- what scales best for the united states what system is best. it's going to take the stake holders off the table. i assure you if we do an f.a.a. re-authorization, not everyone will get everything they want and people will be ok but it's going to be very tough. very difficult to do. fawn: i guess the question i would have, i did back-to-back interviews with you and mr. defazio, one day and then the next day, talking about this, as you two are in negotiations.

he is i think -- he's got questions about a nonprofit because i think he -- i can go into it but i would probably get it wrong he's a really smart guy. but he has talked about how he -- the idea of a government corporation, like fannie mae is one of the things that he's closer to. representative shuster: i would never use fannie mae as a model. fawn: what if you don't get there? the two of you really do need to agree if you're going to transform the f.a.a. system of is there going to be a winner and a loser here? not saying that you're up against one another but representative shuster: peter and i can have disagreements but the stake holders have to be -- the air traffic controllers went through 23 extensions three years without

a pay raise, sequestration and government shutdown and they seem to get hammered. they've had it with the system. they want to try something different. you'll have to have the manufacturers, when you talk about the certification program, we've got to fix it. we've got a manufacturer of a business jet that they told me they are three years ahead of their competition to get their jet out. three years ahead that gives them a huge competitive advantage. the f.a.a. at every step slows it down. we've got to stop that. they've got to be, the component manufacturers, they're going to go to other countries and manufacture these things because they get certified faster. we've got a drone industry that's starting to, they're going to end up in a foreign country if we don't figure out how to make sure our air space is safe for them and they can manufacture. and the airlines have to be at the table, the airports have to be at the table. everybody has to be at the table. i think the way our system works, nobody is going to get up from the table and go, this is perfect.

fawn: probably a lot of people in this room was at the aero club lunch when there was a speech, the place was packed, people were listening very closely to what he had to say because they're a critical stake hold for the all of this his concern was making sure there's full funding because sequestration and these temporary extensions are just killing them. but how do you -- you rattled off 10 different stake holder groups that are going to have their own priorities. how does it work for you to come up with something workable and that you can pass before september? representative shuster: it's going to be very difficult. i've said that before. but when you start with everybody saying there's a problem, i think we're going to be able to figure a pathway forward, which we haven't done yet and we're starting to move that pathway forward. i think it's important that we're all talking together and as you mentioned, i mentioned

all the stake holders there, general aviation is a key stake holders, but those two are very important to the process because if you look and then this is nothing new i'm trying to do. this was tried under the clinton administration, under the bush administration, something very similar and they got crossways with a couple of stake holders and it didn't move forward. we had a hearing with these clinton administration former bush administration, reagan administration, all these folks were giving testimony and one of the senior democrats, i think it was, said i've been at this hearing before, but it was 0 years ago. these were the same people saying the same things they were saying 20 years ago. fawn: a few more wrinkles but other than that -- representative shuster: we're going to be able to do something, it's just figuring out the sweet spot. fawn: can you talk about how you work with stake holders

generally? i have noticed and written that the transportation community, how does it worken the practical basis? representative shuster: having round tables is critical. having meet wgs the stake holders to understand what the concerns and priorities are. making sure we're not only just republicans in the room talking about it, but having democrats in the room talking about it with them system of we've all -- so we all could hear the -- coming right from the stake holders, this is a concern something we think is good. i looked at wirda, how we did wirdad -- wyrda. fawn: this is a much bigger bite at the apple. there's more stake holders. representative shuster:

absolutely. fawn: when we're talking about the transportation community we need to talk about an issue that's been on a lot of people's minds. it's not my practice to go into people's personal lives, but you've been dating a lobbyist for the airline industry, well thought of, but the airline industry has a huge stake in the f.a.a. bill. tell us what that's about and how you are coping with that as tst been going on for a while now. representative shuster: i have been very transparent. one of the things, it is a personal and private relationship but i think i've gone above and beyond what the rules require, what the law requires to make sure that we're doing things appropriately. a lot of people in this town are lobbyists but i think we can do these things as professionals. fawn: i know a lot of people in this town who are lobbyists as well. did you think about recusing yourself from aviation and

what's your reasoning for that? representative shuster: no because i've gone above and beyond what the law require, the house rules require, and i think my integrity level, i think people in this town know my integrity level. i'm going to be at the table. i have a lot of stake holders, i guarantee it's not perfect. fawn: you do the best you can do. representative shuster: 230 years of this country, i can't imagine there's ever been a legislature that walked out after a bill is passened said ah, this is perfect. you look for the good. fawn: this is something that has, especially when talking about the surface transportation issue aviation has its own little world. but the people who deal in the industry work for a close -- work closely together because in part the system is heavily regulated and there's government money on the table

system of can you -- i know that you have spent some time trying to invite other people into that circle. you grew up in it because of your your family. but what have you done to try and expand the circle, so to speak, so you can have different voices come in, so you can have other voices that aren't that don't speak wrrda. representative shuster: again, bringing them in making sure their voices are heard, you talk to people in the water resources industry, talk to people in the maritime-coast guard industry and the aviation industry across the board, i have listened to everybody. again this is not going to be about one stake holders. you say we can support this. i think you saw the senate do

on the bill, the rail industry is much smaller and they were able to work it out that they said, we can live with this. fawn: you have passed an amtrak bill on the house side, now we're waiting to see what happens in the senate. i think there's some thought that their bill and your amtrak bill can come together. representative shuster: probably won't merge. i understand they may introduce a passenger bill. i know there's a lot of folks over there that care about amtrak. so that's something we're going to see. they've -- they haven't passed -- they passed something out -- fawn: if i remember, probably somebody here knows better than i do, i believe there was a bill passed out of committee that's not on the floor.

representative shuste -- representative shuster: the senate confuses bebut i think they're working on those issues. fawn: the senate confuses everybody. this particular amtrak bill took the policy a little farther than others have in the past. particularly in terms of trying to isolate and make the infrastructure investment go to the northeast corridor. we still don't know what's going to happen with those routes that tend not to make money. where would you like to see amtrak go? do you think it should have federal subsidies? representative shuster: it won't survive without them. but my goal in working with jeff denham, we had -- we worked with representative capuano, the rajing member of the subcommittee to make them work like a business. i think one of the key things we put in this bill was to

break out the different lines as business units to see exactly how much it's losing. because my guess is, if you go to amtrak, you couldn't figure out their balance sheets, couldn't figure out their income statements because they're not operating as clearly as they should be. northeast corridor makes a profit. those dollars should go back in the northeast corridor and then we figure out other ways to generate the dollars to make those other lines, again, hopefully get to break even. again, part of what's changed in the last 10 years since i've been here is the states are really interested in amtrak and being a partner with amtrak. they're willing to spend state dollar it is to upgrade the system. this is something we need to push. these long-term lines, if you're looking at them as a business, maybe there's a model you can change to say -- fawn: have you seen one that works with the long-term loins? representative shuster: not at

this point. fawn: that's -- representative shuster: that doesn't mean there isn't. fawn: you were telling me, maybe charge a little more. representative shuster: i ride on the keystone corridor, harris fwourg philadelphia. they're close to making a profit. and the state controls the, what the cost of the ticket is, i've been pushing them to raise the price of the ticket because i don't necessarily want people to pay more but it's still a great value if it's 20% or 25% more. you're riding the train, don't deal with philadelphia traffic, got to -- don't have to pay tolls, gas, wear and tear on your car. people i believe will pay more to ride on those trains. fawn: one of the things i enjoyed about, thinking about the amtrak bill and the transportation committee, is that, you know, i think you lost 100 votes from republicans on the amtrak, republicans who don't ever want to see amtrak be -- but this is a dynamic that happens particularly

among, in your caucus. there's, where you continually have to say we need a federal role in transportation, we need to fund it and some of them you're never going to convince but others you might be able to. 10 how do you talk to your caucus, particularly some of the new members who might not be old-timers like you or me on this and try to explain to them why certain things might be important. why the resources bill is important or why it's important to keep funding surface transportation at the current level? representative shuster: first i talk to them about the need and responsibility of the federal government but i think that hopefully developed a relationship of trust and integrity with my colleagues. i understand if somebody feels some way that's fine, but if i tell them something i'm going to do or not going to do, they can count on in a. i think that's critical when you're dealing with both sides

of the aisle that they know that you're an honest broker. you stay -- if you say you're going to do something, you're going to do it. you say you can't to it, they trust that it's not possible to get it through. fawn: do you have any examples of sort of the novice misunderstanding about the infrastructure system of this country that can be -- with a little bit of just back and forth can be easily moved? representative shuster: i think there's not only novice but experienced members who don't understand the role of the federal government in the transportation system. i put it in historical context. it's in the constitution. this country has been in the waterway system, the ports, the harbors, at the federal level. needs to be involved to make sure we're connected and peter defazio brings up this picture i can't remember -- where the oklahoma-kansas agree to build

this interstate or this significant road. kansas built it, stopped at the oklahoma border. oklahoma can't have the funds to do it. that's why we need a federal role, so you can go from coast to coast. some states just won't do what's needed to be done. fawn: do you get tired of having to make that speech? representative shuster: i enjoy it. i love to quote adam smith, he said the three things government should do for you, provide securities, preserve justice and erect and maintain infrastructure to promote commerce. i don't know how much clearer that can be, and that's adam smith saying that, not bill shuster. fawn: that makes you sound cool. in the d.c. way. representative shuster: a lot of my colleagues, on our side of the aisle, claim adam smith as the founder of our economic

system. that's what he said. if he came here today i'm sure he'd say the same thing. fawn: we're hitting the point where questions are coming. i have a few we could use some more. tweet #asknj. there's one, i have to read it i'm not sure i actually understand it. the -- i think this is the energy department but i could be wrong. qer suggests public-private partnerships to fund maritime projects. representative shuster: i'm not sure. fawn: this is one i do understand. when talking about the surface transportation bill, there's been some effort on the part of earl blumenauer is the one that comes to mind, democrats to bring in some sort of gas tax increase or indexing it to

inflation. we -- that's continually been a no from the administration and from leadership with g.o.p. but is there something that can be done with the gas tax to try and help get you to your long-term bill? or is it really off the table? representative shuster: when you have the president and you have the leadership of both houses at different times differing parties, saying no, then very, very difficult. so i'm for what's possible and i don't think that's possible. i do believe after we get done and the president signs a phi-year bill, the stake holders and members of congress that care about it have to really start figuring out and start to try to move the country in a way. how do we fund this? what's acceptable to the american people. what can pass in congress? i look at the state of pennsylvania and it took them three years of this kind of grass roots statewide media campaign educating citizens,

educating members, took them three years to do something. they fixed their funding levels. i think there's a lot of states that have done that. but it takes time and effort to do that. we are at a point now where it's not possible to do a long-term fix but i think that has to be job one as soon as we get a long-term bill signed. >> do you think that -- so let's fast forward. the reason why i think you're going to get a long-term bill is because you have no other choice. i think if there's an easy solution you probably wouldn't. but fast forward to the end of this fiscal year calendar year, right after this -- right after that you need to start going. do you start to look at things like vehicle miles traveled, basically the replacement for the gas tax, charging people for miles they spend on the highway? representative shuster: i think that's something to look at. the technology part of it

scares people. i don't believe that's something the american people want to happen but how do you make it fair? electric cars pay nothing to drive on the roads system of those are the kinds of things we have to have the discussion about. what's palatable to the american people, what's simple to the american people? right now what we collect at the pump, i think it's something like 1,100 organizations to collect that. pennsylvania took it from the pump to the barrel of oil to the issues and that reduces that universe of people even smaller. very efficient. if you're going to -- if you expand it to collect from every american, it's going to be 250 -- we're going 400 million makes it very, very difficult. as you said i appreciate your confidence, we're going to get something done and reminds me of winston churchill said about america. americans always do the right thing after they've exhausted every other option. we're at that point.

fawn: did you ever think when you took this over that you would find yourself in deep conversations about tax reform? representative shuster: not really. i mean, chairman of the transportation committee. i knew there was some, we had to deal with the mechanism but yeah, again, it's been good. it's been -- paul ryan is a smart guy. i learn something from him every time i talk to him. fawn: i have a question from your former staff director who is now the chief of the pittsburgh -- port of pittsburgh or something. he wants to know on your recent road show in pennsylvania, this was a bus trip you took. representative shuster: two days, basically. fawn: talking to people. because he worked for you. i'll let him ask that question. representative shuster: we had the governor, the secretary of transportation of north carolina, south carolina,

oklahoma and texas. i think the most -- i believed it before but hearing it from them they believe that the federal government has a role as a partner, should maintain that role as a partner, and you know, even when you talk to a state like texas sometimes people -- people sometimes think texans think of their -- think they're they're -- think they're their own country already. but they have stuff that is, it couldn't all stay in texas. so texas' -- he's absolutely, and republican governors from republican states said the federal role has to be maintained or they believe we won't have a national system that's worthy of this nation. fawn: i also understand it was pouring rain on at least one of your weekends? representative shuster: it

rained once, it was threatening every time we got off the bus but it held off. fawn: i believe this is a wrrda question waterway users supported a tax increase but how do we make sure the funds are appropriated as authorized? i hope i got that right. representative shuster: got to talk to the appropriators on that. they raised the user fee from 20 cents to 29 cents. in the water resources by, we changed some of the way the money is spent, being authorized and being spent to not put so much of those funds, the inland waterway trust funds to the big project on the kentucky -- on the mississippi, or on the ohio river because it's just sucking all the money out of the system system of we've changed the formula. there's got to be more general dollars funds going to that and some of those dollars will start to flow to other places where there's tremendous need for investment.

fawn: that can happen, you don't have to do anything in the authorization bill. representative shuster: we put that language in there, appropriators have to adhere to it. the other thing, we changed this inland harbor, the harbor trust fund, it was about half of it was going to -- wasn't going to anything. they put it in a so-called lock box because they can't spend it and just justify set it against other spending. what we have put in the bill, they're going to inch that up i believe chairman rodgers -- chairman rogers is doing just that inching that up. we hope to have a trust fund that goes 100% to harbors and ports in this country. fawn: another question on odometers that we now have, do we need new technology in order to move to -- move away from the gas tax? representative shuster: it becomes a very difficult issue on privacy and things like that.

so again those are discussions we have to have to figure out what the american people are willing to do when it comes to doing that. fawn: what about a barrel tax? representative shuster: that's what pennsylvania did, what virginia did, put a percentage on the barrel. fawn: that just backs it up, rather than bringing the user to the miles driven. but similar concept. representative shuster: as i said they did it in pennsylvania, going to give us between $2.5 billion and $ billion. so they filled their hole in their transportation funding. again, now that's the other thing i learned from the d.o.t. secretaries i traveled with. we've done our share now the federal government has to step up. fawn: speaking of d.o.t. secretaries, talk about how you're engaging with secretary fox who from what i understand has had good conversations with

you. has he asked for anything in particular in the service -- surface bill? we know he wants something long-term and robust they proposed $478 billion, not getting that. are there other things -- representative shuster: didn't pay for it. small the tail. fawn: are there other things you can do to make sure when you get the green light everybody is on the same page so you can make something happen quickly? representative shuster: nothing specific he's asking for except keep streamlining and doing those things that make it easier for me as a secretary to push these things out. he's done, i think a pretty good job of doing what he can do on a d.o.t. to streamline things. he's constantly pushing on people to get this thing done. i think that's important. he and i had a number of discussions on that re-authorization, he's interested in changing the system. fawn: you mentioned in your remarks at the beginning of our interview there's some parts of

map 21 that you're rooking at, seeing if it needs to be tweaked a little bit. is there anything that you have in your conversations with secretary fox that is either helping them or hurting them from -- in the current law that you might be able to move a little bit in your next go-round. representative shuster: nothing i can point to directly. there are some areas we want to expand upon. we tried in map 21 that if a state has a nepa process, i -- an environmental review process that's equal than or greater to the federal government's, that it doesn't have to go through the federal. and senator boxer didn't want it. she's got -- her state has got the most stringent strict, difficult review process to go in probably the world and again, it doesn't make sense to me to make states go through two processes.

fawn: you might ask again, see if senator boxer changed her mind. representative shuster: senator inhofe is the chair now. fawn: but she's still ranking member. we appreciate you taking time to talk with us. our audience does as well. good luck. [applause] >> the house is currently in recess but members return at 6:30 p.m. eastern for votes and speeches. tomorrow house members meet with senators for a joint meeting of congress to mear -- to hear from japanese prime min shinzo abe. and late they are week, they begin work on bills about veterans affairs and energy and water development. follow the house live when members return in about half an hour. speaking of japanese prime minister abe, the white house tonight hosts a state din for

the honor of him. our live coverage of his arrival begins at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. tomorrow on "washington journal," wisconsin congressman sean duffy discusses the upcoming debate in congress over the budget. representative delaney of maryland talks about american hostages in light of the death of his constituent, warren weinstein in a drone strike. after that jewky collins and john madigan about suicide prevention. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "wearable journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the new congressional directly is a handy fwide to congress. color photos of every member, plus bio and contact information and twitter

handles. plus district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet federal agencies an state governors. order your copy today $13.95 plus shipping and handling through c-span online store at c-span.org. >> earlier today the supreme court heard oral arguments considering whether states must give marriage licenses to same-sex couples under the 14th amendment. justices will also decide if state must recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states. right now you can listen to those oral arguments on c-span3. we'll play them again tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 and after it's other we'll take your phone calls and comments. right now, more about today's cases from "washington journal." out for yourself later. as the supreme court meets today, two guests are joining us

to talk about the court decisions and the implications of what the justices have to decide. we are joined by brian brown the president of the national organization for marriage, and also joined by evan wolfson founder of the group freedom to marry. he is the founder and president. gentlemen, if i read it correctly, at the center of the case is the 14th amendment. why does it center on that particular amendment? guest: the 14th amend it embodies to central guarantees that are at take here, what is the freedom to marry itself, and the other is the constitution command of equal protection under the laws for all americans, that the government cannot discriminate against any of us unless it has a sufficient and sometimes compelling reason to do so. the denial of gay people's reason to marry has been a refusal to allow gay americans like any other americans, to enter into this commitment based on love and security in being treated equally by the government. and there has also been a denial

of equal protection because there is an -- there is no good reason for exclusion of gay marriage. 65 quarts and said that, and now we are before the supreme court hoping they will affirm, but -- what the majority of the american people have come to understand. host: what do you think about the argument in the 14th amendment to go ahead and litigate these cases? guest: i think everyone around this country who even has a entering of -- a smattering of looking at constitutional law and the history of this case would say, how can any judge claim that in passing the 14th of them and that somehow we got same-sex marriage? and that is just the know when you would until now? that is preposterous. we are being asked to believe that in 1868 same-sex marriage was at stake with the passage of the 14th amendment. that was not true, and only a

few years after, congress said, utah and other western states, you cannot become states if you allow polygamy. all of the arguments evan is making, equally all of those arguments could be made, why not three or four or five people? there is nothing in the constitution that states that states have to redefine marriage and there is nothing in the constitution that is somehow a bridging anyone's rights. it is a false analogy to compare laws that define marriage, laws based on marriage being between a man and a woman, defining them as anything that has to do with a long history of race going back before the 14th amendment. host: if the 14th limit is used in this case and the justices allow same-sex marriages? caller: no, what gay people are

not saying is let's have no rules. gay people are saying, let us have what you have. just as you have the freedom to marry the person that is precious to you, the person you want to build a life with and take responsibility for and be cared by -- be cared for by, government should not be putting restrictions on that choice based on race or religion or sects or any other categories. categories do not follow love. people fall in love. and the government ought to make sure that we are all free in our exercise of freedom to marry to choose the person that we love without restriction, especially restrictions that have no good reason. and what we have seen over the years and through ruling and ruling and in court after court -- it's not just my opinion -- is that when given a chance to come into court to come in with evident to show a reason for

this restriction or that restriction, the government has not been able to do that. and mr. brown and his group have not been able to come up with any reason that withstand the test of analysis. and that is why we are hopeful that the supreme court going to do what so many other courts have done will stop guest: the reality is, the court that counts mainly is the court of public opinion in the ballot box. when we disagree on an issue people should have their votes counted and respected. mr. wilson going before the supreme court, that is not winning the law -- winning in the court of public opinion. only three states through a public vote have in any way moved in the direction of same-sex marriage. to say 37 states have same-sex marriage is simply to say that in 37 states, judges that they had the right to trump the will

of the people to impose their public policy views. and luckily, one circuit got a red -- got it right, the sixth. and the picture that evan is painting is simply untrue because one of the circuits did make very strong argument saying whatever the judge's policy preferences are, the judge does not have the right to say the people have no voice in this issue, and also clearly nothing in the 14th amend it -- amendment protects same-sex marriage. the reason we are in this issue is because the circuit courts did define marriage as between a man and woman. and he says we don't want to support polygamy. what about their rights? what about equal protection for people who want three or four or five people?

you have to make the case as to why it is not abridgment of their civil rights in the same way he is claiming i'm doing, or that the millions of americans who are voting for gay marriage are doing. host: if you would like to join the conversation, the numbers are on the screen. my apologies, mr. wilson, go ahead -- mr. wolfson, go ahead. guest: 63% of the american people now support the freedom to marry up from 27% when i started doing the trial in hawaii. and the reason for that is that people have had a chance not to just here fear and scary stereotypes, but to think about real people and real values and to think about who gave people

are and why gay marriage matters -- who gay people are and why gay marriage matters. that is why we have the majority of support under age 50. the other thing that mr. brown gets wrong is that not everything in the united states gets put up to a vote. we don't vote on whether i like you and therefore whether you should have right. we'll vote on whether you should have freedom of speech or whether mr. brown should have freedom to marry or whether i -- we do not vote on whether you should have freedom of speech or whether mr. brown should have freedom to marry or whether -- sometimes politicians get it wrong. when it comes to those individual freedoms that define us as americans we have the opportunity to say i'm being denied something i deserve. that is not a question of policy. it is not whether i like mr. brown and he should have free speech. he has free speech. he has free-speech whether i like what he says or not because

that is his right as an american and it is the constitution and the courts that enforce that. and that is why we are in court today, because states have taken away a basic freedom that belongs to every american. as the state have had a chance to think it through and the courts of looked at the arguments and the evidence, they say there is nothing that violates the constitution and that is my hope the court will affirm in this case. host: mr. brown? guest: clearly, our founders understood that free speech was a key part of what our rights are. they did not think that same-sex marriage was an essential right. you are seeing an attempt to create out of the history of the law something that does not exist. we have seen bogus polls like this. we saw them in california. one poll said about 63% of californians were going to

oppose proposition eight. instead, we won by 52%. fast-forward to north carolina. many polls predicted we would lose in north carolina. instead, visit vote -- the vote for protection of marriage one by 62%. the poll that counts is the fact that people went to the ballot box and voted in overwhelming numbers to support marriage as the union of a man and woman. the only way that evan and his group get around that is by making are committed that is more damaging to our civil discourse, and that is to say if all of those americans who voted for -- that all of those americans who voted for traditional marriage were bigots. that it was in a rational vote and it was motivated by animus. if the supreme court chooses to support this then do they think that those who know the truth simply will go away? no, just like what was done with

row, you have created a polarization that will not go away. -- just like what was done with roe, you will have created a polarization that will not go away. host: let's take our first phone call from bruce. caller: good morning mr. brown i'm glad you are there. you are just the fellow i want to talk to. in 1971, i published an article called "glitter and be gay" and at the end of the article i suggested that gay marriage was an inevitability. the reason i want to speak to you this morning, aside from the fact that i am the grandfather of this issue as far as i know. as i say, somebody else may actually be ahead of me. but i don't know it. as far as i know i am grandpa. the reason i want to address

you, sir, is that you are dead wrong on the year 1868. two years before that, the only widely know gay person in america was walt wittman. he was -- walt whitman. he was introduced to abraham lincoln and his response upon meeting him was, i had no idea he was clear. -- queer. he doesn't look what a woman to me. if abraham lincoln, the father of america, could not see through the stereotypes into the concrete bumper -- bunker where gay. -- for gay people resided then, then how will the law? the law has always been right as far as the option, but it has never been moved because of the concrete hideaway that your comfort requires of my conduct.

i'm sorry, sir. gay marriage is coming, and it coming because of live like mine -- lives like mine and matthew shepard, who want protection for ourselves and the people we love and our children. we have no hope of living in the future p simply under protection of law. you have no -- peaceably under protection of law. you have no right to keep us from that. guest: we are entitled to our opinions, but not our facts. we are essentially arguing by folks -- by the way, you can support same-sex marriage and not believe the united states supreme court should create out of thin air a constitutional right to redefine marriage. but again, what we just heard is essentially, if you can rewrite our entire constitutional history, then why not rewrite our history altogether?

now we are talking about abraham lincoln secretly supporting same-sex marriage. we are talking about walt whitman meeting with abraham lincoln. look, it's very clear that no one up until maybe early 1960's, 1970's would ever make the claim that our constitution includes within it the right to redefine marriage. i think it was in 1971 1972, the baker versus nelson case goes to the supreme case. it's still a binding precedent. it said that the constitution supports gay marriage. the supreme court dismisses it. why? it says this case is for want of a federal question. there is nothing in the constitution that creates the redefinition of marriage. and for the court to say otherwise, again, is not going to end the issue.

i'm hopeful that justice kennedy will see what i'm saying. i know that many on the other side think this is a done deal. i think you are counting your chickens before they hatch if you think it is just going to rule in your favor. guest: the one thing i agree with that he said is that it is not eight done deal until it is done. guest: good, we agree. [laughter] guest: yes but it will not be over until we go to the people and if necessary, to the courts and an this dissemination. that is why we will keep winning and we will keep doing it. we have one in the last two years all kinds of state courts, federal appellate courts, judges appointed by democrat and republican presidents and governors. we have all lost only three are for the last two years. 14 out of 19 republican appointed judges have ruled in

the freedom to marry. and in all of those rulings, my favorite passage was something written by judge shelby indicates that was brought in utah. what judge shelby wrote was it's not the constitution that has changed, but our knowledge of what it means to be lesbian or gay. that profound truth is exactly why the courts have ruled in our favor. it is because command of the constitution is always there equal protection for all of us. the freedom to marry for all americans. but at different times in our country's history we have not always seen the "other" and we have not always understood the claim of color to full rights the claim of the minorities, the existence and claim of gay people to participate in america's promise. but as we open our hearts and see people for who they are and see them as americans, then we

understand the constitution does apply to them. that is the transformation that will occur. it will be outliers and holdouts who refuse to see and refuse to open their hearts and minds, and clean to their prejudices and ideologies and do not go there. there will be son. -- there will be some. but that is why the courts have now been able to apply the law to the people they now see before them and to whom they have come to understand. host: let's go to beverly in chicago on the opposed line. caller: good morning. can you please just let me get what i got to say out? i think this guy sitting here should take this argument up with god. god said a marriage is between a man and woman. he also said to mary and multiply. you cannot mary and -- said to marry and multiply.

you cannot marry and multiply. this is god's rule. this is not man's rule. and another thing he said, is an abomination. sir, what you will need to do is take it up with god, because he set the rules down. you could not have even been born circa makes it has not been from your mother and father. -- been born, sir, if it had not been from your mother and father. god said man and woman. when he told noah to come up on the ark to my he said to bring female and male. have you all forgotten about the bible? there is no such thing as a marriage between two men and two women. i don't mean to discriminate against you also but there is no such thing between two men and two women. god has domain over all of us. host: that is beverly in

chicago. guest: beverly in chicago is entitled to her via. we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech and beverly can believe whatever she wants. of the u.s. is not a machine in which everyone person's views is imposed on everyone else. the way we protect beverly's freedom of religion is to make sure we do not use the government as a weapon to impose beverly's ideas with eagle who do not agree with everly's idea of what god -- with people who do not agree with beverly's ideas of what god wants. there are christians who support the right to marry. many people of faith support the freedom to marry. more than 2000 clergy from across the country file a brief urging support to marry. only a handful of voices were

heard on the other side. but people do griffey green -- a do disagree and they have the right to do that. i would never try to change that. but we do not look to the courts to tell us what is right and wrong when it comes to religion. what we look to the courts to do is to enforce our constitution, and our constitution says all people are entitled to equal protection and freedom to marry. guest: the reality is that marriage laws are defined as the union of a man and woman. we are not discriminate against people. it is not equivalent with laws that ban interracial marriage. lost like that were about keeping the races apart. they had nothing to do with marriage. marriage is about bringing the two sexes together, male and female, connecting them with any children they might bear. i love the call from the lady that called earlier.

we had 12,000 to 15,000 folks right on the mall, a diverse group. we had a huge row from the african-american and hispanic community. it highlighted the interreligious agreement on this issue. the catholic faith evangelicals, pentecostals, the overwhelming majority of believers worldwide and in the country know that marriage is between a man and a woman. contrary to what evidence trying to argue, we are not about weaponize the government to punish gays and lesbians. that is totally wrong. we are standing up and saying that marriage is between a man and woman. and now the shoe was on the other foot. the freedom to marry campaign is saying it is ok to have your quaint religious beliefs, but keep them in the four walls of your church. but if you are a bigger or florist or someone who said i

cannot in good conscience to take part in a same-sex marriage ceremony, we are going to use the full force of government to marginalize or punish them. the thousands of people who gathered here, we are not going to abandon the truth of marriage. i am hopeful this of record does the right thing. but if supreme court does the wrong thing, evan has some idea that somehow the people of this country will abandon the truth of marriage and the role -- and there will not be any holdouts. -- and there will only be some holdouts. the catholic church and others will not just abandon their beliefs. we will work to amend the u.s. constitution to give fine marriage -- to define marriage as between a man and a woman. host: you just heard from brian brown, the president of the national organization for marriage. joined by evan wolfson as well

the founder and president of the freedom to marry. james is up next on our support line. caller: sir, can you hear me? host: you are on, sir, go ahead. caller: i kind of think both parties got it wrong. it appears to me that if you're going to respect human beings and you're going to respect the government and respect the bible as well, you're going to have to learn to get along with one another regardless of what the law says. that is what human audi -- humanality is. no one understands that we are just human beings moving forward. we are not moving backward. if that were the case, we would still be riding a camel. you can understand what is going

on in the middle east right now because of what the bible says. and i'm truly quite religious stop i try to be. -- i am truly quite religious. i try to be. but there seems to be something wrong when people do not understand that respect and love is the answer to it all. guest: i think the color makes a very good point and it explains why the majority of americans have moved, including the majority of people if they. -- people of faith. have moved because of values like the golden rule, treating people the way you would want to be treated respecting people sharing our space in our limited time on this planet and allowing people to fulfill themselves and find their path in life. and rendering unto caesar what is caesar's and enter -- unto god what is god's. there are many people with

values, people of faith and those who do not have faith, but are good people. and every real religion teaches you to respect one another, love one another, to be modest in your own using your ideas as a sword and in imposing them on others. and in the u.s. there is a severe for -- sphere for religion and for government. i believe in the idea of respect and treating others as we want to be treated is very important in america and is in short supply. and what of the places we have seen this is on the question of freedom of america. most americans have stopped repeating the same stale prejudice lines that they have been taught, and instead have pulled back and looked at the real people and the real lives and said, let them share in the love and commitment and stability and protection.

we now have 37 states where gay people can marry. and people have been marrying. and not in one of this -- these places have the gay people used up all of the marriage licenses and deny people of anything. people have strict in their lives and kids have walked a little taller knowing their parents are respected. mr. brown likes to bring up issues that are not related to this question because of his larger agenda of opposing any kind of protection for discrimination against gay people. mr. brown believes that businesses who go into the license -- to the marketplace should have a special license to discriminate where if anyone just says the word "religion," they are able to turn away the people they don't like. but that is not the law in the u.s. for decades, we have struggled to create a balance that allows us to have both religious liberties and civil rights. what the law in the civil rights act of 1964 says is, when you go

into business, you serve the public. you don't turn people away based on religion or race or now sexual orientation. guest: it is hard to know where to begin with the falsehoods that are being put forward here. it is about love and it is about civil rights, but the government didn't create marriage. the government recognizes something that was prior to the state. marriage and family are profoundly progressive institutions. they teach children the reality that mothers and fathers are both important. and they are not interchangeable. the claim that somehow i personally or nam supports discrimination against individuals is patently false. it is not for a business to say -- it is not for individual to

say to a business, i will not be coerced into taking part of a ceremony with which i can never agree. the reason of faith -- the majority of americans do believe that marriage is between a man and woman and they should not be coursed by the government to go against that. when you are shutting down adoption agencies, like catholic charities of boston recently, or in illinois, because they will not place children with same-sex couples and then using that as a bludgeon and say you will not place them anywhere at all if you do not place them with same-sex couples. that is about using the law to punish and repress and marginalize those who disagree with the new idea of marriage. guest: it's also not true. mr. brown comes on tv and he repeat the same tough, but he is

unable to say it -- the same stuff, but he's unable to say it in court because you look at the oath of telling the truth under cross examination. guest: i would like to finish. guest: please do. guest: look at boston catholic charities and in illinois. guest: exactly and what happened there was they were told they could not have government funding if they refused to discriminate -- if they were going to discriminate. you cannot take taxpayer money and give it to people who don't play by the rules. [indiscernible] guest: it was because of antidiscrimination clause, not because of government funding. guest: if anything was at stake here, it was antidiscrimination laws. that has nothing to do with who gets a marriage license. guest: other groups in illinois

were placing them for adoption without placing them with same-sex couples and immediately after the redefinition of marriage they were told they could no longer do that. ask yourself a question, why? host: let me take another call. for those of you in the community, the lgbt community wanting to weigh in, andrew is in florida. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to tell of an -- evan that i really appreciate the work he is doing for us. and i know it's hard sometimes when people like to get on here and say very hurtful things. i just wanted to tell you that i really appreciate what you're doing. it means a lot to me.

i came out to my family this year -- not this year, in september of this past year. and it was very difficult for me , because my mother and father are very religious people. i felt like i was letting them down when i told them, and they could not have been more accepting of me. i really wanted to tell you that, what you are doing right now even though there are a lot of people who come on here and say very hurtful things and i'm sure it's hard sometimes, but i just wanted to let you know that those people don't make up the majority of people. the majority of people want people like me to get married and do it lawfully.

i want to let you know that, that people like sam brownback can rollback legislation that protects gay people like me, and greg abbott can cut a cake in stellar -- in celebration of his state ban on gay marriage, they don't make up the majority of people. i'm very hopeful that after a lot of depression and hardship that i've gone through, i hope in a few weeks that the supreme court will rule in favor of my right to marry. all i've ever wanted is to have the same rights as people and to be treated as a normal human being.

i'm very grateful for people like you evan. people like you are the reason why i have a voice in america. i just couldn't sit by and let people come on here and say that me getting married is a perversion and all these horrible things. host: ok, [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] >> "washington journal" airs live every morning at 7:30 eastern here on c-span. the u.s. house has gaveled back in. nays. h.r. 1324 by the yeas and nays. first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. vote on the motion of the the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 373 as amended.

which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to direct the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture to expedite access to certain federal lands under the jurisdiction of the secretary for good samaritan search and recovery missions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 413, the nays are zero. twiffereds 2/3 -- 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, weck, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table -- and, without objection, the motion to reconsider slayed on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1324 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 15. h.r. 1324, a bill to adjust the boundary of the arapaho national forest of colorado and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by th national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

he piloed incredible the 17 mbat msions and earned medals and decorations. after thear, he retned to his home in harrin to run the family lumber business and continued in the air force reserve. itas during thisime he came engaged with local politics d in 1966, he became the fit reblican in93 years toave been elected to serve arkansas in the.s. house of reprentatives. during his 26-year tenure in congressjohn paul never spent a single day in the majority, but heidn't let thattand in the way of serving his

cstituents to the best of his ability. he workewith all colleagues, docrat and republica alike and is responsib for bringing the critical transportation infrastructure to northwest arkansas that enaked it explosive growth. he will be remembered for defininginthe gold standard. siply put, no one didt better than john paul. every dae prayed to our lord tovercome pride and self-concern to be mindful of the needs of others, looking backnis life, i would say he was blessed with just tha and for that, our ste andour natn wille forever grateful to him for his service. mam speaker, onaturda john paul hammerschmidt will be laid torest. i wod askedo a momt of

silence f the finest exmple that this chamber has ever seen. >> re in peacand yield back the balance of my ti. the speaker pro tempore:fo what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? wiout objection, t gtleman is recognized forone mite. >> he was a visionary champion for arkansas' values. his leaderip ipired ne generations including all of us

rising tonight. ambassador for his district and the entire state, john paul helped build the airport and the interstate thatllowed us to lossom. 10 yearsago, heaid we were p on earth to se othersnd we rve a lot of people. he bodiednd whye a here and who we represent. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlan from arkaas seek recognition? >>address the house forne minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection >> honor the life a legacy of one of ar can saw'sgreat leaders. i have known and admired the conessmannd lon respected his commitmento public

serve. one of hismportant actions was his legislation that made the buffalo river the country's first national river and ensuring e extrrdiny treasure designedy god's own hand. the buffalo d been slated for a corpof engineers' dam proje which would have destroyed the natural majesty that the people of arns joy. bill colen captures the mystique. giant bluffs rise above tis river, nd usback to a time en alof our land was wild. e congressman serv a fresan congressman and my former boss and thesewo great men became fast friends from heir timin the air force.

they were close political alls and the coressma was quick to supportresident bush and all his presidential ru theya victory, joys and sorrows. residentush once said, he did mething i could never do,eat bill clinton. i'm humbled to know andearn so much from the congressma he will be greatlmissed and i yid back. . the speakerro tempore: th gentleman yields back the lance of his time. fo what purposdoes t ntleman from arkansas seek cognitn? without objection the gentleman recogzed for on minute. >> madam speakeongressman john paul hmer schmidt began his service a a member of this body from my he state of arkansas in 1967. mr. west: the year that i was born. he -- mr. westerma the year that i s born. and he did so for 12erms, long gh for me to gr up,

graduate from clege, get a jo and getarried. hislove forrkansas and america was evident in his service. he was a champion f his district adur state. he was a tireless advocate for all hi contituent, on both sides the ale, and worked hst to do what was right for the citizens of arkansas. he served his country and fellow man with honor both in the military and in congress, leaving a laing legacy and setng the bar high for those ofs who follow him in rvice. he was from the beautiful ozark hims and manyimes the people of arnsnd erica we blessed with the leadersip o the gentlem from the hills. ase remember h service, ay we l contin to look to the hills a comforted the words of the sonst whowrote, i will lift up mine eto the hills. myelp come from the lord, which made heaven anarth. he wl not erhi -- foot. behold he that keep eth israel

shall neither slumber nor sleep. the lord is our keeper. the lord is the shade upon the right hand. the son shall not smite thee by day nor the moon by night. the lord shall preserve thee from all evil. the lord shall preserve thy going out and coming in from this time forth and even forevermore. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: madam speaker, earlier today i introduced the bipartisan protecting adopted children act. a response to the many problems and potential dangers associated with the term called rehoming adoptive children. families involved in this underground practice are connecting online and making dubious and outright illegal

arrangements to give away their children to strangers often with forged or fake documentation. some children are even transferred to individuals with a criminal history including abuse and neglect. mr. speaker, my legislation provides states with the resources to help adoptive families receive free and postadoption counseling, social skills training and mental health services. it also expands the training of the internet crimes against children task force, to include combating the illegal transfer of a child. mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleagues who have joined me in co-sponsoring this bill and i encourage the house to take swift action to protect these most vulnerable children. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much madam speaker. i rise today as co-chair of the

congressional napal caucus to express my deepest condolences to the people of napal who are now recovering from a catastrophic earthquake that hit this prior saturday. when you see the devastation, you'll find that all the final results are not in, but early reports are that over 4,000 individuals lost their lives and several thousand individuals are injured. mr. crenshaw: the united states stands ready to assist in any way. i want to say thank you to the leadership of our u.s. embassy in napal. thank you to the government of napal for their early and coordinated response. to the people of that region, let me say the united states stands with you in these difficult times. we will continue to pray for those of you who have lost your loved ones, continue to pray for those who are still lost and for their safe recovery.

with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: thank you very much madam speaker. i rise in support of the protecting adoptive childrens act which was introduced by congressman jim langevin this afternoon. and by now we have all read the reports about adopted children who have been rehomes by legal adoptive parents. these children usually end up in the custody of strangers through arrangements that are often illegally made online and -- in hidden internet groups. in order to combat these transfers, representatives jim langevin and rob wittman and i crafted legislation that provides protections and support services for adopted children and their families.

the legislation provides a more stable home for children with pre and postadoptive support services including training and counseling for parent mentoring and treatment services specifically for adopted children. the bill also expands the scope of the preexisting internet crimes against children task force under the department of justice to include combating illegal transfer of a child. this gives the tools parents need to combat illegal transfers which we've learned through investigative reporting typically take place on time. we must be committed to helping these children succeed in a family that we may call our own. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: madam speaker, over the weekend i was thrilled

to be at the winkler art gallery in pennsylvania for the 2015 congressional art competition awards ceremony for my congressional district. the congressional art competition began in 1982 to recognize and encourage artistic talent among u.s. high school students. this year i had the honor to serve as co-chair of the annual national competition. mr. speaker, this year i was blown away by the quality of work and the levels of creativity by the students in the pennsylvania's fifth congressional district. this year's first place winner determined by an independent panel, is leah kliner of waterford, pennsylvania. leah, who's work titled "little brother" attends a high school. i'm looking forward to hosting leah in washington this summer and displaying her award-winning work in the halls of the capitol building. this year's second and third place winners are bethany of dubois and madeline of summer township respectively. natalie of royal city and

caitlin of sandy township both received honorable mentions. i'd like to congratulate all this year's winners and thank you everyone who participated in this fun and exciting competition. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. delbene: thank you madam speaker. our thoughts are with the people of napal and their families. my heart sank when i heard about the 7.8 magnitude earthquake and its unthinkable devastation. it's estimated thousands of people have died and more are missing. three of those still missing are constituents of washington's first district. these people are pillars of our community. retired special education teacher doreen richmond retired firefighter jim lane, and small business owner

jeanie. i want to do everything i can to assist and support their families during this difficult time and i'll continue to pray for their safety and their return home. i was glad to see the state department provide $10 million in initial disaster assistance. and to the people of napal and those affected in the region or here at home, know that the united states stands with you during this tragic time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, since july of last year, a member of the ukrainian parliament and a military veteran, has been unlawfully detained by russian authorities. her crime unsubstantiated charges stemming from her defense of her nation against russian military aggression. mr. fitzpatrick: for months she has been incarcerated in russia in clear violation of her human rights and international

standards. as russia tries to redraw the world's borders, ms. savchenko has become the face of both russian lawlessness and iranian resistance. this evening i joined with the free people of ukraine and demanded russia free her and call on this body and this administration to utilize all legislative and diplomatic means to secure her long overdue release. that is why i've joined with other lawmakers in introducing house resolution 50 which calls for an end to this injustice and reaffirms the united states' commitment to a democratic ukraine, free from russian interference. together we must free sav chmbings henko and push back against russia's continued threat to freedom. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house for one minute. unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank you very much. madam speaker, we all watched with great concern and horror

-- and horror as we watched the tragic funeral of freddie gray in baltimore and then the enormous outpouring of violence and young people taking to the streets. we commend our colleague congressman cummings, and the many other citizens, pastors bhorks went to the streets and called -- pastor, who went to the streets and called for peace. but it's important for this congress to stand up and call for criminal justice reform. because as we move into the summer i express great concern as to the reactions of young people who are unemployed, who feel oppressed, and feel that no one cares. i'll be introducing and have introduced the bill trust bill cat debt bill that collects data on lethal force between civilians and police. prison reform, giving good time , one day -- serve one day per incarceration, one day of good time, to provide for early release for nonviolent prisoners. the same time i'll be asking for legislation that will

provide same reporting requirements for private prisons as public prisons. and grand jury reform among others. the real important point is that the nation needs to hear this congress make a statement of their commitment to criminal justice reform. i look forward to working with my colleagues and introducing legislation that will draw bipartisan support, that we can respond to these tragedies and get america on her right footing and rebuild the trust between police and community. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you madam speaker. today too many children are falling victim to a system of adoption that lacks necessary oversight. horrifying stories have come to light about children being rehomes into the custody of strangers through dubious or even illegal arrangements.

as a child of adoption myself, i am personally invested in this issue. mr. wittman: i am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the protecting adopted children act today to reduce that risk and better help these children find stable loving homes and to improve support services for adoptive parents. these support services, including counseling on potential parenting challenges, postadoption mental health services and peer mentoring, can play a -- pier mentoring, can play a critical role. these initiatives will also foster an ongoing dialogue between the families and adoption service agencies that should last during and beyond the adoption process. i'd like to thank representative langevin for his leadership on this issue. we must do all we can to prevent adopted children from being placed into dangerous situations and i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the protecting adopted children act. madam speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek

recognition? mr. green: to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'm on a mission of mercy. the people of napal have suffered a tragedy. the bad thousands have lott their lives. and there is good news that the united states has disaster assistance teams on the way to nepal. the police and community in houston, texas, has organized and working to make sure they do their part to provide disaster assistance and i'm proud to say we are sponsoring legislation, h.r. 2033 and would provide status for those who are in this country on the 25th on the date of this tragedy for a period of 18 months so they can stay here

and not have to return home to circumstances that are untenable. i'm proud to say many have co-sponsored this legislation and looking for more co-sponsors. i would also add that the united states has sent $10 million already allocated and more to come. this is a time for us to show that we stand with them. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today i spoke on the steps of the supreme court as it heard arguments on whether more than 50 million americans who voted to affirm marriage as between one man and one woman should have their voices snuffed out as as few as five unelected justice

ises. and it is a claim of legal fiction. let me repeat. there is no constitutional right to so-called same-sex marriage. marriage pre-dates government and the nation that makes these laws. no law, no judge no court can legitimately redefine marriage to suit their personal preferences. i implore the supreme court to do their job and the people are free to reform or restore marriage as between one man and one woman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: madam speaker, the survivors of human trafficking are free from their captainors,

they are often victimized again and they are abused by a system. the justice for victims of trafficking act. it would provide restitution to survivors and clarify the law helping to bring the pimp ps, the sex traffickers and the purchasers of women and girl to justice. i have been proud to work with congressman ted poe on very similar legislation that passed this body overwhelming, unanimously in january, but to become law, the house version must now take up the senate version and pass it here in the house. i urge the leaders of the house to schedule a vote. let's send a message, women and girls are not for sale in the united states of america. they cannot afford to wait any

longer for this vital legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today to recognize the remarkable contributions of dr. jonathan gavera. dr. g introduced me to a portal that connects students to jobs. i was particularly impressed with the component that informs students about the return of their educational investment especially because financing is a important aspect. this type of transparency is important to helping our students have an information in

in easy way. students in the keys are connected to help them achieve their professional goals while also educating them about the financial responsibility that is inherent in pursueing higher education. i look forward to encouraging innovation in the way that we help students achieve success and funding sources like pell grants. dr. g and his colleagues have made it their mission to offer the best tools to their students and i hope their efforts can serve as an example to be replicated throughout the country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. royce of

california for today and for tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. rush: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker mother's day is soon aapproaching. and as we, our nation takes

time to honor our mothers i would like to make a special appeal to african-american mothers across this country. that they begin to use their awesome powers to take back our streets from the daily violence that far too many of our youth far too many of our families and far too many of our communities are experiencing each and every day. it is now time time is right now for black mothers to once again rise up to stop the

unmitigated and endless violence that is occurring often, far too often in our nation's streets. madam speaker there is no power like the power of a mother. the sad news today is an image that many across the nation have seen and it's the subject of conversation all across our country. the image of a strong black mother giving her son what i will call, a low whooping, a low

whooping, to snatch him back from the senseless violence that is currently plaguing the city of baltimore maryland. as this picture demonstrates, madam speaker, mothers can and mothers must be the mobilizeicing force to take back our streets. mothers feel the pain of the loss of a child unlike any other. the primal scream of a mother and the sudden death of a hunter, of her child us unlike

other out cry known to mankind. as my own history has demonstrated. i'm not one to excuse police brutality and police murder and police mayhem and police utter disrespect that they have pledged to sworn and to protect. as a former member of the black panther party, we have always said, that spotaniety is the art of the quote. and particularly those who are in the baltimore putting themselves what they fail to consider is how many people in that are neighborhood were

dependent on the cbs drug -- cvs drug story or how many older neighbors of those same young people were looking forward to the day that they could called that burned-down senior citizens home, a home for themselves. they were looking forward to it being completed. they were looking forward to it to the comfort of that senior home. simply put madam speaker. since this destruction of the neighborhood is not protesting, it's pillagging. it's not political. it's pillagging, nothing more,

nothing less. it's pillagging your own neighborhood. that makes no sense. that's throwing the candy bar away. at least -- it makes no sense to pillage your own neighborhood and deny our own neighborhood. beyond baltimore, we must look at the whole picture of violence in our nation. the violence that has plagued baltimore didn't come out of nowhere. it wasn't just a spark out of nowh madam speaker, it was a response out of frustration that

so many african-americans feel it is important of yet another young african-american man at the hand of our nation's police. it was sparked by the flames of frustration that far too many in our nation's youth are facing each and every day of their lives. unemployment, disrespect broken-down homes, broken-down communities, failed education systems. all these frustrations frustrations that denies them a sense that there is a future for them in this nation. inflamed all the fires until baltimore or in other places

across this nation. that said, madam speaker for my friend fred hamp ton and my friend, adam clark in 1969, and now freddie gray in 2015, we have seen far too many young men of color fall victim to the very same people who were sworn to serve and protect. this moment is demonstrating the power of a mother's love, the power of a mother's courage. she walked scomboo harm's way, straightforward located her son

and as she is demonstrating the power that is beyond imagination and beyond all everything. to honor her and the important role and all mothers, our mothers, including my own mother, to honor them and honor all the role, and the important role they play and taking men out of the streets and ending the violence that plagues our communities all across this nation i am humbly calling on america's mothers those in the african-american community and those outside of the african-american community those in urban areas and those in rural areas, all american

mothers, to wearing yell o', to wearing yellow, to wearing yellow on mother's day in a symbolic show of solidarity and to create a mother' in yellow movement to end the violence that plagues this nation cities and this nation's communities this nation's neighborhood. mothers rise up now. use this as an occasion to take back the streets. . r se of loss r ahild, yr see iny in ter of t futur youchild, tt pain must. anyou hwer top it.

mr.peak, i thank you and ld bk the balancof my time. the speaker pro te the gentleman yck the lance hisim unr the speaker's nounced policy ofanuary 6, 2015h leman from texas, poe, ecognized fo teas the desige of the mority lead. mr. e:hank you madam speak. ts eaerope franc focused his message on the worldwide persutiof christns. aro th wld, christns ar bng irined, torred and killefor thr faith. ing toheew rear center, no religious gro is percuted in more countes around t world tn chrtian istianface persecutioin 102 cuntrs t of about 190-plus tha haven t world t was in 13. so tonight i mentionnly eightthoseountries.

an,orth kea, pakistan egyp libya syriairaq kea. d i'l a menti that terroris group isis. christian pasornd american citizende abdudi, h been held in an irani jail for the as2 1/2 yrsecau hs a christian weeks before he tued 7, pastor's n wrote his priso her, invitgim to come birthday party r per toini wrote, daddyves u much. i longo be forou bird this rni hapen. t my cins are ge fro his son lebrated his 7th birthdaast mth it was his dirday whot h d. s dad is still injail ouse becse he'sstia g to the 2015n

door d watch list north rea is the worst pcur of chranin t who wor. christianarsentorison camps r possession of bibles, whic a crime. mare evexeced because thy arhians. tae depament estites tht 80,0000orth reanre imprisonednd later --abor camps, ma becae ofheirious ie. in nr of 2 north korn chrisans were repordly exuted for possessionof bles andsouth koreaneligus films. no tpaktan. ptan,n paktanwo uici blas hit - suicid blasts hit achstia chch las ng 17

christis. a pistalibanplitter rop claime responsibity fothe attack whicleft anotr 80 pple re last wee two muslimseading into frayrayers at their mosque in the sa cit where church were g boed came aoss a 14-year-old stian boy. ey spped him asked him his relious affiatn. andoy proudly sd, i the i was chris. theytaed beati me,he . then i triedo ru th b's fled me thr the stetthey called m- cgh and thw kese me and seten fire. ts pastanoy tis hristi cing ove5% of his body. in egypt, over a ree-da period in013, cc cisans exenced the woingle attk ag r churches years,

wh 40 christia chches estr a or00 other sis sevely damaged. thousas andousandf ptiriians are eti to hfled their homeland gy. caof rigus percution. moscoptic chriss i ept have a tatto a cross o thir wrist m spker. it's a sigofvo t their christi fh. an arabic chrisaneaer told somee cover that tatt ithe clasoo. he h aross around hik r thessroom to see the acher waenrad. heed amman ad ked h mus cl qte, what are yougoing doth him? sclassmateshee amman to d. he rdedn an egyia classrm bee he was a

christian. in libya, isis captured a beheaded 21 people becaehey re chrtis from near egypt. whn etims famit' anted to buila chur in theihonor, they re atcked bynousm mob anat. inyria, the siion e worsforistians. inune, 20 a clr of christia vill were total stroyed. e headall fransn the mide east that o000nhitants of therchillag no m an 10 opleemain illage of,0 cisans. are le. syria it's not just aad's thugs killing chriians, o sn opveeen kidnappebyhe rebel gros. milantsxped 90% of

chriian theity oms andhe priar sa that in populn of.75 millio 400syrihrisanve fle syri in ar then toraq. iry isust ble eber christian chesnraq has declined fm 3 in003 to 57 da plac cistians cald their home sie the ime ojesus,iraq chris poputi h almos entily dispear. the popution has droed0% nce the fi gulf war. in kenya, chstians aalso perted. at:3inhe morning ail this ar terrost grou ashabab attacked chool. a sdentn thscol said

that whethe nmen arive at h itory, cldhe eopening dos daski the people whoeing inswhether they were cist oether thewere musli. herwh said. if we a ristou weshotn the sp tol the -- a spokmafor e terror groutold bbc it attacked the scho bse its on muslim land anit's cooniz by non-miss lum - n-muim of the op whoere slaughterhat dazeause y werehrtian, manyf them were sdes. eenars kids.whethe samerori tacked hopping ll in kenya i 23, ty took a num oppe captive. onem was rd him. ex me, joshua hakim en joshuaot clo thi tacrs, shod them his d. bhe cve up s christian name his thum y to me go, he reed

ter. then anananamforward d they saihat te of mammas mother. wn th indi cn't sw, ey jusot h on st. here a man unnam christianartyrshat are perseced fheir h, madam spker. t persetion of christians habe goin siete wa stod for histen was onedor haith iact v. what the cnt account owss that t persecutn ofchriiansunthwo the mber is growing an eing tlerad by more govemes and in my opin cred by me, some non-ristian sociees we cannot denythis rea we st tell it liket peopl should not make excuses fo covpheidesea rsecutof can toughoutthe rld. govemeserroristrops dthers shd ot g passand at etunting

r to ll christns. pblem irogue stes likakisn and iran and t gue trorist group keis get thritimacy power from imprisonin and lling christis. as a coury, th unittate eeo re-exami its latiship witstates tt pet chstia. maybe shoulgive these countes lmemoney start ecting sad of arresting christians. and we nd toingar mided when itos to pring groups like isis as towhatal are. ey thell in the me of tir radal religion. damonof the pillars oour on and a dation of our repubc is the principle of regi frdo religiousreer al faiths. its cotition cted iet entf the cotitu.

anthfive rhts mentione ithe first ameneneligioreedom nd lers mentioned rs not by accide. refathewer serious aut t protectioof rious liberty it a bas c ri an right and inalienable rit. cepilgrims cto aca to e regious persecn ineurope our tihas oo br beacon t world for religio fedor all h, js, muslim bes, cisans an others hindu cisti and oe. b theuestion bere us today is will we remain a on for prosuted chstia aroun the worl is ppey writt in scria parble by the good lod --arell t go lrd i'll paraphrase. he sai a wasveng wn a ro he fell a

robbs. e man w beateand perty s sten and he was fto dea other people traveled dn t same ro. wictim but they psed thetheride the ro thewent r own way d avoided this vicm. madam speaker,anpa onth side whil st worldwidereeing aten. beheaded and brutazed caus teir rigious fths beng cisti we must be theak tha shiightly inro protection ofig freedom r all inclu chriss. d th just th i is. el. thspeakepro mpor t gtlem yies back la te. puuanto ause 12-a of le

1, thouse stds in reces bjeo the ca the chair.

determine if white students or african-american students attended, because they provided all the same materials that white schools offered.

after graduating from elementary school, african-american students attended integrated middle and high schools. while they were certainly no supporters of segregation and obviously saw the injustice of attending separate elementary schools, the african-american community was very proud of their schools because these were excellent facilities. while there was support for the idea of integration, there was some resistance from the teachers and local chapter of the naacp that you're the loss of the institution and jobs. >> watch all of our events on saturday and sunday morning at 10:00 on c-span3. >> coming up, president obama's joint news conference with the japanese prime minister.

then the arrival for the japanese prime minister's state visit. then we will show you some of the reaction to ongoing protests and riots in baltimore. the city is mostly closed tonight following the writing and looting. the washington post is reporting museums, federal offices universities and the orioles stadium have locked their doors out of here that violence could resume. there is a citywide curfew despite the presence of national guard and police officers. there was a brief relapse in writing -- rioting this afternoon. president obama spoke at length on the riots and protests in baltimore. his comments were from a conference with the japanese prime minister. we will show you the full conference now, which includes remarks on u.s.-japanese relations and trade negotiations.

president obama: it is an honor to welcome my partner and friend, prime minister abe, to the white house. i am told there is a phrase in japanese culture that speaks to the spirit that brings us together. it is an idea rooted in loyalty an expression of mutuality respect, and shared obligation. it transcends any specific moment or challenge. the foundation of a relationship that endures. it allows us to say that the united states and japan stand together. [speaking japanese] "with and for each other." this is the essence of the alliance between the u.s. and japan. the prime minister and i have the opportunity to visit our memorial to president lincoln who believe great conflict had to be followed with reconciliation.

on behalf of the american people, i want to thank you for your visit to arlington national cemetery your jester is a powerful reminder that the past can be overcome. former adversaries can become the closest of allies. and nations can build a future together. our nations have become not just allies, but true partners and friends. that mutual affection will be on display tomorrow, when shinzo becomes the first japanese prime minister to address a joint meeting of congress. and we are global partners that stand together for security and human dignity around the world opposing russia's aggression against ukraine, providing relief to millions threatened by isil, combating ebola and offering help to the people of nepal, who are in our prayers today. this friendship includes my partnership with prime minister

abe. since taking office, i have worked to rebalance foreign policy to make sure we are playing a balanced role in the asian pacific. i am grateful to shinzo for his commitment to the alliance. she is pursuing a vision of japan where the economy is reinvigorated and where japan makes greater contributions to security and peace in the region and around the world. thank you. i believe the progress we have made today will help to guide the u.s.-japanese partnership for decades to come. specifically, we talked about transforming our security alliance. for the first time in nearly two decades, we have updated the guidelines for defense. our forces will be more flexible and better prepared.

our forces will train and operate more closely, expand our cooperation on cyber threat and in space. japan will take on greater roles and responsibility in the asia-pacific and around the world. our new guidelines complement our effort to realign u.s. forces across the region including okinawa to lessen our effect on local communities. i have reaffirmed our commitment to move forward with relocation of marines from okinawa to guam. our treaty commitment is absolute. we share a concern about china's activities and the south china sea. concerns of international law

and peaceful resolutions to dispute. we remain united in pursuit of peaceful coordination in the korean peninsula and addressing provocations. we fully support japan's effort to resolve the effort of abduction of japanese citizens. i met with the mother of one of the abductees, so i know how important this is to the japanese people. meanwhile, our growing trilateral cooperation with korea and australia gives us new opportunities to enhance the security across the region. with respect to trade, we reviewed the progress our teams have made toward the transpacific partnership. i know the politics with long can be hard in both countries. i know that prime minister abe is committed to getting this done. i am confident we will. there are many japanese cars in

america. i want to see more american cars in japan as well. tpp will help level the playing field. it will be good for the workers of our countries. moreover tpp will have strong protections for workers and environment. japan and the united states try to be responsible when it comes to corporate citizenship and high standards will be good for us and the region. based on the progress we have made, prime minister abe have discussed how we will work together to lead our partners to swift and successful conclusions of our negotiations. we also agreed on climate change. the countries that have made the largest pledges to the climate

fund were committed to helping nations seize the opportunities to transitioning to low carbon economies. we discussed the importance of all major economies setting ambitious targets to reduce emissions to meet a target in paris. finally, we agreed to keep investing in our people. so that they and our country can reach full potential. i want to once again commend the promised her for his efforts to bring more japanese women into the workforce. it is very much my view in the u.s. and around the world that women when they are given opportunity, when they are full-fledged members of the political community and economic community, when they have opportunity, those countries succeed. it is good for everybody.

prime minister arigato. interpreter: thank you for inviting me to make an official visit. 70 years after the war. working together with you at the

lincoln memorial will be an extraordinary memory to be cherished. we have a dream. that is to create a world of peace and prosperity. to realize this common dream japan and the united states will pave the way towards a new era. i was able to confirm this resolved with president obama in this milestone year of 70 years after the war. today, we turn a new page in the history of the u.s.-japan alliance, which exceeds half a century. this is an alliance within the context of the world.

japan and the u.s. our partners who share basic values like freedom, democracy, and basic human rights and the rule of law. the u.s.-japan alliance is characterized the firmness of its bond and is indispensable to the peace and stability of not only the asia-pacific, but the world. we are united in our resoluteness in opposing unilateral attempts to change the status quo in whatever form. disputes should be resolved peacefully, based on international law, and not through coercion or intimidation. japan welcomes the united states policy of rebalancing with emphasis on the asia-pacific.

and president obama has expressed his support for japan's principles of future bidding to peace through coordination of these policies. our alliance will no doubt be further strengthened. against this backdrop, we have reaffirmed our resolve to steadily move forward with realignment of u.s. forces in japan. the dangers arising from the air station being surrounded by housing and schools should be eliminated by relocation as soon as possible. we will move forward with mitigating impact founded on a strong relationship of trust with japan and the u.s. this is prosperity that brings peace. we are eager to see the early conclusions of the tpp.

on the bilateral outstanding issues, we welcome the fact significant process -- progress was made. we will continue to cooperate to lead the tpp talks to his last phase. we have confirmed we would work together for the successful conclusion of talks. in addition, with regards to the situation in east asia abduction by north korea nuclearization of iran, and the threat of terrorism, climate change, communicable diseases the world has a multitude of issues facing it. when it comes to the future of japan and the united states,

there are infinite possibilities. energy infrastructure, science and technology. and in addition to this, we agree that we would cooperate and move forward in making investments for the future. i would like to express my heartfelt respect once again to president obama. and the citizens of united states for taking on the multiple challenges of the world . yesterday, i visited the jfk library in boston. i saw president kennedy deliver his inauguration speech. it resonated with me. it still has a lingering effect. i recall the following quote "my

fellow citizens of the world ask not what america will do for you, but what together, we can do for the freedom of mankind." japan wants to be a country that can respond to such calls. hand-in-hand we want to work together with the united states to spread basic values throughout the world, such as those of freedom and democracy. and we want to be a country that can contribute to peace and prosperity of the world. in visiting the united states, i have had a heartfelt reception why all citizens of the united states. i would like to express my gratitude.

lastly, i would like to emphasize the following. as we stand here, we will be starting a new era for japan and the united states. i think that 70 years from now our children and grandchildren will look back on the talks we had as one of historical significance. thank you very much. president obama: we will take a couple of questions. >> thank you, mr. president. first of all, i want to know if you think there is a risk. that it might be seen as a provocation in beijing or the south china seas. for mr. abe you stopped short of a full apology for japan's actions, in world war ii.

including with regard the estimated 200,000 women enslaved by imperial forces. would you make an apology for that today. thank you? president obama: i think it's very important to recognize that the u.s.-japan alliance hasn't just been good for the united states and japan, it's been good for the asia pacific region and the world. the basic foundation of peace, stability ensuring that territorial borders were respected, freedom of navigation, all that has underwritten the incredible growth that's taking place in the asia pacific region. china has benefited from it. it's on that basis that china

became an economic juggernaut that ended up being incorporated into global trade. and so no, we don't thinkit should be seen as a continuation of the work we have done to ensure we have a stable area where there are no diplomatic conflicts, healthy competition. . we have been able to maintain forward progress for a whole bunch of nations. our treaty alliances have been critical for that. the u.s., serving as an asia-pacific power, has been great. -- critical. and we welcome china's useful rise.

-- peaceful rise. china is a booming potential market. we think it allows china to potentially share some burdens with us. in helping countries not as far along. we think it is good that hundreds of millions of citizens have been able to rise out of poverty at incredible speed. they could not have done that had it not been for a stable trading system and world order. that is underwritten in large part by the work our alliances to. -- do. it will be important for us to continue to adapt to do challenges -- new challenges. part of the goal is the same principles the alliance was founded on continually update to concerns about cyber threats. that we are nimble and

responsive to potential conflicts that may arise because of maritime disputes. but i think we have to do it in a way that brings in china and other countries into a common effort to maintain order and peace in the region. we are seeking to strengthen military cooperation with china even as we continue to upgrade our alliance efforts. obviously, the republican committee is a critical part of our alliance. the trilateral alliance will be very important. i do not want to minimize the fact there are some real tensions that have arisen. with china, around its approach to maritime issues.

but that is not an issue that is arising as a consequence of the u.s.-japan alliance. it is primarily a conflict between china and various claimants throughout east asia and southeast asia. and they feel that, rather than resolve these issues through normal dispute settlements they are flexing their muscles. and we have said to china what we would say to any country in that circumstance. that is the wrong way to go about it. we will continue to work with all countries in the region starting with our treaty allies, to make sure basic international norms continue to be observed.

interpreter: i am deeply pained to think about the comfort women who experienced pain and suffering as a result of victimization due to human trafficking. this is a feeling i share equally with my predecessors. the abe cabinet upholds our statement. based on this position, japan has made various efforts to provide realistic relief for comfort women. throughout the 20th century women's basic human rights have been infringed upon during war. we intend to make the 21st century old world -- a world with no violations against women. i promise the general assembly

last year that japan would lead the international community in eliminating sexual violence during conflict. for an international framework japan provided approximately $12 million in 2014 and decided it would provide approximately $22 million in 2015. in any case, the 21st century should be an age where women's rights are never infringed upon. that is our strong resolve. thank you very much.

>> i am from nhk. in the east china sea, china continues to make forays into the ocean. islamic state is still very active. how do the u.s. and japan intend to collaborate and what do you expect of each other in terms of actions taken with regard to exercise of self-defense and new guidelines? there is strong concern japan will become involved in america's wars. how does the prime minister intend to dispel the fears, and what is president obama's take on the concerns? interpreter: on extremism and radicalism, which is on the

rise, the world community should unite to counter such extremism. moderation is the best method. we have to face extremism. there are moderates at the forefront facing extremism, and we want to support them. with the rise of extremism there are refugees. and also, there are countries faced with difficulties. to these countries, it is important that we provide support appropriately. to the moderate countries, we

need to tell them they are not alone or isolated in the international society. moderate countries should be supported. and we need to express that at all times. i believe that is important. in the middle east, there are people who are living there improving the welfare and likelihood of these people. the u.s. and japan would like to cooperate to respond to those challenges. another point, the guidelines, defense guidelines. and with regard to security legislation we might be involved or get caught up in war. people tend to label. it is very unfortunate, labeling

activities of this kind. it is not the first time it has occurred. in 1960, when we revised the security treaty, some people said that we would be involved in the wars of the united states. that was the core of the criticism then. it has been 55 years. this criticism has been proved totally wrong and that is very clear and evident. history has proved this. our choice at the time to revise the security treaty, and in case japan suffered a aggression we would respond through cooperation. in the far east, to maintain

security, japan's facilities would be leveraged. and u.s. through such activities japan's safety was protected and prosperity happened and safety in asia and the asia-pacific has been maintained. to further strengthen this trend is provided for through the new guidelines and seamless response is made possible. and by so doing, deterrence would be enhanced. japan-u.s. alliance would be more efficient and more functional. deterrence and response capabilities would be heightened as a result. and this would lead to peace and prosperity of japan and regional peace and prosperity as well. this is my firm conviction. in the streamlining of the laws,

i should like to explain to the citizens and the parliament in a detailed fashion. president obama: ultimately the people of japan and their elected representatives will be making decisions about how best to approach their defense. but i think it's important to notice, as prime minister abe said, that we have seen over multiple decades now that japan is a peace-loving country, having absorbed some very difficult lessons from the past, japan does not engage in aggression on the international stage or in its region. and that the alliance that has been built with the united

states is principally one that seeks to defend our countries from potential attack or aggression. and what the new defense guidelines and the collective defense approach that prime minister abe's proposing, simply upgrades our ability to carry out those core functions. we do share, as people and countries all around the world share, a determination to eliminate the kind of barbaric terrorist acts perpetrated by organizations like isil that have resulted in the death of innocent citizens. from the united states, from japan, from other countries and most of all from muslim

countries. and that's why we have a broad-based coalition designed to defeat isil. and we will continue to work with a wide range of countries around the world in our counterterrorism efforts. japan's cooperation in that is vital and appreciated. but there are many ways in which coalition members participate. japan's willingness and commitment to provide humanitarian assistance makes an enormous difference in countries that have been destabilized. japan's willingness to serve in areas of peace keeping and working with other countries to rebuild after they've been destroyed makes a big difference. so i think it's important to recognize we do not expect some instant and major transformation in terms of how japan projects

military power. but we do expect that japan, like all of our allies and like ourselves, will continue to adapt to new threats. understanding that our basic core principle is not territorial ambition, it's not aggression towards others, but it's simply to defend prosperity and liberty and the sovereignty of countries as we have done for a very long time now. as we have done together for a very long time. questioner: thank you, mr. president. as you know, the national guard is now on the streets of baltimore. the latest aftermath in a series of what have been high profile confrontations between black men and police officers. and there seems to be growing frustration among

african-american leaders that not enough is being done quickly enough. mark l'oreal of -- mark morial of the urban league said the u.s. is in a state of emergency of tremendous proportions. the president of the naacp legal defense fund says, we are in the throes of a national crisis. are we in the throes of a national crisis? what are you prepared to do about it? both in terms of baltimore and the larger picture? and what do you say to critics who say that since the death of trayvon martin you have not been aggressive enough in your response? and to prime minister abe, how important is a pacific trade deal to keeping the influence of china in check, both economically and militarily? and do you agree with president obama when he says that failing to complete a deal will simply further china's influence? thank you. president obama: before i answer the question about baltimore i'm going to horn in on your question to prime minister abe. i've been very clear that t.p.p.

is good for american businesses and american workers. regardless of what china's doing. and we will make the case on the merits as to why it will open up markets for american goods american exports and create american jobs. so this is not simply a defensive agreement, this is something that is going to be part and parcel of our broader economic agenda moving forward. and when 95% of the world's markets are outside our shores we have to make sure we're out there competing and i'm confident we can compete. with respect to baltimore, let me make a couple of points. first, obviously our thoughts continue to be with the family of freddie gray. understandably they want answers. d.o.j. has opened an investigation. it is working with local law enforcement to find out exactly what happened and i think there should be full transparency and

accountability. second, my thoughts are with the police officers who were injured in last night's disturbances. it underscores that that's a tough job and we have to keep that in mind and my hope is that they can heal and get back to work as soon as possible. point number three, there's no excuse for the kind of violence we saw yesterday. it is counterproductive. when individuals get crowbars and start prying open doors to a lot, they're not protesting. -- doors to loot, they're not protesting. they're not making a statement. they're stealing. when they burn down a building they're committing arson. and they're destroying and undermining businesses and

opportunities in their own communities that rob jobs and opportunity from people in that area. so it is entirely appropriate that the mayor of baltimore, who i spoke to yesterday, and the governor, who i spoke to yesterday, work to stop that kind of senseless violence and destruction. that is not a protest. that is not a statement. it's people -- a handful of people taking advantage of the situation for their own purposes and they need to be treated as criminals. point number four. the violence that happened yesterday distracted from the fact that you had seen multiple days of peaceful protests that

were focused on entirely legitimate concerns of these communities in baltimore. led by clergy and community leaders and they were constructive and they were thoughtful. and frankly didn't get that much attention. and one burning building will be looped on television over and over and over again and the thousands of demonstrators who did it the right way i think have been lost in the discussion. the overwhelming majority of the community in baltimore i think have handled this appropriately. expressing real concern and outrage over the possibility that our laws do not apply evenly in the case of mr. gray and that accountability needs to exist. i think we have to give them credit. my understanding is you've got some of the same organizers now

going back into these communities to try to clean up in the aftermath of a handful of criminals and thugs who tore up the place. what they were doing, what those community leaders and clergy and others were doing, that is a statement. that's the kind of organizing that needs to take place if we're going to tackle this problem and they deserve credit for it and we should be lifting them up. point number five. and i've got six. because this is important. since ferguson and the task force that we put together, we have seen too many instances of what appears to be police officers interacting with

individuals, primarily african-american, often poor, in ways that raise troubling questions. and it comes up, it seems like once a week now or once every couple of weeks, and so i think it is pretty understandable why the leaders of civil rights organizations, but more importantly moms and dads across the country start saying, this is a crisis. what i'd say is, there has been a slow rolling crisis and been going on for a long time. this isn't new. and we shouldn't pretend that it's new. the good news is that perhaps there is some newfound awareness

because of social media and video cameras and so forth that there are problems and challenges when it comes to how policing and our laws are applied in certain communities and we have to pay attention to it and respond. what's also good news is the task force that was made up of law enforcement and community activists that we brought to the white house have come up with very constructive, concrete proposals that if adopted by local communities and by states and by counties, by law enforcement generally, would make a difference. wouldn't solve every problem, but would make a concrete difference in rebuilding trust and making sure that the overwhelming majority of effective, honest and fair law enforcement officers, that they're able to do their job better because it will weed out

or retrain or put a stop to those handful who may be not doing what they are supposed to be doing. now the challenge for us for the federal government is we don't run these police forces. i can't federalize every police force in the country and force them to retrain, but what i can do is to start working with them collaboratively so they can begin this process of change themselves. and coming out of the task force that we put together, we are now working with local communities. department of justice has announced a grant program for those jurisdictions that want to purchase body cameras. we are going to be issuing grants for those jurisdictions that are prepared to start trying to implement some of the new training and data collection and other things that can make a difference and we're going to

keep working on with those local jurisdictions so that they can begin to make the changes that are necessary. i think it's going to be important for organizations like the fraternal order of police and other police unions and other organizations to acknowledge that this is not good for police. we have to own up to the fact that occasionally there are going to be problems here, just as there are in every other occupation. there are some bad politicians who are corrupt. there are folks in the business community or on wall street that don't do the right thing, well there are some police who aren't doing the right thing. and rather than close ranks, what we have seen is a number of thoughtful police chiefs and commissioners and others recognize they have to get their

arms around this thing and work together with the community to solve the problem. and we are committed to facilitating that process. so the heads of our cops agency that helps with community policing, they are already out in baltimore. our head assistant attorney general for civil rights division is already out in baltimore, but we are going to be working with every city and jurisdiction around the country to try to help them implement some solutions that we know work. i'll make my final point, i'm sorry mr. prime minister, but this is a pretty important issue for us. we can't just leave this to the police. i think there are police departments that have to do some soul searching. i think there are some communities that have to do some soul searching, but we as a country have to do some soul searching.

this is not new. it's been going on for decades. and without making any excuses for criminal activities that take place in the communities, what we also know is that if you have impoverished communities that have been stripped away of opportunity, where children are born into abject poverty. they've got parents often because of substance abuse problems or incarceration or lack of education themselves can't do right by their kids. if it's more likely that those kids end up in jail or dead than that they go to college. in communities where there are no fathers who can provide guidance to young men. communities that where there's no investment and manufacturing

has been stripped away. and drugs have flooded the community and the drug industry ends up being the employer for a whole lot of folks. in those environments, if they -- we think we are going to send police to contain the dirty work without as a nation and as society saying what can we do to change those communities, to help uplift those communities and give those kids opportunity, then we're not going to solve this problem, and go through the same cycles of periodic conflicts between the police and communities and the occasional riots in the streets and everybody will have concern

-- feign concern until it goes away and then we go about our business as usual. if we are serious about solving this problem, we not only have to help the police but what can we do, the rest of us, to provide early education to these kids, to make sure we are reforming our criminal justice system so it's not just a pipeline from schools to prisons, so we are not rendering men in these communities unemployable because of a felony record for a nonviolent drug offense, that we're making investments so they can get the training they need to find jobs. that's hard. that requires more than just the occasional news report or task force and there is a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now.

i'm not under an illusion that under this congress, we will get massive investments into urban communities. so we will try to find to make a difference in job training and school reform, and some investments in infrastructure in these communities trying to attract new businesses. but if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could, it's just it would require everybody saying this is important, this is significant. and that we don't pay attention to these communities when there is a cvs burning or there is a

riot or when a young man gets shot or has his spine snapped. we are paying attention all the time because we consider those kids are our kids and they are important and shouldn't be living in poverty and violence. that's how i feel. i think there are a lot of good-meaning people around the country that feel that way, but that kind of political mobilization we haven't seen in quite some time and i have tried to promote those ideas that would make a difference, but i think we all understand that politics of that is tough because it's easy to ignore those problems, or treat them just as law an order issue as opposed to a social issue. that's a long answer, but i feel strongly about it. prime minister abe: first of all, t.p.p., this is not something we create out of consciousness about china. the economic growth of the region will be a positive and

create opportunities for japan and united states and around the world. it is such that to the eyes of many countries, it has to become a model, a model to china. it is an ambitious attempt to create a new economic tear -- tier so that people, goods and money will flow freely within the asia-pacific region. it's a new economic region. freedom, democracy, basic human rights and rule of law with countries who share these universal values will create a new rule. this rule benefits regional prosperity. and it also has strategic significance related to regional stability. on these points we see completely eye to eye between president obama and myself.

the early conclusion of t.p.p. by achieving this, this will work on other countries and nonmembers of the t.p.p. to follow rules and i believe this will lead to prosperity. reporter: china is working towards the establishment of the aiid and enhances its influence in the international community and china. what is the strategic significance of the early conclusion of the t.p.p.? and the next question is to president obama, do you have confidence or how do you intend to work on congress to pass the t.p.p.-related bills and how

confident will you be able to pass this bill? prime minister abe: on the t.p.p., as i mentioned in my answer previously, in the asia-pacific region, this is a region where growth is very prominent and in such a region for people and goods and money under proper rules to flow freely. without a doubt, the countries participating in the t.p.p. and asia pacific and the people in the countries will be able to lead. so for this purpose as well, as soon as possible, with the general public understanding towards early conclusion of the t.p.p. and in this context

china, united states and -- japan and that united states we want to bring about an early , conclusion of the t.p.p. on the aiid, in asia, there is a tremendous demand for infrastructure and it is important. and we see eye to eye between china and myself and this is a point that we see eye to eye on many countries. for the japan to participate in the aiid is a decision we have not taken yet but to create such an enormous financial institution and since this will have an enormous impact on asian countries, a fair government is necessary.

in particular, the board to review individual progress and to approve of it is indispensible. and to sustainability and the , environment and society and the impact of this should be considered. we need to secure this. it's not only about lending, but the borrowing nations. for example various infrastructure projects that may not be sustainable. it may have too much of a burden on the environment. if that is the case, this will be a very negative result for the citizens living in the countries. it will prove to be a burden. and so in that sense, a proper review as to whether lending the

money to a country will be of benefit to the country. rigorous review is very important. from japan's standpoint, the two points to be secured is very important. from a certain standpoint japan , and the united states should cooperate and we need to continue dialogue with china and it is my intention to do so. president obama: let me agree with prime minister abe when it comes to the infrastructure bank proposal that has been made by china. asia needs infrastructure. there are a lot of countries that have difficulty financing infrastructure, but if they got that put in place and developed, they can grow much more rapidly and it's good for everybody. it's good for that country, it's good for the world economy, it's good for us, we want more markets, to be able to get our goods in and sell our services

that are some of the best in the world. and china's got a lot of money. it has been running a big surplus for quite some time. to the extent that china wants to put capital into development projects around the region that's a positive. that's a good thing. so let me be very clear and dispel this notion that we were opposed or opposed to other countries participating in the asia infrastructure bank. that is not true. it sprung up out of one story after the brits decided they were going to join up and folks have just been running with it. and there have been all these editorials subsequently based on these reports, not from any official position of the united states government but from a series of behind the scenes quotes.

what we have said and what we said to all the other countries involved is exactly what prime minister abe said, if we are going to have a multi lateral lending institution, then you have to have some guidelines by which it's going to operate. that's how the world bank operates. that's how the i.m.f. operates. there may be weighted votes in terms of who's the biggest contributor, but you've got to have some transparency in terms of how the thing is going to operate, because if not, a number of things can happen. number one, money could end up flowing that is misused or doesn't have high accounting standards and we don't know what happens to money that is going into projects. as prime minister abe said, the projects themselves may not be well designed.

they may be good for the leaders of some countries and contractors, but may not be good for the actual people who live there. and the reason i can say that is because in the past, some of the efforts of multi lateral institutions that the united states set up didn't always do right by the actual people in those countries. and we learned some lessons from that and got better at making sure we were listening to the community and thinking about how this would affect the environment, and whether it was sustainable. and so, our simple point to everybody in these conversations around the asia infrastructure bank is, let's make sure we are running it based on best practices, based on what we've learned from the entire post-war era and how multi lateral financing mechanisms have worked.

and if, in fact, the asia infrastructure bank that is being set up ends up having those kinds of safeguards is run in a way that ultimately is actually going to lead to good infrastructure and benefit the borrowing countries, then we're all for it and look forward to collaborating with the asia infrastructure bank just like we do with the asia development bank and the world bank on a whole bunch of stuff. so this could be a positive thing. but if it's not run well, then it could be a negative thing. and what we don't want to do is just be participating in something and providing cover for an institution that does not end up doing right by its people.