tv U.S. House Legislative Business CSPAN May 14, 2015 12:00pm-5:31pm EDT
12:00 pm
onto, that provides oversight for obamacare. guest: so, thank you congressman murphy. what congressman murphy from pennsylvania -- and he is the chairman of the oversight subcommittee at energy and commerce -- what he is referring to is a bill that i am initiating with a number of colleagues calling for a special inspector general to oversee the affordable care act. >> available at c-span.org. a long day ahead in the u.s. house. theelt take up the defense authorization bill later starting this afternoon with bail passed in the senate that would give congressional overview to any iran deal nuclear deal. live coverage of the house here on c-span. pray, loving and gracious god we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and aware of your presence among us we may all face the tasks of this day. bless the members of the
12:01 pm
people's house, help them to think clearly, speak confidently and act courageously in the belief that all nobel service is based upon patience truth and love. in the wake of the train derailment earlier this week americans are reminded of the needs of our domestic infrastructure. may all citizens feel empowered to encourage their representatives to use their best judgment in considering how to address the many needs of our nation. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen the speaker: the chair has examined the journal the last day's proceedings. pursuant to clause 1, rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by mr. higgins.
12:02 pm
mr. higgins: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15-minute requests for one-mint speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: permission to address the house for one minute. . the house of representatives will consider the national defense authorization act. under the leadership of armed services committee chairman, the committee voted 60-2 with almost unanimous bipartisan support. our national security depends on it. while our nation faces a complex and threatening environment, at home and abroad, the ndaa provides resources to establish a strong national defense, protect american families and support our brave service members. as chair of the subcommittee of emerging threats working with
12:03 pm
ranking member jim langevin, i'm pleased this bill addresses the growing threats posed by cyberattacks and enemies' use of unconventional warfare. this preserves means to train and equip special operations to defend america now and in the future. the ndaa has been widely supported and should not be held hostage through other legislation. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president never forget september 11 and the global war on terror and our sympathies to the family of z imzer. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection the the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, every year our economy loses $33 billion to air traffic delays and $121 billion
12:04 pm
and 200 billion to bottlenext. america will lose $270 billion in exports over the next five years. and our decline infrastructure costs lose. this is irrational and government tale negligent. but that is what congress has done. we just spent $50 billion on our roads and bridges and only 8% or $46 billion in 2009 economic stimulus went to infrastructure. yet, we spent over $150 billion rebuilding the infrastructure of iraq and afghanistan. the american society of civil engineers identified the deficit between the projected spending and what is needed to bring infrastructure to a state of good repair. i introduced an act to close this gap. we need to make the investments
12:05 pm
and reject the weak policies that we can no longer afford. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of national police week. and to honor the memory of law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. all americans are grateful for the brave men and women. during my time as deputy mayor of indianapolis, i witnessed the burdens and challengeses faced by our law enforcement officers and amazing families. even more importantly, i witness men and women who joffer came these challenges while displaying compassion and commitment to duty. our nation must embrace them. sadly, we have learned it's estimated every three and a half days we lose an officer in the
12:06 pm
line of duty. we will remember officers killed in 2014 and four officers from indiana and we're thankful for their service and send our thoughts and we we new our appreciation and steadfast commitment to our heroic men and women in blue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to express my support for those struggling with mental health issues. may is mental health awareness month and to reach out to those including veterans and their families. many of our veterans endure trauma during their time in
12:07 pm
service and now forced to face the negative perceptions and stigma associated with mental health care. i lend my voice to a national program designed to reducing those negative views. the department of veterans affairs is encouraging veterans along with family and friends to visit the web site make the connection organization. through the web site veterans and loved ones hear from hundreds of other veterans who may be experiencing similar challenges and learn strategies for support and recovery. this is truly an excellent source of strength for veterans in need of hope. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, yesterday the house of representatives overwhelmingly passed the u.s.a. freedom act, a
12:08 pm
bipartisan bill to surveillance programs. it is a strong bipartisan negotiations to strike a balance in order to protect american citizens' rights without dealing a blow to surveillance efforts. congress did not intend for any law to authorize the collection of personal information from americans. it will help end government overreach while agencies have the tools at their disposal to lawfully pursue suspected terrorists and protect all americans. as a member of the privacy caucus, i applaud the judiciary committee and the permanent select committee on intelligence for working together to write a bill that strikes a balance to protect our constitutional rights without compromising our national security. 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? >> permission to address the
12:09 pm
house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. johnson: thank you mr. speaker, in five legislative days, the highway trust fund authorization will expire. transportation projects all across the country will come to a halt. thousands of workers will be unnecessarily laid off. despite the republicans now having a majority in both house and senate we continue to find ourselves legislating by crisis. today 65% of our nation's roads r-rated than less in good condition. 25% are in poor condition. in texas alone we have over 300,000 miles of public roads, almost 10% of rich r-rated poorly. i urge my colleagues to commit to a long-term plan that will provide certainty increase transit receive news and keep
12:10 pm
workers in our construction industries on the job. especially during this upcoming construction season. as i rode the roads, it is imperative we do our jobs and be responsible legislators. i urge my colleagues to enact a long-term bill as soon as possible. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what reason does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. bilirakis: permission to address the house and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bilirakis: mr. speaker, williams syndrome is a rare neurological disease. may is williams syndrome awareness month. according to the association, there are between 25 and 30,000 individuals living with rare diseases. at least one of whom is a
12:11 pm
constituent of mine who is brian weaver. my bill, the open act, would provide an incentive to test their drugs on a rare disease population. over 150 rare diseases organizations wrote to us saying that the open act improves the quality of life for the nearly 30 million americans suffering from rare diseases. research into williams syndrome to could lead to advances in treating high blood pressure, diabetes, autism and anxiety disorders. we must continue the fight for americans who suffer from rare diseases like williams syndrome. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to dress the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized.
12:12 pm
>> i am filled with a sense of great pride and deeply troubled. i'm proud of the work done by women every day in america. women like my grandmother who raised families and put food on their table and ensured that the children received the education and care that they deserve. i'm offended that as i stand here today, more than 50 years after president kennedy signed the equal pay act into law as a country we are still as women, seeking pay equality. women are only earning 78 cents to every dollar earned by a man. for women of color, that gap is even greater. i'm deeply troubled by the lack of retirement security for american women and all older americans. today i'm alarmed at our failure to provide women who work hard
12:13 pm
without basic benefits like paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave. i'm not intimidated, as a member of congress by these problems. i and my democratic colleagues are energized to correct this in american history because when women succeeds america succeeds. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> seek permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to applaud the passage of h.r. 36, the pain-capable unborn child protection act. this legislation, which i co-sponsored and voted for yesterday will help protect unborn children by limiting abortion after five months. the point at which they can experience pain. this is not a divisive concept.
12:14 pm
in fact, the majority of americans support limiting abortion after five months. it is a fundamental issue of human rights and dignity. i urge my colleagues in the senate to pass the house unborn child protection act and join us in protecting the right of life without which all other rights are possible. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i rise today to acknowledge the important and hard work of chairman thornberry and ranking member smith and all the members of the armed services committee as well as the committee staff on the f.y. 2016 national defense authorization act. i'm particularly proud of the work of the emerging threats and
12:15 pm
capability subcommittee and working with chairman joe wilson on national security priorities such as things like cybersecurity one of the chief threats facing our nation and special operations and counterterrorism and the bill's jefment in undersea capabilities and the virginia module as well as the ohio replacement program. however, i'm concerned that the ndaa reflects a budget approach that locks in sequestration and severs the approach between national security and economic security and unfortunate that a measure that has represented such strong bipartisanship and regular order has been taken hostage by refusing to address the budget control act. mr. speaker, we can do better. we need to avoid sequestration and promptly fund our national defense and i hope these concerns will be addressed as we
12:16 pm
continue working to support the brave men and women who defend this great nation every day. and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. "new york times" get out of the way. "chicago tribune," "san francisco chronicle," not good enough. keep trying harder. may 16 marks the 150th anniversary of the publishing of nevada's oldest daily newspaper the nevada appeal published in the capital city, carson city. i am here to say happy birthday to the nevada appeal, which by the way was one of the first newspapers in the land that was owned by a woman from 1878 to 1880. the paper has been a main stray of nevada journalistic
12:17 pm
enterprise, las vegas sun. reasonon evening gazette. these are the folks who have been here for 150 years. i couldn't be prouder as you as a matter of fact if my more productive years at the age of about nine or 10, i was a paper more for the nevada appeal and i have a picture of it on the front of my columbia stingray bicycle i delivered that on. mr. amodei: happy birthday to the publisher and the editor. way to go. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the woman from nevada seek recognition? ms. titus: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: i rise today to honor the life and legacy of nevada senator howard cannon. in 1982, i served as senator cannon's faculty intern, and every day in my district office i have the privilege of sitting
12:18 pm
behind his personal desk loaned to me by his daughter, nancy. it serves as a constant reminder of his many heroic acts. from delivering paratroopers in the lead plane on d-day, to passionately advocating for nevada's interest on the senate floor, howard cannon's valor and courage are truly unmatched. this june nancy will travel to france to cut the ribbon on the new extension of the d-day paratroopers historical center which features her father's restore c 47, among other artifacts from the invasion. it is a fitting tribe beauty to senator cannon and the brave men and women who risked or lost their lives so we can live in a safer world today. his legacy cannot be summed up in one minute, mr. speaker, so i ask unanimous consent to submit to the the record, an article from the las vegas las vegas renew journal, air warrior had critical d-day job. france to honor the late senator
12:19 pm
cannon. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. without objection. miss ms. herrera beutler: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the life of a remarkable philanthropist, family man business man, and friend from southwest washington who has made a lasting impact on our region. he passed away this week at the age of 94. ed lynch was a cornerstone of our community. known by all as a caring and humble man, he was truly a representation of a servant leader. he was a neighbor and freand. in 1957, ed and his wife moved to washington state to make vancouver their home. and after serving as president he dedicated his remaining years the region we love a better place. during his retirement, he poured his heart and soul into
12:20 pm
southwest washington and taught us all transforming one's community starts with a servant's heart. he remained active and provided unmatched support for business historic society, civic projects, fort vancouver national trust, and the peace health southwest washington medical center up until his last days. his voy brandt personality made him one of the most beloved individuals of the entire region. whether it was something as simple as remembering your name or giving you a book from his collection, he did more for our community than almost everyone. yet he was never more than just one of us. so i honor his memory today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? new york the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, when it comes to the highway trust fund, this congress has kicked
12:21 pm
the can down the road so many times that pretty soon we will not even have a road. in just five legislative days, and five legislative days, the fund will expire and with it 660,000 good paying jobs will be on the chopping block. america cannot lead the next century with broken roads and bridges collapsing. we are spending barely enough to repair the infrastructure of yesterday as china and europe build a transit system worthy of the 21st century. in my district alone we have two large infrastructure projects. the second avenue subway and the east side access. and both of them depend as does large infrastructure projects on federal funding. they create thousands of jobs. and they will cut commute times. they are investments in productivity and economic growth for our country. after a dozen short-term
12:22 pm
extensions, it's time for a long-term highway bill. our future depends on it. our economic growth depends on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. extension of remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to draw attention to the serious issue facing my home state of arizona. for several years, i have been actively involved in the troubling off reservation gaming issue in my home state of arizona involving a tribe nation. it has been attempting to move their ancestral lands in tucson into another tribe's former reservation in the phoenix metropolitan area. for the sole purpose of building a las vegas-style casino. the dismissal of their promise of a voter approved compact and their dismissal of a promise to
12:23 pm
build no additional casinos in phoenix is not something that congress can ignore when the results will be so harmful to what has been a national model. mr. gosar: furthermore, they have been claiming a victory in sort. this sentiment is factually wrong. they won nothing based on their merits. rather the case was dismissed on the draconian doctrine of sovereign immunity which we congress have jurisdiction with and oversight of rather than the courts. i urged immediate adoption of this legislation which passed the same body the last congress and passed the committee by unanimous consent. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker once again we
12:24 pm
are seeing a dose of demagoguery from the republican leadership who continue to threaten the elimination of the export-import bank. mr. carson: the ex-im bank ensures the american companies of all sizes have access to financing for export of american goods from electronics to medical equipment to smart phones and cases of soap. these exports contribute to the strength of the economy and support millions of american jobs. mr. payne: in fact, since 2009, the bank has supported 1.3 million private sector jobs. republican threats to eliminate the bank are threats to the american workers manufacturers, and our economy. last year new jersey exported $36.8 billion in merchandise. failure to re-authorize the eximbank would put billions of dollars in new jersey exports at risk. i urge my colleagues to
12:25 pm
re-authorize the ex-im bank. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? without, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker. there are only five legislative days until the highway trust fund expires. once again this house is governing by crisis and needlessly endangering 660,000 good paying jobs. this needs to stop. the american society of civil engineers gives america's infrastructure an overall grade
12:26 pm
of d minus. 35% of my state of connecticut's bridges are structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, or both. we shouldn't wait until the trains derail, the bridges collapse, or projects shut down before we fund our infrastructure in this nation. a great nation does not respond to crisis with duct tape. a great nation leads by bold action. i he join democrats and republicans -- i join democrats and republicans who are ready to work together to pass a long-term sustainable robust highway and infrastructure bill. the time to act is now. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. hahn: thank you, mr.
12:27 pm
speaker. americans are still shaken by this week's amtrak derailment that took the lives of seven people and left more than 200 injured. our thoughts and prayers are with the families who suffered a loss. but the ntsb said that this tragedy could have been prevented if the corridor had been outfitted with positive train control technology p.t.c. all of us in southern california have known the importance of p.t.c. since the horrible train accident in chatsworth in 2008 that killed 25 people. congress mandated that year that p.t.c. be installed on all our nation's rail lines. across the country rail lines are in the process of installing this lifesaving technology but many are behind schedule. there was no p.t.c. in place where this recent crash occurred. yesterday former republican transportation secretary ray lahood said, the idea that
12:28 pm
amtrak doesn't need more money to implement positive train control is nonsense. and yet yesterday republicans in the house appropriations committee voted to cut the amtrak budget by $252 million. this congress' policy of starving our infrastructure system is endangering americans. enough is enough. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has spiret. for what purpose does the -- expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about with my colleagues to pass a long-term re-authorization of the highway trust fund. if we don't do it now, it's about kicking the can down the road once again. mr. norcross: it's this dysfunction we have here in congress that we can't get
12:29 pm
something done. it's what people talk to us day in and day out about. how disgusted they are. we can't do things. they are crying out for this predictibility. if you were only going to get two paychecks, would you think about buying a house? of course not. industries that rely on our roads, bridges to move goods and services need that predictibility. that funding to make good business decisions. otherwise it would be foolish for them to do that. we all say we want to help our economy grow and certainly i do. let's give the job creators a reason to create jobs. let's re-authorize the highway trust fund for the long term. with that i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the
12:30 pm
women succeed america succeeds and economic agenda for women and families. let me first thank leader pelosi representative matsui and frankle for their dedication to our democratic women's working group and for women and families all across the country. this agenda is about improving the future of our families and the economic security of all women. it's about increasing the access to childcare and retirement security and equal pay for equal work. it's simply unacceptable in 2015 women are still being paid 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. african-american women and latinas are being paid even less. at 64 cents and 56 cents respectively despite doing the same work as men. this is wrong. it is an embarrassment. we must do more to advance the economic security of all women like providing access to high quality and affordable childcare. as a single mother who raised two amazing boys, i know what it's like to struggle to make ends meet. when i was a student in
12:31 pm
california, oftentimes i took my sons to class with me because i could not afford childcare. that was in the day. . let's support this agenda and lift women up. when women succeed, america succeeds. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. matsui: permission to dress the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognize the for one minute. ms. matsui: i rise in strong support for retirement security for women. we celebrate the month of may as older americans' month. this year marks the 50th anniversary of medicare and medicaid. there is no better time to recognize the impact that these important programs have had on our country. they are vital programs to all
12:32 pm
americans. we know they are especially key for women. women on average live longer, have lower retirement savings and spend more on health care. i'm committed to protecting and expanding medicare and social security for women and for all seniors. congress must also pass legislation to support care givers, women and men, who may leave the work force to care for a child or a sick family member. strong security, retirement security policies help women succeed and america succeed. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> permission to dress the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the rules committee just rejected an amendment to the defense bill that i authored to
12:33 pm
protect our troops on the front line by shifting funds from the a-10 an airplane the air force doesn't want to defund and things that our troops need. thousands of men and women have been killed by i.e.d.'s in the past decade. if the a-10 is so critical why wasn't the marines and the air corps asked for a-10's themselves? with a limitless budget, we would love to have other weapons but our troops know we live in a real world with real tradeoffs and america expects to make us the politically difficult decisions to protect our shared national security and the lives of the young americans whom we ask to defend it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the
12:34 pm
gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, as a member for 22 years on the house transportation and infrastructure committee, and supporter of rail, my heart goes out to the families and individuals who suffered in the wake of amtrak derailment in philadelphia. the republican leadership in washington continues its long-term failure to adequately fund transportation infrastructure in this country and starve a.m. tracks track that it needs to operate a national system is one example of the failure of this house. it is sad that the republicans on the day that seven or eight people died and 200 were injured, voted to cut funding
12:35 pm
for amtrak. it is a shame that in the people's house, the people's house that the people that represent the people are stuck on stupid. we need a comprehensive transportation system and we need to stop starving amtrak. it is amazing that this house voted the day of the accident to cut amtrak. it is unacceptable. this is the people's house and the people should be in charge, to whom god has given much and they expect more from the people's house than what happened yesterday in this house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker house of representatives, sir, it is a
12:36 pm
tremendous privilege to represent the people of the first congressional district of alabama and the u.s. house of representatives. i have greatly appreciated the opportunity to serve on the natural resources committee. however, due to my appointment to the committee on rules i resign my seat on the natural resources committee. i look forward to continue to serve the first congressional district during the 114th congress. signed sincerely, bradley bin the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on may 14 2015 at 9:49 a.m. that the senate passed senate concurrent resolution 10
12:37 pm
appointments, board of visitors of the u.s. naval academy, board of visitors of the u.s. merchant marine academy, board of visitors of the u.s. coast guard academy. signed sincerely karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will postponefurther proceedings on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: an act to amend the internal revenue code to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and
12:38 pm
affordable care act. senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of may 13, 2015 the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from new york mr. engel each will be recognized for 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in h.r. 1191, i also ask to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from from new york and ask that he control that time and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from new york in favor of the motion? mr. engel: i do. the speaker pro tempore: on that basis, pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from minnesota will control 30 minutes in opposition. does the gentleman from minnesota wish to yield 10 minutes?
12:39 pm
you will control 10 minutes. mr. ellison: no. wait a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york will control 10 minutes. mr. royce: mr. speaker, on that, i would like to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from new york mr. engel. and i ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york will control an additional 10 minutes of time. without objection. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i'm going to ask unanimous consent that all members of this body have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous materials on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i
12:40 pm
might consume. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this legislation to ensure that congress is positioned to effectively and decisively judge and constrain president obama's nuclear deal with iran should a bad deal be struck. i commend chairman corker and ranking member cardin for bringing this measure before their body. this bill received unanimous support in the other body. and i appreciate as always ranking member engel's cooperation in bringing this to the floor. with today's vote, this legislation will go to the president for his significance mature. the committee has held a series of hearings on the administration's nuclear negotiations with iran. a radical state sponsor of terrorism, which is creating turmoil in a strategicically vital region. it is fair to say that there are
12:41 pm
deep bipartisan concerns about where these negotiations are heading. i fear that the agreement that is coming will be too short, sanctions relief will be too rapid inspectors will be too restricted in iran's missile program will be plain ignored. of course we hope that iran's march towards a nuclear weapon can be stopped. this legislation should strengthen the administration's hand at the negotiating table. but secretary kerry must put its added leverage to use immediately, so that the u.s. can gain much needed ground in the negotiations over the next two months. mr. speaker much of the pressure that brought the islamic republic of iran to the negotiation -- negotiating table was put in place by congress over the objections of the white house, over the objections of
12:42 pm
both republican and democrat presidents and this is unfortunate. we would have more pressure on iran today if the obama administration hadn't pressured the senate to sit on the royce-engel sanctions bill that the foreign affairs committee produced and this house passed by a margin of 400-20. let's be clear, the administration has come around to support the legislation we're debating here today, but not with any enthusiasm. having followed these negotiations since they began in november of 2013, i can tell you that the president would like nothing more than to have no such bill, and have congress sit on the sideline and have them watch an agreement. without this legislation in place what is congress' position if the president reaches a deal with iran?
12:43 pm
currently, there is no limitation on the president's use of waivers to suspend the sanctions congress put in place. no review period for congress to examine and weigh in on the agreement. no requirement that the president certify that iran is complying, and no way for congress to rapidly re-impose sanctions should iran cheat. today, the president can sign a bad deal and we the united states congress are left to read about it in the paper. but with the passage of this bill, all that changes. sanctions relief is frozen until congress receives the agreement and then holds a referendum on its merits. and again i believe this gives the administration a better chance to get to a lasting and meaningful agreement. consider the outstanding and critical issue of verification. the ink wasn't even dry on the
12:44 pm
framework announcement and the chance of death to america led by the supreme leader were still fresh when the leader asserted when the eye tolla asserted that iran -- ayatolla asserted that wouldn't allow access to the nuclear facilities. the head of the revolutionary guard corps seconded that and he said they will not be permitted to inspect the military site in their dreams. when it comes to negotiating this inspections's regime, the negotiators must know that these critical issues will determine congress' assessment of any final deal. once this legislation is signed when secretary kerry sits across from the iranians, he will now have on his mind, i've got to
12:45 pm
take this to congress. mr. speaker, that prospect can only improve these negotiations. and i just hope it's not too late and we aren't too deep into a bad deal. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. . mr. engel: our negotiators continue to hammer out the details of an agreement with iran that will hopefully foreclose all pathways to a nuclear weapon. and as i said again and again, if a deal is struck congress must have a proper role in assessing that deal. that's what we are doing now. that's the purpose of this legislation before us today. and this legislation passed the other body by a vote of 98-1. if a deal is reached, one of the things i'll be looking for first, what will sanctions relief look like?
12:46 pm
will it be a step by step process so that iran is forced to comply with the agreement? how will we ensure that this financial windfall for iran won't just be used to fund terrorism around the world? secondly, will a deal compel iran to come clean on its weaponization work? and thirdly, will iran's leaders agree to a verification and inspection regime that will allow for snap inspections of nuclear sites. snap inspections means that inspectors can go all over iran. they don't need special permission, and we have not been hearing such positive things from the iranian leadership who say that they will never allow inspectors on their military grounds. we need answers to these questions. we need time to take a hard look at any deal and make sure there are no loopholes that iran's leaders might be able to exploit. the bill we are debating today would give us that time. my frustration with these negotiations has stemmed from the fact that iran was not
12:47 pm
required to seize its uranium enrichment while negotiating. we sat down with iran at the very beginning more than a year ago to negotiate with them. we should have said while we are talking you stop enriching. we didn't say that. i think that was a mistake. additionally, we negotiate as iran continues its nefarious behavior around the world. in syria in yemen against israel, support for terrorism. there is no sign that this agreement will lead to iran stopping its support for terrorism or human rights violation. yet massive sanctions relief is on the table. the fact of the matter is it's very frustrating that we are talking with iran only about nuclear weapons. we are not talking about the fact that they are the leading sponsor of terrorism or they are making trouble in syria where so many hundreds of thousands of innocent have died or making trouble in yemen or supporting hezzbola or hamas. it's -- hezbollah or hamas.
12:48 pm
it's really frustrating we are only talking about one program and they are free to do whatever else they want. this should not stand. perhaps the biggest question i have is whether iran's leaders will ultimately be able to make the tough choices necessary to show the world that they are serious about living up to their commitments. this is a high bar to clear. iran's leaders, unfortunately, have give us no reason to trust them. i remain concerned that the messages we are hearing from iran directly contradict what the administration has told us. iran's leaders have said that sanctions will be lifted immediately upon the signing of an agreement. and that iran will never accept inspections of their military sites. this begs the question. is iran serious about these negotiations? we are told that any kind of sanctions relief will be inclemento as iran complies. the iranian leaders are telling their public differently. we obviously have to settle this glaring discrepancycy. that's why this bill also
12:49 pm
includes provisions in case iran reneges on its commitments. if it cheats it will trigger immediate consideration of legislation that puts sanctions back in place. let's hope it doesn't come to that. the best way to avoiding the war in the middle east is a noshted solution to the iranian nuclear crisis. i wish our negotiators success and i hope this legislation sends a clear message that congress is taking its role seriously. that we aren't playing politics with this issue and we want these negotiations to result in a strong verifiable deal that keeps a nuclear bomb out of iran's hands. i agree with secretary kerry when he he says that no deal is better than a bad deal. the question is, we want to make sure a bad deal isn't sold as a good deal. that's why it's important for congress to be engaged. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman
12:50 pm
from -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the subcommittee on global health -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman sustain? >> we don't object to the gentleman taking the two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: i would like to begin by thanking chairman royce and ranking member engel, senators corker cardin, and menendez for doing their level best in the face of an administration which throughout this process has ignored and sought to exclude the legislature from its constitutional role in ratifying what is in essence a treaty. it is called an executive agreement, but it is a treaty, with the vicious rights abusing tray ran -- regime in tehran to salvage what we can from an egregiously flawed framework and process. it is clear from the trajectory of the negotiations to date that
12:51 pm
the administration has squandered its leverage, gained through sanctions, and that there is slippage or rather retreat from the strong position staked out in a number of u.n. security council resolutions, including resolution 1929, agreed to in 2010, which demanded that iran, one suspend all uranium enrichment. two, cooperate fully with the iaea, ensuring unfettered on site inspection. and three, refrain from any activity related to ballistic missiles. iran is now closer to achieving access to nuclear weapons. and to the missiles to carry them to targets, including cities in the united states, while being relieved of sanctions. from what we know now of the promised framework over 5,000 centrifuges will be allowed. and it's iran's understanding that military sites will be off limits. what? off limits to inspection. and that ballistic missiles, the delivery systems for nuclear
12:52 pm
bombs, are not part of the framework. as a prerequisite to sitting down with the regime in tehran i and others argued that the administration should have insisted that all americans held -- or missing in iran including christian pastor, be released. i am concerned, mr. speaker, that an agreement under these terms, which again we have backtracked these negotiations, will give new meaning to the phrase puric victory. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the time. thank the speaker for the time. i just want to acknowledge to my colleagues that we are here to talk about the best way to make sure that iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. i'm convinced that what we do here today is not the best way to do that. i'm convinced that the best way to make sure that iran does not
12:53 pm
have a nuclear weapon is to allow the commander in chief, chief executive of this country, to negotiate a deal and then congress will be asked to relieve any sanction it is that is warranted and we'll be able to weigh in at that time, which is the proper time. we'll be able to have oversight hearings without regard to this legislation or any other at any time we choose. but this piece of legislation, i believe, improperly in an unhelpful manner restrains the president by tying his hands significantly delaying the implementation of a peace agreement. weakens our negotiating position by strengthening iranian hardliners who will argue that the u.s. will not repeal sanctions even if iran complies with the final deal. and three, it sends the signal to the international community that the u.s. congress is setting the stage to vote down a
12:54 pm
final agreement. compromising our relationships with nato, allies and international partners that have implemented the sanctions regime and brought about iran to the negotiating table. it is very important that we acknowledge it was not the u.s. sanctions alone that has brought iran to the negotiating table. it has been the international community and the cooperation we have enjoyed with the international community that has brought them to the negotiating as if we are going we signal to our partners that we are operating in less than good faith. which could collapse the whole sanctions regime internationally. this is not u.s.-iran negotiating. this is the p-5 plus one, and we must keep that in due regard. congress has been important role to play in this agreement with iran. repealing statutory sanctions. the deal cannot be implemented without congressional action. there is no reason for us to act right now. the overwhelm thing that acting
12:55 pm
now will achieve is to undermine the chance of an agreement. now, i believe congress must have oversight. but i don't believe we should make this deal stillborn in the crib before it's even allowed to emerge. we don't want to abort the deal before it's born. the deal should be allowed to come forward and the president should be allowed to make peace with a hostile nation before we start talking about what's wrong with it. we are anticipating what's wrong with it and i don't think that is a helpful thing. at this time i will reserve but i do want to say that there was no one -- we are certainly not under any illusions about human rights, about exporting conflict from iran. we know these things are the case. but what do you do when you want to dee escalate the prospect of war?
12:56 pm
we negotiate that -- negotiate, that is what the president is doing. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserve. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to the democratic whip mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first let me say that i agree with my friend who is, i think, one of our very responsible and able leaders in this congress, mr. ellison. i appreciate his commenths. -- comments. i presume that everybody on this floor whatever their perspective is thinks that the objective that the united states seeks and the objectives that our p-5 partners seeks, and the objectives that the united nations seeks and that is a nonnuclear armed iran. is best achieved through agreement. i would think all of us would
12:57 pm
agree on that. the question is, however, for us to make it very clear the objectives of that agreement and how it is achieved and how we are assured that that objective is in fact achieved. mr. speaker, i want to congratulate senator cardin, my dear friend, the ranking member of the foreign relations committee, for his hard work to reach this compromise with chairman corker. and i want to congratulate mr. royce and mr. engel for bringing it to the floor. for quick consideration. this compromise bill allows congress to look carefully at the final agreement. for something of such consequence that is essential, not only is it desirable it is essential that we do so. it will help ensure that our common goal is achieved. a nonnuclear armed iran. i will say to my friend from minnesota, my he presumption is the iranians want to get to
12:58 pm
this. they say they are not looking for nuclear arms. they want to have relief of the sanctions. it seems to me this is in their best interest so they ought to be trying to accommodate this. and i think in fact, this can help not hurt, our negotiating position. i believe this bill reflects the consensus among members of both the house and senate that congress, which authored the sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table, and i would say again to my friend from minnesota, the reason the sanctions were effective in bringing the iranians to the table is because ourure peaian allies joined -- our european allies joined in them. we don't do much business with iran. the europeans do. he's right. it was in partnership that we brought the iranians to the table. i also want to thank, mr. speaker, our negotiating team for their tireless efforts to reach a framework agreement.
12:59 pm
a letter was recently signed by 150. i didn't sign the letter, but i absolutely agree with the substance of the letter which said the best way to get there is through agreement, and we ought to support our negotiators who are pursuing that end. as i said before, any final agreement must prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and include the most intrusive inspections and access regime we have ever seen in order to verify iran's compliance. there is no reason for us to trust iran. not -- may i have one additional minute. mr. engel: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. without objection. mr. hoyer: it must address potentially military dimensions of iran's nuclear program and bring about iran's full cooperation with the u.n. security council resolution. . the united states must
1:00 pm
never permit iran to develop a nuclear weapon and we will stand shoulder to shoulder with israel in defense of its security, which is very tied to our own security. that means ensuring israel maintains its military edge including through robust support for anti--missile systems and anti-tudge defense programs and supporting our gulf partner from iran's destabilizing activities. preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is in america's national security interests. a nuclear armed iran is a threat to us all. this bill will ensure that congress can review any final nuclear agreement with iran to make certain that it meets the goals we and the president share and which he has articulated
1:01 pm
emphatically and repeatedly. i encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. lloyd doggett. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. doggett: there is probably no more critical issue on our national agenda today than this matter with iran. 151 members of the house have joined together to encourage the president to exhaust every avenue toward a verifiable, enforceable and diplomatic solution to prevent a nuclear-armed iran. i would ask unanimous consent to insert this communication. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. doggett: while not signing this particular call for diplomacy additional colleagues have made clear that they intend
1:02 pm
to prevent any attempted congressional veto of a strong verifiable agreement. an agreement not based on trust not based on liking iran, but an agreement based on strong verification and intrusive verification. unfortunately, there are others here in this body who have embraced the wrong-headed advice of former president bush's u.n. ambassador who said to stop iran's bomb, bomb iran. these are some of the same members who rejected the interim nuclear joint plan of action before they had even read it. and they are the same members who were so eager to launch an unnecessary war in iraq that only strengthened iran and who seemed to have learned very little from their previous failure and they forget that iran is bigger than afghanistan and iraq put together. another war will not make us
1:03 pm
safe. bombing may set back iranian nuclear development by two or three years at best, a significantly shorter time than that covered by p-5 plus 1 negotiated agreement but it will make a nuclear weapon more likely. bombing will inflame regional tensions and threaten the security of israel and other allies and will jeopardize the safety of every american family. that does not mean that any agreement with iran is an acceptable agreement. iranian hard liners like hard liners elsewhere may prevent an adequate verification in this geement. but we must use every diplomatic means available especially now with the announcement of this strong framework and continue to work and craft a robust plan of action. to do otherwise, to withdraw, to
1:04 pm
fail to support such an agreement would likely collapse the sanctions among our allies and some that are not our allies but have joined with us in this regime that brought iran to the table in the first place and would only accelerate an iranian nuclear program that would be unrestricted and unmonitored. sanctions which i have personally voted on on a number of occasions in favor of, cannot be lifted without a vote of congress. but that would not occur until we have conclusive evidence of iranian compliance. do you have another 30 seconds? mr. engel: sure. mr. doggett: all of us who do not trust war as the answer must continue working together to support a peaceful resolution and overcome the voices whose only alternative is the perilous course of war.
1:05 pm
we want a strong verifiable arms accord. i favor and will vote for oversight and review today, but president obama should know that he has e support in this house to fulfill our obligations under a verifiable agreement yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas mr. mccaul chairman of the committee on homeland security and a member of the committeen foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i rise in support of the act, while far from perfect it will ensure congss has the say on the obama's administration naive negotiations with iran over its nuclear program. last week, i met with israeli prime minister netanyahu in israel where i heard once again from our top ally about the deep ncern his country has over the dangerous agreement currently
1:06 pm
being hammered out by president obama and the eye tolla. for years my -- ayatolla. r years they have ratcd up he pressure on tehran throh the toughest sanctions ever evised. the sanctions passed the congress. last congress, our committee once again passed another robust sanction bill to give president obama even more leverage over tehran. rather than accept our help, the president and his allies in the senate relieved iran of the sanctions, and for what, mr. speaker? for an agreement that allows the rld's leading state sponsor of terror to maintain a vast nuclear infrastructure through centrifuges that will never stop spinning. for an agreement that does nothing to address the military of iran's nuclear program and
1:07 pm
intercontinental ballistic missiles which they should mass produce or for an agreement that frees up billions of dollars that iran can use to fund rror around the world. mr. speaker, congress must have a say in any final agreemen with iran. and this bill will do just that. and i urge a yes vote and yield back. the speaker pro tempore:he gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member on the appropriations committee, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: i rise in strong support of the iran nuclear agreement review act, which will ensure congress' role in evaluating any final deal reached between the p-5 plus 1 countries and iran. the sanctions brought iran to
1:08 pm
the negotiating table, congress' oversight role is critical. serious concerns remain about the proposed framework particularly the enforcement and the -- of the deal and close all pathways to a bomb. it must include inspections by the agency of any facility, military or otherwise, including three facilities and the possible military dimensions. given its history of deceptions sanctions should remain in place until iran has taken steps that demonstrate their sincerity. we all want a diplomatic solution, but as long as iran leaders continue to refer to israel as a barbaric jewish
1:09 pm
state that quote has no qure but to be annihilated end quote, we must approach any deal with the utmost scrutiny and i urge immediate passage of this important legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from washington state, dr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcdermott: permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker none of us want nuclear weapons in iran. and while the white house may regard this bill as the least harmful option offered by a persistently intractable congress, a congress that has sought to derail all his efforts
1:10 pm
in the past, i cannot and will not support this particular piece of legislation. of all the foreign policy of president obama, this is the boldest and the one that could have a meaningful impact on regional and global stability. the options of war or increasing the sanctions have run their course. the time has come for diplomacy. the framework that the administration has presented to us is fair and smart. it is a good deal, one that guarantees the world safe from the threat of iranian nuclear weapons. we all await the details. all of this argument out here is about people who are sure what the details are going to be and this is not the time to pass this legislation. president obama, secretary kerry
1:11 pm
and our partners -- and don't forget, this is a historic thing where we have partners in the p-5 plus 1. and they deserve credit to a diplomatic solution to arguably the most dangerous and complex foreign policy challenge of our time. we need to give the president and the negotiators the time they need, the time for us to make decisions about what happens about the sanctions will come to this floor. there's no question about it. you don't need to pass a bill saying we don't like what the president's doing, because we ought to be grateful for the tenacity with which he has persisted in this diplomatic effort. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: let me yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen,
1:12 pm
chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and africa. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the chairman for his leadership. this bill serves as a reminder of the unanswered questions surrounding the nuclear negotiations with iran. we know iran can't be trusted. everything we have seen from iran since 1979 shows that the regime is willing to lie, to cheat to achieve its agenda. and part of its agenda is to attack and undermine the united states. can we verify iran's compliance? no because iran controls the access of the aeia. and hasn't come clean on its nuclear program yet. the regime is likely to get a $50 billion signing bonus in
1:13 pm
exchange for nothing. what will iran do with that money, mr. speaker? continue to support terror around the globe stoke sectarian violence, repress its citizens and today five iranian boats shot at a cargo vessel in the gulf. can we snap back sanctions? oh please, the idea is laughable. china and russia have stated that they will not be any automatic snap back sanctions whatsoever to re-impose on iran even if the regime is caught in violation. once again the obama administration is playing a game of smoking mirrors and cement a legacy that the president has been seeking since he entered office. the deal is dangerous and will jeopardize our national security. thank you mr. chairman.
1:14 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the ranking member on the middle east subcommittee, a very valued member, mr. deutch of florida, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. deutch: i thank my friend for yielding. i rise in support of the nuclear geement review act. when it comes to the security of our nation and our partners around the world, the american people deserve a voice, but when congress is unable to review or respond to policies of great consequence, like a potential nuclear deal with iran the american people have no voice. in recent days, we have heard another debate about another major international agreement also negotiated in secret the transpacific partnership. why do i bring it up? some of my colleagues who oppose this critical legislation have
1:15 pm
serious concerns about t.p.a. and t.p.p. i share those concerns. i oppose fast tracking without the details on protecting jobs and workers and the environment and consumers. and without any chance of making changes. likewise today, i asked my colleagues to acknowledge and respect my concerns about approving a deal today with iran when too many questions remain unanswered. on matters of national security and international security, bullet points in a framework just won't do. before iran gains access to billions of dollars in frozen assets, i want the details. i want details on sanctions and access to military sites and unannounced inspections and you should, too. no one knows what a final deal will look like, but if we get one, congress should resue the terms and on behalf of our constituents, congress must have
1:16 pm
a say. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: we yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. . ms. lee: also, i want to thank our ranking member, mr. engel, and chairman royce, for your leadership on the foreign affairs committee and for the bipartisan work you have done over the years together. the poison pills have been taken out of this bill by the other body, and i still have concerns about the timing and the effect of considering this legislation but the president believes this legislation, as written, will not undermine the administration's efforts. all of us have the same goal and that is to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. as negotiations over iran's
1:17 pm
nuclear program enter a critical phase, congress must give the president and our negotiators the space they need to succeed, and with the announcement of a framework agreement last month, we are closer to a strong and verifiable agreement between the p-5 plus one countries and iran. h.r. 1191 would require the congress be given an opportunity to review any final agreement on iran's nuclear program before the president can waive or suspend any sanctions. supporters of this bill argue they simply want to ensure congressional oversight of any final international agreement and of course we all believe there is a role for that. but we know that since negotiations began, there have been countless initiatives by congress to purposely and deliberately thwart the success of a final deal. any efforts to undermine the negotiations or final deal with iran over its nuclear program will not make us safer and it will not stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
1:18 pm
in fact, it will do just the opposite. negotiations with iran have already led to a first-step agreement that has significantly reduced iran's nuclear stockpile and their ability to create a nuclear weapon. without these negotiations in the current framework agreement, iran's nuclear program would be unmonitored and unrestrained. continued negotiations remain the best route to ensuring national and regional security while preventing us from going back on the path to a confrontation with iran. and the deal with iran has the support of the majority of the american people. in april, an abc/"washington post" poll found that americans by a 2-1 margin agreed. we simply cannot afford the alternative to the negotiations and the alternative to the negotiations with iran is war with iran. instead -- congress should be
1:19 pm
working to ensure their success. now, let's hope this bill does that. i hope that this congress does not use passage of this bill as a cynical ploy to set up a vote against any final deal should there be a deal, one that prevents iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. simply put, diplomacy is the best way to cut off any potential pathway to an iranian nuclear weapon. may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. ellison: may i ask how much time the parties have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has eight minutes. mr. ellison: certainly, the gentlelady from california 30 seconds. ms. lee: i conclude, in 2013 i called for an end to the no contact policy with iran and calling for a diplomatic initiative. i am convinced that is the only way to ensure regional stability. let's hope that president's
1:20 pm
legacy does include ending a war with iran. what a great legacy to leave the world. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. zeldin: i thank mr. royce for his leadership on this issue as chairman of the foreign affairs committee as well as mr. engel from new york for his leadership as the ranking member. americans want to know what is in an iran nuclear deal. they want their representatives in congress to debate it. and as facts come out, it turns out this is a bad deal which many were concerned were on that pace for they want congress to reject it. i had colleagues just now talking about a nuclear framework agreement that was announced last month. people saying it is a good deal
1:21 pm
. there is no framework agreement . the president released the fact sheet within 24 hours to the iranian foreign minister when on his twitter feed the ayatollah chanting death to america on the streets of iran saying that fact sheet was just a spin. in order to have a deal to reach an agreement both sides need to agree. the message to the colleagues today, this vote matters but the work is not over. the tough work, the tough votes are still ahead. let's talk about what's not even part of the negotiations. iran's state sponsorship of terrorism. work to overthrow foreign governments. pledging to wipe israel off the map. chanting death to america on the streets. unjustly imprisoning united states citizens. that's not even part of the deal. that's not even part of the negotiations. i want to read it. my constituents want to read a
1:22 pm
deal in english. they want to know it's accurately translated and the iranians are reading their deal the same way we are. if there is no agreement on specific terms, is there broad, vague language being used so that both sides can spin whatever they want to interpret this deal is for whatever best serves their own domestic politics? we are elected to represent our constituents and they're concerned about the direction of this deal. i have grave concerns. i feel like it's on pace to trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle east. i urge a yes vote and i thank the chairman again for his effort on this cause. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: it's my pleasure to designate two minutes -- yield two minutes to ms. frankl, a very respected member of the foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. frankl: thank you mr.
1:23 pm
speaker. i rise in support of the bipartisan iran nuclear agreement review act, and i want to remind everyone why it is so important that we prevent iran from becoming a nuclear state. iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism supporting hamas, hezbollah and the brutal crackdown in syria. iran's efforts to expand its influence is destabilizing iraq lebanon and now yemen. the iran regime systematically violates its own citizens' basic rights. and as terrifying is the potential for nuclear proliferation. if iran becomes a nuclear state, we will see a regional race for the bomb, spreading the world's most dangerous weapons through the world's most unstable region. mr. speaker, congress played a critical role in bringing iran to the negotiating table.
1:24 pm
iran cannot be trusted, and congress must continue to be vigilant. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i reserve the balance of my time mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: mr. speaker at this time i would yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. price: i thank my colleague from minnesota and rise today in cautious support of this legislation. our nuclear negotiators with the cooperation of a fragile coalition of long-standing allies and new partners, have made historic progress toward preventing iran from developing a nuclear weapon, a critical foreign policy imperative for our country. we must continue to give diplomacy a chance and allow our negotiators to build on the framework agreement they negotiated earlier this spring.
1:25 pm
many of our colleagues in the house of representatives agree, mr. speaker. just last week congresswoman schakowsky congressman doggett and i sent a letter to the president urging for assistance in the negotiations, a letter signed by 148 of our colleagues. diplomacy isn't just the best way of preventing a nuclear armed iran. it's the only way. opponents of the president's efforts have yet to provide a single viable alternative to diplomacy short of military action, and military action, defense experts tell us, would only delay nuclear development for a few years. while i can understand why some members of the house and senate insisted upon congressional review of a final deal with such historic implications, i have strongly refused to support legislation or other congressional intervention that was likely to drive iran from the negotiating table or to
1:26 pm
alienate our international partners. we must not set impossible goals for these negotiations or insist that every outstanding issue our country has with iran is resolved before the core nuclear issue can be addressed. the bill before us, which is a product of a thoughtful compromise between senator corker and senator cardin, republicans and democrats, does none of these harmful things. it's free of riders designed to undermine the negotiations and it provides a reasonable path forward that allows for congress to weigh in on a final deal without setting it up for failure. so i rise in cautious support of this bill because i believe it clears the way for the president's negotiators to do their job. to work with our international partners to secure a comprehensive verifiable nuclear agreement that will prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and thereby will make the world a safer
1:27 pm
place. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman royce for your leadership. ranking member engel for your leadership as well. ladies and gentlemen, mr. speaker, i believe the greatest threat we have to our own national security here is a nuclear armed iran a entity that has said time and again they want to wipe israel off the face of the map, that they want to drive them into the sea, that they are the little satan. which naturally begs the question, mr. speaker as to who is the big satan, and it's the united states of america. this is a framework the framework that's been announced the one that iran basically said we didn't think that was the framework. the chance of death to america
1:28 pm
what they said is they have to take all the sanctions off immediately upon the signature of a deal and that they will not be granted access, the iaea, to inspect the facilities that are military facilities. well, frankly, that's not a deal. i recognize that's a framework and what we're debating today is really talking about congress having the ability to say, is this a deal that we can live with or is it not? because frankly leaving iran as a nuclear threshold state is not going to be a deal. what we're going to be debating today is in essence just allowing us to be able to take the next vote. that's the important one. madam speaker, this is not left versus right. this isn't about republicans and democrats. this is about right versus wrong. this is about making sure we do this right. if we don't do this right, if iran is set for a path to a nuclear weapon, it is going to set an arms race in a dangerous
1:29 pm
neighborhood that will be devastating for peace and security around the globe. this is one where we are going to join hands together as a nation to make sure that safety and security of the world is what we're going to put and foremost. madam speaker i just got back from israel. i had the opportunity to speak with people on multiple sides. to the person they are all united behind the idea that a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable and that this will be a bad deal so i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this piece of legislation to allow us to have the opportunity to take a look at this deal to move forward. and with that i sincerely hope this is a bipartisan effort and i yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. . mr. engel: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, ranking member of
1:30 pm
the asia subcommittee on the foreign affairs committee, mr. brad sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. sherman: thank you. i would like to yield to chairman royce for a colockquee and ask him -- collo qunch uy. that failure to enact that disapproval cannot be read in approving an greem. as i read the bill, if does not enact a resolution of disapproval, the effect is to continue current statutes so the president would retain his authority to provide sanctions relief. do you agree? mr. royce: that is correct. i see no way that a failure to
1:31 pm
override a presidential veto or otherwise enact a joint resolution of disapproval would be construed as congress approving a bad iran deal. it would be the congress didn't have a super majority of votes to stop the president from exercising the considerable leeway he has for the sanctions that are in place. and i would remind the gentleman that this bill gives us the chance to have that vote. otherwise the president could act to waive sanctions the day after a deal is struck. and if people are really worried about congressional intent being misconstrued, we always have the ability to make our inat the present time crystal clear bypassing a resolution or concurrent resolution which are not subject to presidential presentment or veto. mr. sherman: i thank the gentleman for his clarification. if this deal is signed i do not
1:32 pm
think congress will enact a resolution of disapproval over the president's veto maybe not even vote for it on the floor. even less likely that congress will enact a resolution of approval. so we will be in a situation where congress will not have acted and as the chairman points out, congress would not have approved this agreement. if the president signs an agreement, iran will get certain benefits. iran will take certain actions -- mr. engel: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sherman: if that occurs iran will get certain benefits and certain money will be made available to them. at the same time iran will ship its stockpiles out of the country decommission some centrifuges and thereby delay its effort to get a nuclear weapon and in 2017 and every year thereafter, future
1:33 pm
congresses and future presidents will have to determine what is american policy. we would be free to demand a renegotiation of the agreement or to simply continuity in force. where a president could reactivate sanctions or continue to waive them. congress could enact new sanctions or repeal. all options will be on the table in years to come. and only thing i'm certain of, we will be on this floor debating iran and its nuclear program for many years to come. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york -- the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: we yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: i thank the
1:34 pm
gentleman. measure we are debating today is much better through the hard work of senators corker and cardin and i appreciate their efforts to de-escalate the conversation. it's the wrong message at the wrong time. there are no good alternatives to letting negotiators prevent a nuclear-armed iran. now, congress seldom advances diplomacy. usually we politicize issues playing to the bleachers. our judgment is often suspect. the record from ignoring world war ii misjudgments on vietnam, the reckless rush into the war in iraq, even maintaining a foolish policy regarding cuba until the president exercised leadership lately. there is no good reason to interfere now with what the p-5
1:35 pm
plus one have done making unprecedented progress, progress we wouldn't have imagined two or three years ago. it is -- they did so using a unified force but with these six countries, using the tools of the sanctions that we could not have imposed unilaterally. and we don't want to lose the leverage of those allies. now, i'm painfully aware of the issues with iran. it is troubling, a number of their activities. it's also ironic that we are -- our interests are aligned in some areas and i will never forget on 9/11, there were demonstrations of support for america in tehran. the iranian people actually like america. their leaders do not. and that is why working forward
1:36 pm
to make this historic agreement a reality could be an important pivot point for the troubled relationships between our countries. make no mistake, there are hardliners in iran just as there are hardliners in the united states who want to blow this agreement up. but i have impressed, taking advantage from the white house on numerous briefings on this issue and reviewing the materials, that we have made tremendous progress. we shouldn't complicate it. as my friends have referenced here there is no good alternative to a negotiated agreement with iran. it's the only way we can prevent them from getting a nuclear weapons a reckless rush to war, which others hinted at and others would welcome, would not stop their ultimate acquisition
1:37 pm
of nuclear weapons. it's very likely to accelerate it. and to imagine going back into that area fighting a country that is larger than iraq and afghanistan combined over a huge area, would be devastating. let's stay the course. let's be patient. let's try and constrain congressional interference. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i continue to reserve, reserving the right to close, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: i'm going to close and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: madam speaker, my colleagues, this legislation -- let me first say, i appreciate the thoughtfulness that i have heard during this debate from all sides and i think this is
1:38 pm
really congress at its best. and i'm proud to be a member of congress when i hear debates like this. this legislation was negotiated very carefully to ensure that iran would hear a unified and bipartisan message from congress why is this important? it was congress' work layers and layers of sanctions and mr. royce has been my partner since day one and we worked together, so hard on sanctions and speaking with a unified voice on the foreign affairs committee and we tried so hard to make the foreign affairs committee to be the most bipartisan committee because foreign policy should be bipartisan. and what i heard today from across the aisle here is bipartisanship and it's a good feeling. but it was congress' work through layers and layers of sanctions that brought iran to its knees and compeled iran to come to the negotiating table and the threat of congressional action that will compel iran to
1:39 pm
make the tough choices. but this congressional action must be bipartisan. iran must not be able to dismiss a bill as a partisan stunt. congress must speak with a unified voice. we are stronger when we are unified. the international community followed our lead on iran when we were unified. iran came to the negotiating table when we were unified and this vote should be no different, no poison pills, no messaging items that could torppedo this bill. let's get this bill to the president's desk. i want to repeat, the fact that iran was allowed to enrich all these months and months of talking was a mistake, the fact that we are talking only with iran about their nuclear program, not about their support for terrorism, not about americans held in iranian
1:40 pm
prisons, not about their ballistic weapons, not their support for international terrorism or support for hezbollah and hamas and in not about threats of death to israel and america. i think negotiations are important. i urge my colleagues to vote for this very, very sensible bipartisan piece of legislation. let's get this bill to the president's desk with a single voice. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i'm going to close. i want to thank the ranking member and chairman for this considered debate. i will say that i do believe that this is a big deal. it's important we debate this. i respect the position i have heard here today, but ultimately i don't think it is necessary and i don't believe it will enhance peace for the united states or the world. i think the things that we need
1:41 pm
are already in place, which is our right to have hearings on anything we want. the role we will have to play to remove any sanctions, if we are satisfied, and the fact that we don't have to if we're not. we have the cards. we do not have to choke this deal in the crib, which is what i think this particular bill threatens. now, let me say, there is nothing new madam speaker, about what the president is doing here. i have a list of seven examples that very closely correlate to the president's effort to negotiate a nuclear deal with iran. the helskinki act of 1975, the australia dwrupe of 1985. i don't have any time to go into what these thingsr but i can say there are a number of situations where presidents, republican and democrat have used their authority to negotiate agreements with other countries and which congress did not have to try to intervene.
1:42 pm
let me also point out that this situation that we're in, this -- we had the framework agreement and now hoping to get a full agreement, which i'm hopeful and optimistic will be something that is good and meaningful, so far, so good in my opinion, but i want to remind everybody that the framework agreement that has been struck between the p-5, plus one agreement would destroy centrifuges. 97% of its uranium. 97% of its uranium. iran will have zero nuclear capability and we are at a historic moment that one keeps iran from getting a nuclear weapon and we need to support this effort. you do not negotiate -- the speaker pro tempore: the
1:43 pm
gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman had two minutes. mr. ellison: i intend to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i might consume. as we heard today, iran's rush to a nuclear weapon is a mortal threat to the united states and to its allies and when i say a threat consider for a minute that iran has with its forces -- it has forces right now in lebanon. it has forces in syria. it has forces in iraq. and its forces have just helped lead a militia to topple the government in yemen, a government that was our ally. that is the type of regime that we are talking about. just weeks ago it was reported that iran was passing tens of
1:44 pm
millions of dollars to hamas. but they gave a reason, it was to rebuild the tunnels the three dozen or so tunnels that were built underneath israel so that hamas could conduct attacks to try to capture hostages and take them back into gaza. the reason for the strategy is pretty clear, that kind of strategy would ensure that our ally, israel would have to fight block by block by block to get captives back. the one i was in with mr. engel was not far where it came up not far from a nursery school. this is the type of regime we are dealing with. it is not just transferring the money, it's also transferring the new rockets and the new missiles to hamas. why were they doing that? because they said the invent
1:45 pm
tower is low because of the rockets fired off. this is the reality of the types of intentions that this regime has. and many times they telegraph those intentions when they are yelling death to the great satan and the little satan, it's not that they are not telling us and he is the supreme leader. iran's support of terrorism and destabilization in the region will be far more intense if it poses a nuclear weapon or if it had breakout capability. so the stakes could not be higher. that's why we need a good agreement. and i hope that all the members support this legislation. it may not be a perfect bill, but it's a good bill. it's an important and responsible response to an administration that otherwise would shut out congress. and i'm sorry it took the white house so long to embrace it.
1:46 pm
weeks ago, the white house was issuing veto threats and pushing it back hard. were it to pass, it would be the end of plomeds as we know it and now they're on board and with this legislation in place and this is the great upside, congress will be in a better position to judge any final agreement that the president strikes with iran and i believe that our diplomacy will have a better shot because of it. instead of iranian negotiators knowing that they can wear down the administration, this now injects congress as an important backstop. it gives us leverage to address these issues like what we discussed today, to address the issue of will our inspectors, the international inspectors, have the right to go on military bases. . i was part of the 19945
1:47 pm
framework agreement. to get inspectors to go onto military bases, not having that right to go anywhere anytime had profound consequences. it's why we're dealing with north korea having the weapon today that they possess. we should not repeat that error. u.s. diplomats should now head to the negotiating table with a stronger hand. they should work for a credible deal, a verifiable deal and then present it to congress to be judged, and that's only appropriate given the incredible consequences for the region, for our allies and for the national security of the united states. so i urge the passage of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendments of h.r. 1191. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
1:48 pm
in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: on that i request 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 chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 1124, an act to amend the work force, innovation and opportunity act to improve the act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
1:49 pm
from california seek recognition? mr. royce: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the hezbollah international financing provential act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2297, a bill to prevent hezbollah and associated entities from gaining access to international financial and other institutions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i will ask madam speaker, unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material they might wish for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, i rise in very strong support of this measure, and i want to especially thank the gentleman
1:50 pm
from north carolina, mr. mark meadows along with mr. ted deutch of florida and ranking member eliot engel of new york, for their bipartisan leadership on this critically important issue. last july, the house passed legislation by a vote of 404-0. this was the bill that was passed by that measure with a few tweaks, but 404-0 and unfortunately the other body, the senate failed to take it up. the threat posed by hezbollah and other iranian proxies has only expanded since then and now hezbollah is in the region. consider now hezbollah's arsenal aimed at israel. that arsenal has exploded. i was in haifa in 2006 as hezbollah's rockets rained down on that city targeting civilian neighborhoods. those iranian and syrian-made
1:51 pm
rockets were slamming into people's homes and they were being targeted and the hospital also was being targeted. every rocket contained 90,000 ball bearings. the only intent was mass killing and maiming. and in the hospital i talked to many of the victims. there were 600 victims of these rockets in there. and that was nearly 10 years ago and at that time hezbollah started that effort with about 15000 rockets at their disposal and they fired close to 5,000 at civilian targets and that was -- that was their work. hezbollah has expanded its arsenal in size and in sophistication. by the way, it's been done at the behest of iran. they have given these new rockets with longer range to hezbollah. so now they have an arsenal by the estimate is some 100,000
1:52 pm
unguided rockets. it's also expand its arsenal to the anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles and ground-to-ground rockets. so hezbollah has been able to expand both its arsenal and activities with iranian backing and its long-established worldwide networks of supporters and sympathizers to provide this lodge cycle and military and other types of support. to cut the international support and reach of hezbollah, to deny it the funds needed for terrorist activities, we must effectively target its financial network and that's the goal of the hezbollah international financing prevention act of 2015. this bill builds on the existing sanctions regime by placing hezbollah's sources of financing under additional scrutiny, particularly those
1:53 pm
resources outside of lebanon given that many lebanese banks have stepped up their game to prevent money laundering. in addition to targeting the terrorist organizations' diverse financial networks, it requires the u.s. government to focus on hezbollah's global logistics network and its transnational organized criminal enterprises, including its vast drug smuggling operations. the goal is to improve coordination and cooperation with allies and other responsible countries in confronting the increasing threat posed by hezbollah. and i strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical measure. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 2297 the hezbollah international financing prevention act and i yield
1:54 pm
myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to begin by once again thanking chairman royce for his thoughtfulness, his intellect, his bipartisanship. i agree with everything he said in his opening statement. i want to also thank representative deutch, representative meadows and representative meng for their hard work on this legislation to sanction hezbollah, iran's terrorist proxy. over a decade ago, i introduced and congress passed into law the syria accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act, which was designed to end syrian support for terrorism, including hezbollah. i was proud to have that bill passed both houses of congress and signed into law by then president bush. now, hezbollah is a more sophisticated terrorist organization, but their goals remain the same. they continue to support iran's dangerous agenda throughout the
1:55 pm
region. they have tipped the syrian civil war in favor of assad. assad would most likely be losing or out of power by now if not for the fact that hezbollah has come in from lebanon into syria to aid assad in his murderous stretchry against his own people where hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have perished. he would not be in power today if it wasn't for iran and if it wasn't for iran's proxy, hezbollah, fighting that war, that civil war. he'd be losing that civil war. it's hezbollah that has propped him up and caused him to be ahead in that war. when we debated the corker-cardin bill just before, i mentioned my concerns about a potential nuclear deal with iran. at the top of their list is how sanctions relief will be handled and what iran will do with a new influx of resources.
1:56 pm
iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. the revolutionary guard corps and its force have instability throughout the region. perhaps the most destruction has been iran's support for hezbollah. hezbollah has prevented the people of lebanon from building a better support. hezbollah support has allowed the assad regime to cling to power and hezbollah has stockpiled tens of thousands of rockets on israel's front doorstep. what concerns me most is that iran has been able to funnel resources to hezbollah despite the burden of the most crippling sanctions regime in history. what's going to happen if that pressure is lifted? well, we shouldn't wait to find out. congress must act now to impose stronger sanctions on hezbollah. we should choke them off from their iranian patrons. this bill would give the administration every tool it needs to confront this dangerous group. it would sanction foreign banks for knowingly doing business with hezbollah.
1:57 pm
we need to send a clear message to companies getting tangled up with this terrorist group. walk away, walk away or face the consequences. the bill would also shine a bright light on hezbollah's television station. itself especially designated terrorist group. hezbollah uses it for the logistical propaganda and fundraising purposes. the station is still carried by the satellite providers all over the world. we need to expose this puppet organization and this dangerous organization for what it is. we passed this bill in the last congress by a vote of 404-0. today let's take another stand against the violence, murder and terrorism that hezbollah has in the region. it's time for an independent and free lebanon. it's time for an end to terror and for a transition in syria, and it's time for the threats against israel to end. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and
1:58 pm
i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from north carolina mr. mark meadows a member of the foreign affairs committee, chairman of the oversight and government reform subcommittee on government operations. he's also the author of the prior year's legislation on this subject which passed with 404 votes and he is a principal co-author, along with mr. ted deutch, of this bill which we are bringing up today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman for his kind words and for his leadership because we would not be here today without the great work of the chairman, the ranking member, mr. eliot engel, and my good friend from florida, ted deutch, who's dropped everything to try to make sure we address this critical issue. because of the incredible department of defense and the military men and women that we
1:59 pm
have serving the great american interests, many americans believe that the terrorist organizations are poorly organized they're rogue operations and some -- most of them believe there are just thousands of miles away. and yet terrorist organizations have been thriving for decades and have killed thousands of americans and these terrorists will be stopped one day and hopefully today is the beginning of what we do to make sure that that happens. with the growth of technology and globalization, hezbollah has become elusive and has found ways to raise millions of dollars. you think it's just far away in some farahway place but we find them as close as our own borders in this hemisphere and indeed in my home state of north carolina. we must do all we can to cripple hezbollah and send a message to other terrorist organizations that the united states will not back down. we will protect our people and
2:00 pm
our allies. we can do this today by enacting the hezbollah international financing prevention act. it is more important today than ever before because as we discuss this particular potential deal with iran, what we do know is that as sanctions are relieved, that that money will flow. . the real leader and founder of this vicious terrorist organization is really the iranian regime we must act today madam speaker, because we will save american lives. we will save allies' lives, and we will stand with our greatest ally in the middle east, israel. i want to close by, indeed, thanking chairman ed royce and his willingness to engage with our leadership their decision to bring this in a very expeditious manner. thank chairman tom price and
2:01 pm
grace message and lee zeldin, along with ranking member eliot engel. i'd also like to give a thank you to the lebanese bang -- bankers, everybody would believe that everybody there is involved in this. we had incredible lebanese bankers who came in and said we want some help. we want to make sure that the good actors are rewarded and the bad actors are put away. and finally, i would like to thank the staff that has worked incredibly hard. matt ainsley, and mirah. they worked very closely together to make this a good piece of legislation, one that will be a tool so that this administration can finally put the boot on the throat of hezbollah and all like-minded terrorists. with that, i yield back the balance of my time.
2:02 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: madam speaker, i yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. ted deutsch who is also the ranking member of the middle east subcommittee on the foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. deutch: i rise today in support of this bill. i'd like to thank chairman royce, ranking member engel for their leadership of this critical piece of national security legislation. i also want to acknowledge the leadership of my friend, mr. meadows, in championing this effort. diligently pushing to make sure we have the opportunity to hear this important bill. i want to thank representatives message zeldin, and price for the key role they played if bringing this bill to the house floor. since its inception in 1982,
2:03 pm
hezbollah has attacked american citizens in the bombing of the u.s. embassy in beirut in 1983 killing 63, including 17 americans. the u.s. marine barracks bombing, october 1983, which killed 241 american and 58 french service men. the bombing of the u.s. embassy in beirut in 1984 which killed 24. the high jacking of t.w.a. 847, in which a u.s. navy diver was shot in the head and his body dumped on the tarmac. and the khobar towers attack in saudi arabia in 1996 that killed 19 u.s. airmen. hezbollah has been a u.s. designated terrorist organization since 1997. while it claims to be a resistence group it is a very dangerous terrorist organization that attacks not just americans,
2:04 pm
launch -- launches attacks not just on israel attacks around the world. it is responsible for the 1992 israeli embassy bombing in argentina which killed 29. 1994 bombing of a jewish center that killed 85 people. it attacked a busload of tourists in bulgaria in 2012. since 2008, attacked plotted by hezbollah have been thwarted in cyprus, and turkey. in 2012 a hezbollah plot to assassinate the ambassador of saudi arabia to the united states right here in washington, d.c., restaurant, was uncovered. this attack had it gone forward would have resulted in innocent civilian deaths here in our nation's capital. madam speaker, today hezbollah is helping slaughter innocent civilians in syria. hezbollah's fighters and operatives are on the ground in syria propping up the assad regime as it drops barrel bombs
2:05 pm
on syrian towns and uses chlorine gas on its own people. it is no secret that hezbollah does iran's bidding. backed by millions of dollars from iran, hezbollah is keeping assad's grip on power to preserve iran's life line to its proxy. this rain -- reign of terror must be stopped before it has the potential to become even stronger. with iranian support heads bowla has themselves around the world. it gets significant funding for its activities through criminal activities. and shockingly it fundraisers -- fund raises in communities all over latin america and europe. this bill will take significant steps toward cutting off their global reach by imposing sanctions on those financial institutions that facilitate hezbollah's activities. we can severely hamper its ability to move the funds needed to fund its terror campaigns. this bill would also require the administration to look into satellite providers that
2:06 pm
continue to broadcast hezbollah- run television station. a terrorist organization should not be allowed to he freely broadcast its propaganda and its messages of hate. in fact more than 10 years ago back in 2004, france's highest administrative court moved to ban, a ruling that the outfit had repeatedly violated the country's hate laws. our legislation would give congress and the administration greater insight into hezbollah's criminal activities by requiring reports on hezbollah's narcotrafficking and its transnational criminal network. it will also give us a clearer sense of their global reach as it requires reporting -- 30 more seconds? mr. engel: another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 more seconds. mr. deutch: it would require more reporting on what countries around the world are doing to disrupt the activities. hezbollah has destabilized the middle east for over 30 years. it has been a significant and
2:07 pm
deadly threat to u.s. interests. it stands ready with more than 100,000 rockets and missiles aimed at israel, many capable of striking anywhere with high precision. this is one of the most deadly organizations in the world. and the u.s. must use all of its economic might to should down hezbollah's global operations. madam speaker, people often ask what congress can do to address the many dangers that we face in the world. this legislation madam speaker, is a step forward in protecting americans and american interests and american lives. similar legislation passed the house last year. i urge my colleagues to again support this vitally important national security bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida ms. ros-lehtinen, chairman of the subcommittee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the
2:08 pm
gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank chairman royce for the wonderful bipartisan way in which he he leads our committee. and i especially want to thank mr. meadows for his incredible leadership on this important topic. madam speaker, i rise in full support of this bill to broaden sanctions against hezbollah, a u.s. designated foreign terrorist organization. the iranian proxy, hezbollah, has been responsible for propping up the murderous assad regime in syria. hezbollah continues to be a major threat to our closest friend and ally, the democratic jewish state of israel. and hezbollah and its patron iran, continues to seek ways to attack and undermine u.s. national security interests, especially with its increased presence in our own area in the western hemisphere, and it's increasing role in global narcotics trafficking.
2:09 pm
madam speaker, one way we have of countering hezbollah's illicit activities is by cutting off its major source of funding and support. once the administration gives iran a signing bonus of $50 billion and lifts the sanctions against the regime when this bad and dangerously weak nuclear deal gets signed, you can be sure, madam speaker, that the spigots will open and that money will flow directly to hezbollah. so we must make sure that the administration fully and vigorously enforces these sanctions against hezbollah, and doesn't find any loopholes or waste any of the provisions. after seeing the administration's willingness to work with the iranian regime and the cuban he regime, i might add, it wouldn't surprise me to see the administration take steps to follow the european union and split hezbollah into a
2:10 pm
military and political wing to try to avoid these sanctions and appease the iranian regime. we all know madam speaker that hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that there is no split among the terror group whatsoever. you cannot differentiate between its supposed wings. it is all one terrorist organization. that is why i strongly support this bill and i call upon the president to do more to counter this threat from iran and its proxy, hezbollah. with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, a valued member of the foreign affairs committee, ms. meng. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for three minutes. ms. meng: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to be a lead co-sponsor of the hezbollah
2:11 pm
international financing prevention act. this legislation will broaden financial sector sanctions against hezbollah compel other critical designations against it, and target hezbollah's media outlet. a lot of work has gone into this bill over two congresses, and we have worked hard, especially with mr. deutch to ensure the inclusion of language that would disrupt hezbollah's global logistics networks and its fundraising and money laundering activities. this action requires the obama administration to shed light on those countries that either covertly or overtly enable any sort of hezbollah activities within their borders. the provision is particularly important in the hezbollah context because there are far too many countries that outwardly condemn hezbollah's military and terrorist activities, while privately fostering environments where hezbollah can operate politically and financially.
2:12 pm
well, no more. not if you want to do business with the united states. this legislation is also timely because it sends a strong message to iran that no matter what happens in relation to nuclear negotiations, the united states will aggressively counter its promotion of terror in the middle east. in the last decade, our sanction policy has led the way in crippling rogue regimes and terrorist groups. and today we take a big step forward in crippling among the worst of them all, hezbollah. i want to thank chairman royce, ranking member engel, and mr. meadows, mr. deutch for their hard work, and my co-sponsors, mr. zeldin and mr. price, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: yes madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin, a member of the committee on foreign affairs,
2:13 pm
one of the principal co-sponsors of this bill and leader in confronting iran and its support for terrorism around the world. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. zeldin: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to chairman royce for your leadership on the foreign affairs committee. ranking member, mr. engel mr. deutch mr. meadows, ms. meng, mr. price. this has been a strong bipartisan effort that started before i came to congress this past january. some of my fellow lead co-sponsors on this bill have worked tirelessly over years. america's greatness is nothing to apologize for. we are a great, free, exceptional nation. being the leader of the free world is, this body today passing legislation the hezbollah international financing act to tackle a rising threat in the middle east . it's a united states interests all around the world. american leadership is on display here on the halls of
2:14 pm
congress. hezbollah has helped assad fight syrian rebels in that country. it is estimated that iran has provided hezbollah $60 million to $100 million per year in financial assistance. the due by base gulf research center, hezbollah's armed wing at 1,000 full-time fighters and 6,000 to 10,000 volunteers. according to the iranian news agency, hezbollah has up to 65,000 fighters. this legislation, h.r. 2297, addresses the need to pursue foreign banks and only do business with entities that facilitate hezbollah's activities. this legislation addresses the need to counter hezbollah's other criminal enterprises which includes money laundering and the counterfeiting of goods and pharmaceuticals. . it obtains information on financing and money laundering
2:15 pm
networks. it requires the administration to provide a comprehensive overview of countries supporting hezbollah as well as those countries that aren't doing enough. again, i thank chairman royce for this leadership, mr. engel d my fellow co-lead sponsors as we tackle this rising tide of radical islamic extremism in the midwest with hezbollah, hamas, al qaeda boko haram isis. every day our 24-hour news cycle is dominated with our constituents watching and reading, hearing about this threat that exists in the middle east understanding tt if we do not defeattverseas we'll be facing it here at home. i'm proud to stand with my fellow co-leads and my colleagues from both parties as american exceptionalism is on display here. i rise in support today and i encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation. i yield back the balance of my ti. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back.
2:16 pm
the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: madam speaker, i yield myself for such time as i may consume for purposes of closing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you. hezbollah's actions in the middle east and around the world have added to the volatility that has plagued the region. the stockpile of rockets is growing on israel's doorstep, threatening to, quote confront aggression at anytime anyplace and in any form whatsoever. the irony is they are the aagreesors. hezbollah is e aggressor. hezbollah fighters terrorize the people of syria. hezbollh has made itself a state within a state of lebanon, denying the lebanese people their right of self-determination. it's time to redouble our efforts to stop hezbollah from continuing its campaign of terror across the region. so i urge my colleagues to pass this legislation because it is so important the united states
2:17 pm
has the clout to do so and we should always let the people, the average people know that the united states stands by them. hezbollah is one of the rst terrorist organations. hezbollah tries to terrorize israel but they he never succeeded and will never succeed and they have terrorized the people of lebanon and syria. we need to put an end to tha that's why this legislation is so important. i urge my colleagues to support it. i thank chairman royce once again for his leadership, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yieltwo minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, a member of the committee on nancial services, co-sponsor of the bill and someone who has been relentless in warng about the threat of iran and hezbollah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. dold: well, i want to thank the chairman and the ranking
2:18 pm
member for your leadership, for yielding the time. i also want to thank mr. meadows, mr. deutch and all those that have worked tirelessly on this bill. the hezbollah international financing prevention act is one that's important. we need to choke off funds to a well-known terrorist organization that has been engaged in terror for decades. we know a lot, madam speaker, and we've talked a lot about the threat of isis, what's going on in syria, what's happening with iran. iran being the greatest state sponsor of terror in the world, using its proxies, one of which is hezbollah, but i want to make sure we're not losing sight of hezbollah and the dangers that they pose and that's why this is such an important piece of legislation. hezbollah has killed americans. they are one of the most deadly terrorist organizations in the world. they're a major threat, not only to the united states, they're a threat to our one true ally in the middle east, the state of israel. the buildup of hezbollah's
2:19 pm
rocket arsenal is a concern madam speaker, to everyday israelis. and it should be a concern for all of us. as we think about terror and choking off that financing it is absolutely critical that we speak with one clear voice here in the united states, that we focus on these cells, that we focus on how hezbollah is getting its resources. this is again another issue that i'm delighted that we are working together in a bipartisan fashion because this is not about partisanship. this is about making sure that the world is a safer place and shining a light on terrorist organizations. hezbollah being one of the worst. just last week, madam speaker, i was in israel and we went north to the border and looked into not only sear -- syria, we looked to lebanon. members of chicago that went over to fight and they are
2:20 pm
terrified and prepared for attacks from hezbollah. madam speaker, this is an important bill, one that makes sure we do not lose sight of the threat posed by hezbollah and one that we have to make sure that we are vigilant, to make sure -- mr. royce: i yield an additional minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. dold: we have to make sure we're vigilant to make sure we know where the resources are going. this is a bill, i want to thank the chairman for his leadership. i want to thank mr. engel, your leadership. and ted deutch, a good friend. and mark meadows for all that you're doing. this is something i again encourage my colleagues in this body to come together and unite behind another unanimous vote, to make sure the world knows that we will not sit idly by, that we will do everything in our power to make sure we track down the funders of this terrorist organization, to make sure that they do not have the tools necessary to rain terror down on israel or the west. i yield back.
2:21 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. and controls the remaining time. the gentleman from new york has closed. the gentleman from california controls the remaining time. mr. royce: then i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: you know when we think about hezbollah, we think about an organization that was once a limited regional threat. today it really is global. it's an organization conducting terrorists and criminal activities all over the world, one that has actively targeted the united states now, if we think about it, for 30 years. and i think it shows no signs of letting up. as iran, the regime there shows no signs in letting up in its support for hezbollah. so prior to the attacks of
2:22 pm
september 11 iran's proxy was responsible for the largest number of american deaths by terrorist organizations. up until that point when al qaeda carried out that attack. and this included the 1993 bombing of the united states embassy in beirut and the bombing of our united states marine corps barracks again, that same year, and hezbollah was responsible for providing funding and weapons to iraqi militias that killed hundreds of americans in iraq at the behest of iran. hezbollah is behind the iranian sponsored slaughtered that's going on right now in syria. and it is hezbollah that is now not only on the northern border of israel but also with the support from iran it's now up on the golan heights. it's now off the golan heights in syria there. hezbollah is now involved in supporting the iranian
2:23 pm
supported huti takeover in yemen. it is hezbollah is a model, and as you heard the debate recently on the internet, should the hezbollah model be replicated not only among the shiia huti, but in other parts of the region. so we must remember that any sanctions relief that we provide to iran for a nuclear agreement will have an impact on iran's ability to further support hezbollah and the ability of that organization to carry out future attacks on americans, on other allies or on other unfortunate souls that oppose an iranian takeover of that region. yet, hezbollah and their sponsor remain vulnerable. they are still reliant on iran's largess and on proceeds from hezbollah's illicit activities and precisely those
2:24 pm
illicit activities, those vulnerabilities that we must target. so madam speaker, passing the iran and the hezbollah bills today will be a one-two punch against terrorists backing iran's nuclear weapons drive. i urge all of the members to support this measure, and, again, i thank mr. eliot engel for his work and the other co-sponsors of the bill as well. i yield back, madam speaker. 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. 2297. those in favor say aye. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from california. mr. royce: madam speaker, if i might, i request 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
2:25 pm
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 alabama seek recognition? mr. byrne: madam speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution.
2:26 pm
the clerk: house calendar number 32, house resolution 260. resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 1735, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. no further general debate shall be in order. section 2-a, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on armed services now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-14. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of
2:27 pm
a substitute are waived. b, no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution. c, each amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. d, all points of order against amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules or against amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived. section 3, it shall be in order at any time for the chair of
2:28 pm
the committee on armed services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. section 4, at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be
2:29 pm
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one hour. mr. byrne: madam speaker during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. byrne: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. byrne: house resolution 260 provides a structured rule for consideration of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2016. it is my privilege to present this rule to the house as a member of the rules committee. it's also my privilege to do so as a member of the committee of
2:30 pm
jurisdiction over this bill, the house armed services committee. . the rules committee received a record number of amendments to the bill. heard nearly six hours of testimony from our colleagues and in this rule have made in order 135 amendments for consideration on the house floor. as is traditional, the rule gives the chair of the armed services committee the authority to offer such amendments en bloc to if ale is tate consideration of such a large number of amendments. this is a good rule that helps pave the way for the passage of the national defense authorization act. this law, this bill governs the defense of the united states of america, provides for the service men and women that defend this country. it is the single most important function of this house. and we are going to hear spirited debate today, but we need to make sure as we hear this debate that we focus on
2:31 pm
what we are here about, and that is to defend the people of the united states. and while there are other things that may be brought up that are important and good, they are not about the defense of the united states would not be in order for this bill. as a member of the house armed services committee, i have filed this -- followed this bill from the start, counting the rules committee hours and the hours in committee i i have personally spent over -- i have personally spent over 25 hours in debate on this bill. this has been an incredibly open process. 335 amendments were filed at the armed services committee level. 211 amendments were atonighted by the house armed services committee in markup, including 96 democrat amendments. 135 amendments are made in order by the rule. 69 of those are democrat or bipartisan amendments. that's over 450 amendments that have been considered since we started this process. the national defense authorization act has a history
2:32 pm
of bipartisanship, which is only appropriate on the single most important thing that we do defending the people of the united states. it passed out of the committee of armed services on a vote of 60-2. it's been completed every year since 1962 on a bipartisan basis. that's 53 straight years. and we need to make it 54. this bill is vitally important to our country. for the first time in a long time, americans are ranking national security as their number one concern. even ahead of the economy. former c.i.a. leader mike morel said, he has never seen more threats to our country at any other time in his 33 years in the business. most alarmingly, he he says that we are at risk of another attack here in the united states. our military men and women need this bill to do their job and
2:33 pm
help keep us safe. the administration has issued a statement of administrative policy and indicated in there that the president's advisors would recommend a veto of this bill. i sincerely hope the president would not do so given the bipartisan effort to pass a bill so critical to the security of our nation. president obama requested authorization for $612 billion in military spending and this bill matches that request dollar for dollar. now, some of my colleagues quibble with that. and they quibble with that because as you can see in this light blue area at the very top, in the president's recommendation there is a certain amount of money that he wants to be in the categorization of overseas contingency operations o.c.o. the bill does the same thing
2:34 pm
except it increases o.c.o. by a small amount that you can see here, and increases the base by a larger amendment. so in essence what we have gotten here is gotten to the same place as the president by making a very small alteration to the o.c.o. some of my colleagues are trying to use our military men and women as pawns in an effort to boost nondefense discretionary spending. that is plainly wrong and reprehensible. those other issues are important to our country. and it's important that we debate them. that we should never hold up this piece of legislation that is historically bipartisan to make a point on something that has nothing to do with the defense of the united states of america. this bill is for the men and women who are keeping our nation safe. they have elected to serve our nation. the least we can do is give them the resources and the policy
2:35 pm
they need to do their job. and now some of my colleagues want to use them as political bargaining chips. that's hard for me to believe that anyone would consider doing that in this house. this bill is complex. it deals with a number of very complicated issues. and there are a couple i foe we are going to talk about today that i'll briefly want to touch on now. the first one is this whole issue of the overseas contingency operation account and how it affects this whole issue of sequestration. long before i got here, there was this deal within congress that was proposed by the president that in essence resulted in this artificial sequestration of funds that would otherwise be appropriately sent to the military. and we are operating under the artificial constraints of that sequestration law today. i don't know what the rationale was back then because i wasn't here. but that rationale, whatever it
2:36 pm
was, doesn't make sense today when the number one concern of the american people is defending the united states of america. when experts on this issue are telling us over and over again that american interests abroad, and, yes, here at home are threatened, why should we feel we should be limited to that in a time when we need to be stepping forth and defending the american people? now, there may be a time and a place to revisitted the sequestration law, but that time and that place is not on this law. this law is for us to do what we must do to defend the united states of america. and this bill does that. another issue that we'll be hearing a lot today is the amendment by my colleague, proposed amendment by my colleague from alabama, mr. brooks. and that deals with the issue of immigration. you may ask why are we talking about immigration in regard to a bill on national defense? that's a good question. we should not be. during the armed services
2:37 pm
committee's consideration of this bill, and it went for 18 hours, late in the process, one of our members offered an amendment to insert the immigration issue into this bill. it was unfortunate and inprote. so the brooks amendment proposes to take it out. and we are going to have spirited debate during this rule, i predict, and during debate on the bill. but make no mistake about it. how important do you think or i think the umgration issue is? however much we think that should come to this floor for consideration this bill, a bill on the defense of the united states of america, is not the right bill for us to consider it in. there are other committees, committees of jurisdiction, that are supposed to do that. homeland security, for example. those committees need to go through their process and make sure they do what they they need to do, and then it can come to this floor. but it should not come to this floor to confuse this bill that
2:38 pm
deals with the defense of the united states of america. this rule, madam speaker is an extremely fair rule made after a lot of debate allowing an enormous number of amendments. and i urge its support. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne, for yielding he me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, 355 amendments were submitted to the house rules committee on a wide variety of issues relevant to the national defense authorizations act. of those only 135 were made if order. or about 38%. that means that the republican
2:39 pm
majority of the rules committee rejected over 60% of amendments submitted by their house colleagues. this is a very exclusive structured rule. these are amendments worth any of the attention of the this -- worthy of the attention of this house, but i believe all amendments were worthy of debate and should have been included. further, each amendment included under this rule only receives 10 minutes of debate maximum. equally divided. that's no way to treat debate of significant issues regarding our national security. mr. speaker, i have served in congress long enough that i remember when it used to take four or five entire days to debate the ndaa. amendments that would significantly affect our defense policies and operations were he provided with enough debate time so that all members had the opportunity to speak and hear their views. of course that was back in the days when the house actually worked four or five full days
2:40 pm
each week. that simply doesn't happen anymore. and there are fewer and fewer members of this chamber who remember when matters of substance were given the time attention, and debate that they deserve. there is much to admire in the f.y. 2016 defense authorization bill. but there is also much to be concerned about. from dangerous spending to in-- dangerous spending to increase our nuclear arsenal, to continuing to tie the hands of the administration on how to handle the transport of prisoners out of guantanamo who have been cleared of all charges. but one of the most blatant and egregious demonstrations of access spending in the ndaa is what the bill has done to the president's overseas contingency operation fund. the so-called o.c.o. fund. this bill adds $38 billion to the o.c.o. fund on top of the $51 billion requested by the president to fund our various wars.
2:41 pm
this $38 billion will not be spent on war related costs but instead it transfers money from the operations and maintenance account to the o.c.o. to fund what should be base bill requirements. all as a ruse to evade the budget control act caps. in the coming weeks my house colleagues will see at least four appropriations bills come to the house floor that are prepared to cut more than $20 billion in urgently needed domestic programs. all in the name of staying within the caps set by the budget control act. yet, when it comes to the pentagon, nearly twice that amount is added to the o.c.o. as a slush fund in order to avoid those very same caps. this is madness, madam speaker. absolute madness. the strength of our nation, the health, welfare, and prosperity of our people and our communities, requires that we invest in our transportation and infrastructure.
2:42 pm
and our urban and rural development, in science, engineering and technology. in medical roism. and our health care -- research. and our health care and education systems, children, families, workers, and local businesses and new entrepreneurs. our national and economic security is based on so much more than just our force of arms. it is based on the role of the federal government in supporting strong quality of life for each and every one of our people, regardless of age income geography, or political affiliation. no one is offering them a slush fund. instead, we are cutting those programs to the bare bone. when it comes to helping the neediest among us madam speaker, the majority in this house has once again prevented debate on this critical issue. i am disappointed that an amendment offered by my friend from california mr. vargas, was not made in order for debate under this rule. under current law, military service members who do not live
2:43 pm
on base are provided with a basic allowance for housing. because this stipend is offered to military families in lieu of on-base housing it is exempted from federal taxes and from being considered as income when determining eligibility for certain tax credits. but unfortunately, there is still a lack of uniformity in how the allowance is treated for various basic needs program. for example, the basic housing allowance is being considered as income for the purpose of calculating snap benefits. which results in eligible households receiving a lesser snap benefit or being cut off from the program all together. these are families who are struggling. and it makes absolutely no sense that receiving housing assistance means our military families should receive less food assistance. it is shameful that an ever increasing number of military families are struggle to make
2:44 pm
mends meet. more and more are relying on benefits to put food on their tables and we need a larger conversation about how to make sure our service men and women who sacrificed so much for our country have economic security. military families have unique needs. and we must make sure that they are receiving all the necessary assistance that they deserve. mr. vargas' amendment would have simply excluded the basic housing allowance from any calculation of income or resources for any purpose under federal, state and local law. it's a good amendment. it's a commonsense amendment. and this house should have had the opportunity to debate this important amendment. but while we shortchange the american people, local communities, and our neighbors living in poverty, we have plenty of time to add to the national deficit and debt by funding a myriad of wars on the national credit card. . speaking of wars congressman
2:45 pm
walter jones of north carolina and the distinguished ranking member of the armed services committee congressman adam smith of washington, and i offered an amendment that would do one simple thing. it would have the president tell congress next year what our mission is in afghanistan and how much longer our servicemen and servicewoman will continue to be deployed over there and then congress will have 30 days on whether or not to authorize or modify that mission. we have been in afghanistan for nearly 14 years. it is the longest military engagement in u.s. history. over the past few years, the mission of our armed forces has been constantly altered. supposedly we ended combat operations at the end of last december. yet, our forces still engage in combat. we are now supposed to be engaged in training the afghan military and police forces and be out of afghanistan by the end of 2016. but every day i open up the newspaper and i read how we're
2:46 pm
going to need to remain in afghanistan for much, much longer. and the underlying bill, this ndaa says that u.s. should remain engaged in counterterrorism and special operations after 2016. all the president is required to do is let us know if he wants to keep our troops in afghanistan, to continue training afghan forces until they can stand on their own. is it too much to ask -- is it too much to ask for that the president tell us next spring what is the plan for keeping our uniformed men and women in afghanistan and then having a vote on that plan? don't our troops and don't their families deserve much more from us? well, i guess it is too much to ask because this congress, once again, the majority in the rules committee decided not to make the mcgovern-jones-smith amendment in order. so u.s. engagement in afghanistan, our blood and our treasure simply continue on and
2:47 pm
on and on and on, a long endless war that congress barely pays attention to. not even members of our armed forces come in coffins, heart and mind. one of my constituents was the first to fall this year under our postcombat mission operations in afghanistan. who will be the last u.s. service member to die in afghanistan? these are brave and honorable men and women. this house, however, is a disgrace. this house this congress is incapable of being accountable for the wars we so easily send our service members to fight and die in. and it is completely incapable of carrying out its constitutional responsibilities to specifically and explicitly authorize these military operations. it's been over eight months since the united states began sustained combat operations in iraq and syria against the islamic state. last year the speaker said that
2:48 pm
it wasn't right for the 113th congress to vote on this new war started on its watch. it should be up to the next congress, this congress the 114th congress to authorize the war. then, the speaker complained that congress couldn't act until the president sent us an aumf. madam speaker the president sent congress an aumf on february 11. that's over three months ago. it's not an aumf that i would support, but the president did his job and still congress fails to act. why? because the leadership of this house says they can't find their way to 218 on an aumf. i'm sorry madam speaker. but that's not how it works. the job of the congress is to make -- is to take a vote on an aumf period. if you don't like what the president's proposal is, then change it. vote against it. or bring another version to the house floor. congress has the constitutional obligation to authorize the use
2:49 pm
of military force to combat the islamic state in iraq and syria or elsewhere. congress has the responsibility to specifically debate and authorize sending our servicemen and servicewomen into hostilities in iraq and syria. the parties of the house and senate have the responsibility to legislate. we don't have a right to say, oh, this is too much of a job, we don't want to deal with it. if you want to be in charge, then you have to govern, and unfortunately madam speaker i don't see the leadership interested in governing on this most serious matter. so once again and reluctantly, congressman walter jones and congresswoman barbara lee and i will be introduced a privileged resolution under the provisions of the war powers resolution to force a debate on whether our troops should remain engaged in combat operations against the islamic state in iraq or syria or whether they should withdraw. we have been patient. we have waited and waited and waited for the republican
2:50 pm
leadership of this house to tell us when they would act on an aumf for iraq and syria, but it's now become clear that this house has no intention on debating an aumf against the islamic state. it's perfectly happy to just drift along and not take any responsibility whatsoever for the lives that we are putting at risk in iraq and syria and the millions of taxpayer dollars that we are spending each and every day. so madam speaker, i oppose this rule and i oppose this underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: madam speaker, in listening to the remarks that we just heard from the gentleman from massachusetts, i was struck by the fact that so much of it had to do with things other than national defense. i said at the very beginning, this is the authorization of the defense of america. those are important issues.
2:51 pm
health care education, transportation, and we need to debate those, but not in this bill. that's why those sorts of amendments were not made in order. i will not yield. we're here today to debate the defense of the united states of america. i did hear the gentleman criticize the administration's policy in afghanistan, and i do think that we should consider at some point in time an appropriate aumf for the conflict in iraq, but we've been asking the leadership in our house -- and our leadership in this house has been asking about the proposed aumf from the administration, hasn't received them yet, so we can't have the sort of deliberative-type review of his aumf until we receive that information. and so i would say as important as those issues are, they're not in order on this bill. this is a bill that we have historically adopted in a bipartisan fashion. let's stay focused on the defense of the united states of america in this bipartisan bill and not wander off in other
2:52 pm
things that we're either not prepared for or not in order under this bill. at this point in time, madam speaker, i would yield to my colleague from alabama, mr. brooks, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from umbrella is recognized for two minutes. mr. brooks: the ndaa undermine's america's border security and ratifies parts of president's illegal amnesty for illegal aliens. during the early morning sleep deprived ndaa hearing, the gallego amendment that encourages the secretary of defense to take military service opportunities from americans and from lawful immigrants in order to give them to illegal aliens passed on a close 33-30 vote. as members ponder my amendment to strike the gallego amendment we should consider how much american families are struggling in an anemic job and wage market and how much the gallego amendment makes job and
2:53 pm
income prospects for americans even worse. from 2000 to 2014, and although the american economy gained 5.6 million jobs in the 16 to 65 age bracket, american-born citizens suffered a net loss of 127,000 jobs. these job losses, combined with population growth means there were 17 million more jobless american-born citizens than 14 years earlier. hispanic americans, african-americans, caucasian americans, american men and women all lost economic ground. while american-born citizens suffered economic hardship, job losses and wage suppression, foreign-born persons gained 5.7 million jobs. in the context of this anemic economy gallego's amendment to take military service jobs from americans and from lawful immigrants in order to give them to illegal aliens is outrageous and unconscionable.
2:54 pm
i encourage members to rep the interests of americans and lawful immigrants by voting to strike the gallego amendment from the ndaa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts -- just a moment, please. the chair will remind the members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. and before i yield to my colleague from california, ms. hahn, i just want to respond to something that my friend on the rules committee said when he said this bill is all about talking about issues that have to deal with the national defense of our country. well, i don't know what we're doing in afghanistan or what we're doing in iraq, again or what we're doing in syria now if it isn't supposedly in the national defense of our country. i mean, this is the bill considered by the armed
2:55 pm
services committee. this is not an appropriate place to talk about war, you know and all the military equipment we're sending halfway around the world, then i don't know -- you know, what bill is appropriate. we are told over and over and over again these are inappropriate vehicles to talk about war. this is the armed services committee. this is the national defense authorization act. this is the bill. this funds the wars. so, i mean, this notion that it doesn't belong here, well, where the hell does it belong? this is important stuff and we treat war as if it's nothing. we -- we have men and women in harm's way and we don't even debate whether or not the mission is something that we support or not. this is ridiculous. this is disgraceful. and it's outrageous that amendments that are germane to this bill, that the parliamentarian tell us are
2:56 pm
germane to this bill are denied over and over and over again. not just mine. ms. lee has amendments on repealing the old aumfs from 2001 to 2002. denied. denied. er in' germane but no one wants to talk about it -- they're germane but no one wants to talk about it. we are going to have a privileged resolution. just one other thing on the gallego amendment, i have to tell you that i'm always amazed at the anti-immigrant rhetoric on the other side of the aisle. the notion that we can't allow the secretary of defense to make decisions on whether or not dreamers can actually serve our country in the armed forces to defend our nation is ludicrous. and by the way, just so people understand this, unlike a lot of things that my friends on the other side of the aisle do, this wasn't snuck into something. this actually went through regular order. it was actually debated and
2:57 pm
voted on by the house armed services committee. they voted yes to accept it. and by the way, the army has already allowed almost 50 dreamers to enlist in our armed forces. what regoing to do, try to find these people and tell them you've now been discharged? i find it a great kind of sense of pride that there are people in this country who have been mostly raised in this country who want to serve this country. that is something i think every american takes pride in, and the rhetoric is so nasty and so demeaning i think is beneath what this house is about. at this point i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. hahn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes.
2:58 pm
ms. hahn: thank you madam chair. i'm speaking today against the rule that we're considering national defense authorization bill. i was extremely disappointed, as you can imagine, late last night when the rules committee did not decide to make my amendment in order for today. and my amendment would have provided a token thank you to the world war ii merchant mariners. these brave men suffered the highest losses of any military branch in world war ii and did not receive veterans benefits under the g.i. bill. time is running out. these merchant mariners are now in their 80's, in their early 90's. there's only 5,000 living today. we can't continue with the slow wheels of bureaucracy. we can't do a study to see if they deserve it or if we can afford it.
2:59 pm
congress should act swiftly and with the sense of urgency. as president eisenhower said, "when the final victory is ours there is no organization that will share its credit more deservedly than the merchant marine." it's too late for this bill today, but it is sad that as we're about to vote on a bill that authorizes our defense of this country that we couldn't take a moment to give a token thank you to those who were involved in the defense of this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: madam speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. gosar: mr. speaker -- madam speaker, i rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, mo brooks.
3:00 pm
the brooks amendment is simple. it keeps the immigration debate out of the national security debate. . that's it. my colleague mr. gallego, inserted language in the markup to require the secretary of defense to conduct a review under section 504 of title 10 relating to whether or not those who have received amnesty under president obama's daca initiative should be able to enlist in the services. that very statute already provides the secretary of defense the authority to make the determination they need if there's a readiness crisis. specifically prar b-2 entitles him to, quote, authorize the enlistment of a person if they determine such enlistment is vital to the national interest. while the gallego language may appear to be simple a sense of congress, to some will be cited
3:01 pm
by lawyers on behalf of the president's executive overreach. they'll say even the house of representatives has passed language that recognizes daca. the center for immigration study agrees the gallego language -- mr. byrne: yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. gosar: agrees that the gallego language. it potentially jeopardizes passing an of a critical legislation. i have fought the president on his executive actions will fight here again. it is our purview. the house has moved three time tots demonstrate that daca is illegitimate. this should be the fourth time. i urge my colleagues to vote for the brooks amendment stripping the gallego language.
3:02 pm
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield to the gentleman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gutierrez: today this committee is allowing their loudest anti-immigration voices. not only are they throwing their highly touted regular order out of the window, they're taking one more dive down the anti-immigrant rabbit hole. the amendment by my friend from arizona simply extends a sense of the house hat secretary of defense should review whether recipients of deferred act should be allowed to serb in the military. it doesn't say the military must allow them to serve. it says let's do a review a study a sense of congress, we woke up today and this is how we feel. remember, that these same
3:03 pm
700,000 recipients who grew up here in america, passed a criminal background check, and now have a legal work permit to reside in the united states. they're ready to risk their lives to defend the only country they know. it just says, hey, do you guys want to take a look? meanwhile, you totally miss the veesy amendment calling for a -- veasey amendment calling for a similar amendment focused on how to expand the pool of recruits and how this would affect. i guess numbers u.s.a. didn't give you a call or the heritage action forgot to tell you about that provision system of republican hardliners fixated on the gallego amendment. seing the word review, all they heard was amnesty. if the republican party is not able to allow a nonbinding study
3:04 pm
because it includes the word imgrant without slapping the am netsity label on it, how will you be able to fix our broken immigration system? or win over the fastest growing group of voters in this country snsm it's clear to me that the candidate who is ready to embrace immigrants and protect dreamers and their families may as well start measuring the drapes at 1600 pennsylvania avenue and i think i know what her name is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i yield to my friend mr. king from iowa for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. byrne: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from alabama for yielding. i would say first of all that neither the gentleman from massachusetts or the one from chicago can quote any anti-immigrant statements from anybody over this side. that's their tired rhetoric. it's not a fact. what is a fact is, we initiated
3:05 pm
a lawsuit called crain vs. napolitano. clear back when these first unconstitutional acts were delivered by the president. he clearly has violated the constitution. i don't think there's any worthy debate to the contrary. this congress has voted three times, three times, to shut off the funding or to eliminate the president's lawless unconstitutional actions, mr. speaker. that includes june of 2013 king amendment and very similar language, august of 2014 and january of 2015. and so i wanted to announce to this congress that we will stand on the constitution, this congress cannot send a message to ratify the president's lawless actions. we must defend the constitution because that's our oath, to support and defend the constitution of the united states. his oath is to take care of the -- to faithfully execute the laws, instead he's done the opposite. so we have pro-amnesty people on the other side, i'll support the rule, the brooks amendment, but i will not support the ndaa if the amendment fails.
3:06 pm
thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will remind members to refrain from engaging with -- in personalities with the president. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on the rules committee and in terms of making sure that we as members of congress do our jobs. so thank you very much. i rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the bill. now, i offered three bipartisan amendments to h.r. 1735 defense authorization act, and i'm very disappointed to say that once again, two of my amendments to address the authorization for the use of military force were not made in order. the first offered representative walter jones would have repealed the 2001 blank check for endless war which has been used more than 30
3:07 pm
times, mind you, to justify military action around the world. the other that i also offered with representative jones would have removed the unnecessary 2002 iraq authorization to use military force that continues to be on the books. this is years after the white house has said they no longer need it and encouraged congress to repeal it. mr. speaker it's pastime for congress to live up toits constitutional obligations in matters of war and peace. we need to rip up that 2001 blank check for endless war and we need to repeal the unnecessary 2002 iraq aumf instead of leaving it on the books indefinitely. i do want to thank the committee for making an order a commonsense, bipartisan amendment offered by representative burgess, schakowsky, and myself that would require the d.o.d. to rank all departments and defense agencies in order of how advanced they are in their audit readiness. as the only federal agency yet
3:08 pm
to complete an audit, the pentagon has never been held accountable for the potential loss of billions of dollars to waste fraud and abuse. so we need to bring vital congressional oversight and accountability to the pentagon and to ensure that the pentagon follows the law. let me also just address a few more troubling provisions in this bill this bill authorized $715 million to train and equip iraqi forces and an additional $600 million for syrian opposition forces. that's more than $1 billion for the now eight-month-long war against isil -- may i have an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: let me go back and remind you how much that is. more than $1 billion for the now eight-month-long war against isil. that's a war that congress has yet to debate and authorize. and again i call out speaker bayner to allow congress or to
3:09 pm
make congress do its job and to schedule this critical debate. i want to thank congressman mcgovern for offering a privileged resolution. it's really a shame that we must do this. but we must take our heads out of the sand here and be responsible to our constituents and our country this bill also follows $8 -- funnels $ 9 billion into the pentagon slush fund known as the overseas contingency account. $38 billion of this would go back into the base budget to avoid budget cuts. instead of continuing to use budget gimmicks to further bloat the pentagon budget, congress should be working to ensure accountability and transparency by forcing an audit of the pentagon. i urge my colleagues to support the burgess-lee-schakowsky amendment and oppose the underlying bill. it's time for congress to stop the policy of endless war and to bring some accountability to the pentagon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expire. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: i yield one minute to
3:10 pm
the gentleman from florida, mr. cabell low. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cabello: i rise today with mixed feelings on this important legislation. the f.y. 2016 national defense authorization act. i appreciate the leadership of chairman thornberry for bringing a transformative bill to the floor to strengthen our armed services and provide stability to the brave men and women of our military. i'm also grateful for section 841 which encludes the text of the cecil act a bill i introduced that ensures small entrepreneurs have a fair seat at the table. but on the other side of this di accountmy is what i fear to be a truly unfortunate path nor body to take. included in the underlying text of this bill is language that would request the defense secretary study the feasibility of allowing young men and women who were brought to this country as children the opportunity to serve in our armed services. i'm very supportive of this sentiment mr. speaker.
3:11 pm
let's keep in mind this is a nonbinding sense of the house. however, there are members of this body who are threatening to vote against final passage of the ndaa if this sense of congress isn't stricken from the bill. mr. speaker, -- may i have an additional minute? mr. byrne: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. mr. curbelo: these young men and women were brought to our great country very early in life. they have grown up in our neighborhoods and attended the same schools as our own children. for most of these young people, the united states is the only country they have ever called home. allowing the secretary of defense to consider their service in our military should be something our country is proud to support. not something that will kill this bill. with that mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the brooks amendment and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill that will benefit all those who serve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
quote
3:12 pm
gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to commend the gentleman for his very sensible remarks and i appreciate it. with that, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. coffman: i'm here today to ask my esteemed colleagues to stand with me in declaring, let our dreamers serve. let the young men and women who were brought here as children through no fault of their own, serve their country. let them serve the country that educated them let them serve the kibtry they love. their ability to serve benefits us all. it povidse an expanded pool of willing and capable applicants helping to uphold and even increase the rigorous standards
3:13 pm
to enlist in our military. the army recently tripled it pool of immigrant applicants and dreamers should be part of that pool. to those who claim that this is amnesty i have a simple message. as a marine corps combat veteran, i can assure you paris island ain't amnesty. as my late father a career soldier, told me, serving your nation in uniform is the highest expression of american citizenship from german immigrants serving in valley forge to over 100,000 who have been naturalized through the military since 2002, immigrants have always been a part of our fighting forces. mr. speaker, can i have 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. coffman: if dreamers want to put their life on the line for this nation, we should give them the opportunity and honor their willingness to serve. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the brooks amendment.
3:14 pm
which would strip this provision from the ndaa. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgon: i want to thank the gentleman who just smoke as well. i think we wouldn't be having this debate if my friends on the other side of the aisle had allowed us to vote on a comprehensive immigration reform package last year, the one the senate passed in a bipartisan way, but they chose to deny us the ability to vote on that. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. norcross: i thank mr. norcross: this allows on a matter very personal to me on an issue that impacts our nation on the battlefield and for families struggling with an immigration system that is dysfunctional.
3:15 pm
november 12 of last year, right there in that seat, i was sitting by my grandson's side when i was sworn in as a mel of this house. one of the proudest days of my life and my grandson was looking forward to it. the dreamers amendment that we are debating today, my grandson wouldn't be here or my graund daughter. my son who was serving in the army in south korea when he met a girl who was serving our great nation. they fell in love and got married. they moved back to texas serving our country and had our first grandchild. they continue to serve our great country raising a child. i got a call late one night with
3:16 pm
my son crying saying they are going to deport my wife. we didn't know she was an american. she volunteered to lay down her life for our country. my son didn't know she wasn't an american citizen. yet, she's that dreamer that we're talking about. she is the american dream. comes to this country decides to serve it. well, we bring that forward to today. my grandson was here and yet we are still debating, people who volunteer the debatest thing they can do is lay down their life for our country and we are denying them an opportunity to be part of this country? the strength of what makes this country is where we all come from. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an
3:17 pm
additional one minute. mr. norcross: my daughter in law only knew america. as far as her memory goes back, she remembers going to school. that's why i'm urging us to reject what i think is one of the most cruelest things we could play on those who come to our country and want to be american citizens. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and don't deny those people who want to serve our country that ability to serve. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: i yield to mr. gomeerts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: i want to also address these concerns about allowing people to join the military. look, i fought with my own
3:18 pm
leadership against a bill that would allow sequesters, allow the gutting of our defense department. i said it was a mistake. i was told it wouldn't happen, well, it did. if both sides of the aisle want to find cuts in other programs so we can rebuild our military and let anybody who wants to join the military that's qualified, i'm for it. right now we are gutting our military and telling people who put their lives in harm's way for us that they are going to have to leave. this language basically can be taken up as judicial notice by the appellate courts to tell the judge in south texas federal court that you were wrong. we are lifting the injunction the very injunction that our republican leaders said we were relying on in breaking our promise. we need this language removed. and then let's work on the
3:19 pm
military building it back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: we are not cutting the military. my friends created a slush fund to get around. i yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from texas ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: a lot of hard work has gone into the preparation of this underlying bill we are looking to memorial day and celebrating veterans and acknowledging our soldiers on the front line. i hope colleagues deal with the jackson lee amendments to deal with hbcu's in equalizing the research opportunities and working to ensure the protection of the d.o.d. software. but i'm hopeful that we will have the opportunity to address my issue dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. i put the first center that was
3:20 pm
not in a veterans center. how devastating ptsd is and ensure we have more funding. the overseas contingency needs to be restrain. i want to support the amendment to as those american citizens stuck in yemen and make sure we don't strike the language dealing with our dreamers who want to serve our country and we should have immigration reform and should not vote for the mo brooks amendment. let us do a better job in infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: i reserve. mr. mcgovern: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts.
3:21 pm
no greater love is there than to lay down your life for another. paraphrase biblical, secular. and here we have individuals who are dreamers, who are american in every way possible and schooled here in america and raised here in america and the united states and their dream is to become american citizens and want to give back to a nation that has helped make them who they are. i want to congratulate for the amendment, his success in the committee and congratulate the bipartisan rules committee that saw this amendment through here to the floor. i want my republican colleagues to question the motivations of those who would try to strip this out. no greater love -- we hope that it never comes to actually
3:22 pm
sacrificing one's life. but please don't deny those who want to help serve and protect the interests of our country that would deny them the opportunity to serve in some capacity, the sacrifice -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for mr. mcgovern: how many additional speakers? mr. byrne: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: any additional speakers?
3:23 pm
mr. byrne: no further speakers. mr. mcgovern: as i said, there is a lot in this bill that i think we all support and much in this bill that many of us find very objectionable. and i still have a tough time understanding why this house refuses to deal with the fact that we are engaged in a number of wars around the world and this congress refuses to live up to its constitutional responsibilities to deal with it. the gentleman tells us, well, this is not the place. the o.c.o. account is in this bill and funds some of the wars. the bill that funds wars seems like the place you would go to talk about these wars. and yet not only the amendment that i offered along with the ranking member of the armed services committee, mr. smith, and walter jones of north carolina, but the amendment said -- offered by barbara lee, we
3:24 pm
were told we can't debate them. no debate. we have men and women in harm's way but not going to debate the wars or talk about whether this is a good mission and not talk about what the future of the mission is and how much it's going to cost and not going to talk about anything. going to make believe it's not part of our national defense discussion. it is unconscionable. it it unconscionable and i can't quite understand why the leadership of this house and the leadership in the senate refuse to do their job. if you can't handle it then maybe it's time to leave. the second thing is this debate over the gallego amendment. it is germane to this bill and not some extraneous thing. parliamentarian said it's germane. the armed services committee debated it.
3:25 pm
that's what committees are supposed to do and even voted on it, which is what committees are supposed to do. and they voted yes in favor of it. if you don't like it fine. you can strike it. but save all this anti--immigrant rhetoric this nastiness stop belittling these men and women who came to this country as children and no no other country who want to serve this country and put their lives on the line for this country. please, don't diminish what they want to do or what some of them are already doing. my colleagues said this isn't about immigration. it is about immigration. it is about the military. the other oneon the other side of the aisle say if we don't strip the gallego amendment in this bill, we are going to vote against the ndaa.
3:26 pm
this resentment this contempt for immigrants has resulted in a irrational knee-jerk reaction because we can't support anything because of that. it is ludicrous. the bottom line here is i hope my colleagues on both side of the aisle vote against the brooks' amendment. and we can do better than this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: as i predicted in my opening statement, we have heard a lot about a number of things that have nothing to do with the defense of the united states of america. for 5 straight years the congress of the united states and the president of the united states have worked together in a bipartisan fashion to pass a national defense authorization act to provide for the defense of the american people. the number one job we have under the constitution. and we find ourselves here today tearing ourselves apart as a body over issues that don't have
3:27 pm
anything to do with defending america. i want to urge people on both sides, however they feel about all of these issues to understand whether you win or lose your amendment in committee or on the floor, at the end of the day, we come together as americans and we defend our country. that's what our constituents send us here to do. and if we can't come together on that, we are truly lost as a nation. i don't think we're lost. but we wander off in places where we shouldn't go when we have had debates like we have had today. i'm the did he ep send ent of immigrants. everybody in this body are descendents. it -- that's not the point of this bill. the point of this bill is to defend the country. we heard a lot about the o.c.o. account and was called a slush fund. this president and presidents
3:28 pm
before him have asked for an o.c.o. account every year and not once has it been a slush fund. it has been used to defend the united states of america as this o.c.o. account that's in this bill will be used to defend the united states of america. the gentleman from massachusetts been around here longer than i have, but i'm sure he knows that the primary jurisdiction of the house for an amuf is with the foreign affairs committee and not with the armed services committee that was the committee of jurisdiction on this bill. the foreign affairs committee is awaiting for information from the white house. so maybe we can get that information from the white house get to work on amuf and get it to this floor. but the national defense authorization act is not the appropriate vehicle. and so ruled the rules committee and that's what's in this rule. you know i have heard a lot of
3:29 pm
talk about what's germane to the bill and what is not. it isn't about germaneness but a central function of the federal government. defending the american people. as i stand here today, i'm reminded of the great sacrifices that the men and women in uniform make on a daily basis so we can continue to deliberate in an open way. debate and discussion have been the foundations of our democracy and we owe that to our nation's military. the least we can do is honor that tradition of service and sacrifice by continuing the bipartisan tradition of passing an ndaa for the 54th straight year. whether people on one side don't want to vote or trying to make a partisan point by telling their side don't vote for the bill because of o.c.o., we need to
3:30 pm
put that out of our mind. at the end of the day, whatever amendments are added or not, it's our job to pass this bill to defend the country. there will be plenty of opportunity for partisan disagreement down the road, but not on this issue. at this time we need to come together not as democrats, not as republicans, but as americans. let's pass this rule. let's debate these amendments, all 135 of them. but most importantly let's pass this act and give our military men and women the resources they need to do our job. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the adoption of the priest resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the
3:31 pm
yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by five-minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 1191 and the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 297. 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.]
4:01 pm
4:02 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: thank you mr. speaker. many of us are taught that death can come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. the thief came to texas in arkansas -- and arkansas this past weekend in the form of deadly tornadoes and flash floods. in the wake of their destructive path, we're left two -- were left two dead in nashville, arkansas. one in cisco texas, one in course khanna, texas and in the fifth district that i am proud to represent, one in henderson county, texas, and two next door in vanzant county, texas. they have left families, they have left friends, they have left great holes in their communities that cannot be
4:03 pm
filled. besides the tragic loss of life, there were many who was will -- who were left injured and in the case of van texas, 1/3 of the town was either damaged or destroyed by tornado. should anyone have wonder about the future of van, texas, as a member of congress i can tell you need not worry the citizens of van, i know their resilience, i know their values, i know their faith, i know their can-do optimism. van texas, will be rebuilt. i'm joined mr. speaker, today by congressman westerman of arkansas congressman barton of texas, congressman burgess of texas and congressman conaway of texas. their districts were hit, lives were lost in their districts as well.
4:04 pm
mr. speaker, as members we are called upon to vote. we are called upon to speak, we are called upon to lead and there are times we are called upon to mourn. many of our -- in many of our faiths we are taught there is a time for everything including a time to mourn. now is that time. on behalf of my colleagues in the well, i would ask that all americans remember these good citizens in their prayers and their thoughts and, mr. speaker, i would ask that the house join us in honoring those who perished by observing a moment of sigh lenls. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion from the gentleman from california, mr. royce, to suspend the rules and
4:05 pm
concur on senate amendment h.r. 1191 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1191, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirement campaigned in the -- contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and concur on senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:11 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 400, the nays are 25. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendments are agreed to and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr.
4:12 pm
royce, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2297 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2297, a bill to prevent hezbollah and those associated entities from gaining access to international financial and other institutions 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 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.]
4:18 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 423. the nays are zero. 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 chair will receive a message. the secretary: mr. speaker. the messenger: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the
4:19 pm
senate has passed h.r. 606 an act cited as the don't -- -- don't tax our fallen public safety heroes act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the committee on oversight and government reform be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2252 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to clarify the effective date of certain
4:20 pm
4:21 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 1735. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 260 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1735. will the gentleman from texas mr. poe kindly please take the
4:22 pm
chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration on the bill h.r. 1735 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, may 13, 2015, all time for general debate pursuant to house resolution 255 had expired. pursuant to house resolution 260, no further general debate shall be in order. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on armed services printed in the bill, it shall be the order
4:23 pm
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-14. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 114- 112, and the amendments en bloc described in section 3 of house resolution 260. each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the ordered in the report, may be offered only by the member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shabble debatable for the time spess -- shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the opponent and proponent and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. it shall be in order of the chairman of the committee on armed serviceses or his designee to have amendments en
4:24 pm
bloc not earlier disposed of. such amendments en bloc shall be considered as read shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. thornberry: mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: the house will be in order. the house will come to order.
4:25 pm
pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. thornberry: mr. chair, the manager's amendment makes technical, conforming and clarifying changes in the bill and is co-sponsored by ranking member smith. i urge colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i rise to claim the time in opposition though i am not opposed. the chair: without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you. this is the manager's amendment. i agree completely with what the chairman just said technical corrections that we ought to support. with that i'll yield the balance of my time. we have no further speakers on this amendment.
4:26 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas mr. thornberry. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. it's currently stated in permanent law the navy under law must maintain at all times 11 aircraft carriers.
4:27 pm
now, that's an arbitrary, restricted requirement. perhaps they should have more. perhaps they should have less. my amendment would simply grant the navy the flexibility to choose their needs and requirements in a rapidly evolving world, setting the floor of 10 carriers rather than 11. the navy is operating under a waiver for 10 active carriers anyway. my amendment simply conforms the underlying law to the reality that already exists. in some ways this amendment is really about giving the navy control over spending choices. aircraft carriers are expensive. everybody knows that. at the heart it is to help the navy in evolving how we can best put our sailors in the best position to combat present and future threats. i don't think any of us in congress can sit here today and see what the future of naval warfare is. we might see an ocean open
4:28 pm
conflict in 10 years or shallow waterways under duress in 30 years. to be sure, carriers have played a historic role in establishing the naval dominance we enjoy today but so did battleships of decades past. we can't let ourselves be mired in past success even though today we no longer have a single battleship in the force. the point being the threats of the next 30 years will evolve and carriers are likely to be an important part of that equation. but they're not a perfect tool for every threat. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. thank you. i resume -- yield myself the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: as former secretary gates himself said, quote, consider the massive overmatch the u.s. already enjoys, consider, too, the growing anti-ship capabilities of the adversaries. do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one, end quote. and i don't think we as a
4:29 pm
political body are here to answer that but i think removing the arbitrary number it gives them to have 11 active aircraft carrier groups prevents the navy from evolving with the times. we face a number of threats, whether it's fighting isis in the middle east or ongoing operations in afghanistan or rising threats from asia or global piracy, but it's clear these threats require a broad range of tools, not just the largest and most exespnive tool that we can find. -- expensive tool that we can find. aircraft carrier help us maintain our status as the first nation to arrive on the scene and often the first person on the scene in the conflict as part of carrier strike groups. but look, all the tools the navy needs cost money. when you're looking at unmanned aircraft assets that can deploy from other types of ships and just as with the battleships of yesteryear, there were a time we were invincible.
4:30 pm
it's not that these challenges can't be overcome. we face challenges -- faced challenges before. but requiring the navy to keep 11 carriers for the next several decades in permanent law is an arbitrary minimum and limits the navy's flexibility to make the critical spending decisions to maximize our national security. we know we can't afford everything, certainly not if we play by the budget rules and caps that we ourselves written. so let's not make this whole thing harder by arbitrarily requiring 11 carriers for political reasons rather than to maximize our national defense. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of hi time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. forbes: i raise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. forbes: mr.hairman, i'd like to yield one minute tohe distinguished gentleman, chairman of the readiness subcommittee from virginia mr. wittman. the speer pro tempore: the gentleman ises -- the chair: the gentleman is recognizedor one minute. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. when a crisis arises, and american lives and interests are at risk, the first question
4:31 pm
decisionmakers ask is, where are the carriers? an 11-aircraft carrier fleet is central to u.s. defense and diplomatic policy. a robust fleet of carriers makes ronald reagan's timeless adage of peace through strength possible. recently the u.s. theodore roosevelt responded to iran's seizure of a cargo ship and its actions helped keep the shipping lanes in the middle east safe and open. the roosevelt continues to sail in the gulf and its courageous crew is currently conducting operations against isis. the u.s.s. roosevelt provides a perfect examplef the crucial role aircraft carriers play in the defense and prosperity of our nation. to reduce our aircraft carrier fleet puts our ability to defend our nation and our critical interests around the globe at risk. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia,
4:32 pm
mr. forbes. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield one minute to the ranking member of the sea power and projection forces subcommittee, mr. courtney from connecticut. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. mr. cotney: thank you, mr. speaker. just to reiterate the prior point, a few weeks ago the iranian government attempted to nd a fleet of ships bearing arms for rebels in yemen, a mision that would further drive that region into a dangero failed state. luckily for the world, the u.s.s. roosevelt led a carrier group into the waters off yemen and blocked the delivery of those weapons. it is the constituent essential platform that connection tends to external threat sutches as the one a few weeks ago, at a time when there is a resurgent russian navy back in waters, a chinese navy that is creating isnd military outposts in international waters and the isis advance is being confronted by u.s. air strikes flown off u.s. carriers. cutting our fleet from -- to 10 from 11 will cripple our nation's ability to respond to these challenges and will
4:33 pm
reverse last year's decision by congress to ruel the george washington ahead of schedule, to ensure the capability of an 11-ship fleet. nothing in the testimony we've heard in the house armed services committee suggests that the navy can get by with fewer carriers. in fact, it's the exact opposite. 11 is the minimum we need to meet the missions of today and the future. the sea power report on carriers is a balanced plan for america's carrier fleet. let's vote this amendment down and move forward with that plan. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from colorado has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. polis: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: at multiple points in the last five years the navy's only had 10 carriers. this is ridiculous to put the navy through this political decision making process rather than a military decision process about the number of carrier groups that exists.
4:34 pm
on a basic level, this idea of statutory -- statutorily requiring weapons for future decades makes very little sense. do we tell the arm why you need precisely x number of tanks for desert storm, therefore you have to have this many tanks for the next 30 years? would do we tell the air force you need this many helicopters for so malyarks therefore you have to have this many, regardsless of changing threats or challenges or budget realities? that's what this amendment will help change, to give the naval force the flexibility it needs to meet the changing dangers of the world. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from washington, mr. kilmer. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. kilmer: thank you mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. while i respect the sponsor's intent on reducing spending, shrinking our carrier fleet is not the way to do it. our fleet of aircraft carriers is the envy of the world because of the power and capability that they bring to
4:35 pm
bear. a fleet of 11 carriers allows the united states to be a powerful force for stability around the globe, it keeps sea lanes open and protect our merchant fleet against hostile governments and piracy. they allow our troops to respond quickly to natural disasters and humanitarian crises all over the world. reducing the number of aircraft carriers would have bad consequences. it would reduce our ability to protect ourselves and our interests abroad it. would have a dramatic impact on the morale of men and women who serve on them as longer deployments place an unfair burden on these sailors. and it would result in longer and more expensive maintenance to be conducted, reducing the time the vessels are able to react when needed. for these reasons and others i must urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment i yield back the balance of my time. -- this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia has two minutes remaining. mr. forbes: who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has the right to close. mr. forbes: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: the department of defense is in the midst of a major reality check as the
4:36 pm
global threat changes, budgets shrink, new technologies emerge. but where we go from here should be up to our naval experts, not congress. at $14.2 billion apiece, one less carrier would allow the navy to prioritize other programs like increasing the capabilities of less costly unmanned assets. this amendment is about breaking down the walling off of defense spending for political reasons. we should be enabling those charged with our national defense to make the decisions they need for national interests. it simply doesn't stand up to the commonsense test that we would require in law, an arbitrary number of carriers. and i urge the adoption of my amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman i do agree with the gentleman that it is difficult to project what our sea power needs would be out two decades down the road or even a decade down the road. but we must try. and that's why you will see a bipartisan opposition to this amendment.
4:37 pm
because one thing about each of the individuals that spoke in opposition to this amendment is i sit side by side with them in classified hearings and nonclassified hearings as we try to make those projections because under the constitution we have to raise armies and maintain navies and to create the carriers that we would need would take six to nine years. we don't have that option when we need them. had we not stepped in as a congress, we would never have had a carrier with the strike capability because the pentagon actually wanted them for i.s.r. capabilities. had congress not stepped in we wouldn't have had tomahawk missiles because the pentagon was not going to try to produce them. without congress stepping in we would not have had jointness. the reason we have to step in for this number of carriers is because, as you've heard mentioned, if we don't have these carriers, we will automatically go from seven months deployment for our sailors on these carriers to as many as nine months or 10 months. an extra two to three months.
4:38 pm
ask those families what an imposition that is. the second thing, mr. chairman, is we don't have -- if we don't have them we will have gaps in the national defense of our country. as my friend, mr. courtney, mentioned, just leentry we had a carrier out there for 54 days fighting isil when we had no other capabilities of doing that. had we not had that carrier, we would have had difficulties as a country. third thing is by not having these carriers, we run our other carriers harder faster, burn them out more. so we're consuming the next generation's national defense and the final thing is this, mr. chairman, if you look just a few years ago, our commanders around the globe we were able to meet 90% of the requirements they needed for the united states navy. this year we will only meet 44 of those requirements 44%. if we allow this amendment, there will be a commander somewhere who won't have that carrier group when they need it. i hope we'll defeat this amendment. with that, mr. chairman i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields
4:39 pm
back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado -- from virginia, ex cue me colorado. those -- excuse me, colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. forbes: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution 260, i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 1, consisting of amendments number 3, 4, 6 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13 14, 1, 19 20, 25, 29 36,
4:40 pm
76 and 94 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, there are i believe 19 amendments in this en bloc package from both republicans and democrats. both republicans and democrats have contributed to this bill and i hope all of the members who have sponsored the 19 amendments, who are included in this package will vote for final passage of the bill. because if you get an amendment adopted but then you vote against final passage, you've pretty much negated your own work. i hope that's not the case. i hope members on both sides of the aisle support final passage. and with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his
4:41 pm
time. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i rise to claim time in opposition, although i am not opposed to the amendment. the clerk: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. mcgoverage from -- mcgovern from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: thank you. i thank the ranking member and the chairman for including my amendment in the en bloc set of amendments. my amendment would simply create a service medal to be awarded to atomic veterans or that you are surviving family members in honor of their service and sacrifice to our nation. between 1945 and 1962, 225,000 members of our armed forces participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. the atomic veterans were placed in extremely dangerous areas, constantly exposed to potentially dangerous levels of radiation in performance of their dutyy. they were sworn to secrecy, unable to even talk to their doctors about their past exposure to radiation. thankfully presidents clinton and george h.w. bush recognized the atomic veterans' values and
4:42 pm
services and acted to provide specialized care and compensation for their harrowing duty. one of my constituents, joe mondolo, is an atomic veteran and very proud of his service to our country. like me he believes it is past time for the defense department to honor with the medal the unique service carried out by atomic veterans. the d.o.d. claimed it would be too difficult to identify which veterans would be awarded this medal. thankfully the u.s. code clearly identifies exactly which veterans are considered atomic veterans. this is a good amendment and i urge support of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas mr. o'rourke, reserves. mr. thornberry: i yield three minutes to the house majority whip, the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from texas for leading -- yielding the time. i want to present an amendment that is bipartisan dealing
4:43 pm
with the ability of agencies. the department of defenshas created three procurement programs for afghanistan, central asian states and gentleman beauty to support businesses and local economies in these countries and to cultivate positive relationships in the region, the world. the problem is, mr. chairman, while i surely appreciate their intentions, they're there have been unintended consequences with this program. in implementing this program the g.s.a. has allowed businesses located in these countries to supply products manufactured by ability one agencies which employ blind and disabled americans. so the result of that policy has been devastating to many of these ability one agencies across the country. we've seen job losses here in america in implementing this new policy by the department of defense. what this amendment does, mr. chairman is to address the problem of these job losses by exempting those ability one
4:44 pm
agencies from this department of defense procurement program. and so if you look at what's happened with this program, we've seen facilities not only in louisiana but in states like new york texas, ohio kansas, north carolina, nebraska and washington all experience job losses here in america to ship those jobs over to foreign countries. again, i don't think or i surely would hope that that was not the intention of the program, mr. chairman to take jobs away from disabled americans, to ship those jobs overseas. what this us a -- this amendment does is restore those jobs here in america for those blind and other disabled americans who have one of the highest underemployment populations in the country. let's keep those jobs here. we can continue building relations with otr countries but just not at the expense of american jobs for disabled workers. that's what the amendment does and with that, mr. chairman i'd like to yield a minute of
4:45 pm
time to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, who is a co-sponsor. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, is recognized for one minute. mr. boustany: thank you mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman, the majority whip, for yielding time. i rise in sport of this amendment. it's a bipartisan amendme and this amendment basically exempts ability one products from certain d.o.d. procurement programs in this legislation. these procurement programs have been severely affected- severely affected louisiana's disabled workers in the recent past and in louisiana alone these programs have ford disabled workers to be laid off to the tune of approximately $18 million in lost revenue. so while i believe it's important to support these critical overseas partners that we have as they rebuild their economies, we also need to focus on jobs here at home, that's why i've co-sponsored this. it's a commonsense amendment, it's revenue-neutral. i strongly believe that this amendment will allow ability one disabled workers nationwide to hold on to jobs.
4:46 pm
i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke, is recognized. mr. o'rourke: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to the distinguished whip four minutes, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. i want to thank both mr. smith, he's been working very hard on that mr. thorn berry, the chairman of this committee, for working very hard on this bill. both of them are responsible leaders in this hoe and work well together to make sure that our national security is well served. i regret, therefore, that i will be opposing this bill for reasons that i will discuss. both have been fighting tirelessly for the defense authorization bill that gives
4:47 pm
our troops the tools they need to achieve their mission's objectives enhance our naonal security d bolster key u.s. partners. these are, of course, positive aspects of this bill. i particularly commend my friend, gwen gram, that will have an -- mark veasey had an amendment adopted in committee that would explorthe effects of the daca program. and congressman gallego expressed the sense of congress that dreamers undocumented immigrants who were bout heres children ought to be able to serve the country they love in their mitary and be rewarded for that service for the chance to stay here legal. they managed to remove that
4:48 pm
language from the bill. i ask my colleagues to defeat that amendment. given how important these issues are and that the laguage in the bill does not force the defense department to take any action, it does not deem to be in the best interest of the national security. the amendment striking this provision is, i said, ought to be defeated. the bill contains provisions that continue to prevent president obama, however, from finally closing the detention center at guantamo bay. not only does that facility cost taxpayers $2.4 million pe incarcaree. well, $2.4 million to keepne person in jail for a year, that makes sense. i disagree with you on that if you think that. but not only does it cost way too muc it is a blot against our country in the eyes of the world and in the hearts of so many of our own citizens here
4:49 pm
at home. furthermore, in his budget request, the president laid out a path to lift the sequester lev, which is ndermining our national security. hear me. the sequester that this bill honors by exception is underminig t national security of america. this bill, hower perpetuates the sequester for everything except that which some thi is important. and i share their view. the national security is critically important. and for 34 years in the authorization bills a on the appropriation bills i ha been a strong supporter of a robust national security, whether it was presiden reagan or president bush or president clinton or president bush or,
4:50 pm
yes, pesident obama. i do not yield to anybody on this floor in my support of national security over those 3 1/2 decades. but our national security is being put at risk because we' honoring sequeste in this bill. and not only are we honoring sequester in this bill we are in fact for the invements in education, in infrastructure, in the environment undermining our countrs well-being. for that reason alone, i will vote against this bill until we fix the sequester and take care of america's national security. and i yield back the balae of my time. the chair the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke,eserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. trnberry. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thornberry: i regret that
4:51 pm
the distinguished majorityhip is not going to suprt this bipartisan legislatio it is absolutely true that this bill does not fix sequester for all those nondefense iues. as i mentione yesteay, there are a lot of people on both sides of e aisle that would like to fi something better than the budget conol act with the caps and sequester to deal with our budgeting. so the idea we wou hold ou military and their pay and their weapons and the polici involvedostage in the hopes that we can put enough pressure to have the president and congress somehow come together to fixll these other problems i just think that's unalistic and i'm afraid that that is not fair to the pople we support wh this legislation. i think that is an unfortunate political tactic that some have chosen to take that puts our
4:52 pm
men and women at greater risk. and we -- they ought to get better from us. mr. hoyer: will my distinguished friend yield? mr. thornberry: my time has expired. the chair: the gentleman has -- reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the other gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. pascrell from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: is the gentleman recognized for debate on the en bloc amendments? is the gentleman recognized for -- wants to be recognized for debate on the en bloc amendments? mr. pascrell: my amendment is the en bloc. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment would direct the department of defense to conduct a study on blast injury mechanics covering a wide range
4:53 pm
of primary blast injury conditions, including traumatic brain injury in order to accelerate solutions in this critical area. as the co-chair and co-founder of the congressional brain injury task force, i spent the last 14 years fighting for patients with brain injuries both on and off the battlefield. we all know that t.b.i. is the signature wound of the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. and while we made great progress on ensuring our soldiers have the best care, there's still more work to be done. the dodd's peer review psychological health and t.b.i. research program conducts extensive research on t.b.i. however, little is known about primary blast injury and its connection to t.b.i. researchers still do not know the exact mechanisms by which a primary blast injury damages the brain cells and circuits. understanding how a primary blast injury affects the brain
4:54 pm
is imperative to developing appropriate prevention measures including and ensuring proper equipment. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the en bloc. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. messer: i rise in support of the en bloc amendment. my amendment language would simply require a study of the effects of any final e.p.a. ozone rule on our military readiness. mr. chairman, we all want a healthy planet but we must also recognize the real-world consequences of any regulations that we pass. for example, according to the economic council stricter ozone standards could reduce u.s. g.d.p. by $1.7 trillion over 20 years killing 340,000 jobs in indiana alone. the e.p.a. ozone rule will no
4:55 pm
doubt affect our military readiness as well. estimates show 11 million acres of land under d.o.d. control could be impacted. tighter ozone standards could force imposition of new emission controls on our military vehicles, military airbases could be impacted as well. no matter what you think of the e.p.a. ozone rule, we should all agree that we ought to know how the final rule impacts our military readiness. congress has no more higher responsibility than protecting our national security. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. thank you. the chair: the entleman from texas mr. thornrry, reserves. the geneman fro texas, mr. o'rourke, isecognized. mr. o'roue: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the chair: the gentleman from new york irecogned for two minutes. . engel: ianto rise in this he en bloamendment. an amendment i co-authored with
4:56 pm
the foreign committees chairman ed royce. for more than four years the assad regime has rained d terror on i own citizens theorm of barrel bombs in syrithousan upon thousands of syrians have abandonetheir homes anspilled across the border in lebanon tury and joan. they're begging the world for help. while it woun nearly solve this problem a no-fly zone or safe zone would povide a glimmer ohope to these people it would require the peagon leaders to take a hardook at the feasility of estlishin aoly zone. my second amendment would require the pentagon to report to congress on the way reductions in u.s. military readiness in europe woul affect nato's coreission o collective defense. th report would be required before any reduction in europe takes place. i fear putin's aggressi is the grtest threat since world war ii. article must remain a critical deterrent. my endment takes a stein that direction. finall i offered leglation
4:57 pm
to make sure u.s. training ograms for afghan national security forces include aining othe ptection of human rights. since e defe of the taliban in 2001, not enoh has been do to ma human rights protections ariori for law enformentgeies in afghanistan. this issue should be a major part of our training efforts. i urge my colleagues to support these provions and i yield back t balance of my time. the cha: the gentleman from new york yield it's ba his time. the gentlem fromexasr. o'rourkereserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. mr. thornbe tnk you, mr. chrman. i yield onminute to the distnguishedentleman from neyorkr. hanna. the chair: the gentleman from n york is recognizedfor one minute. mr. hanna: ihank t gentleman for yielding. maker acrs our nation avtion is quickly changing. today, basic unmanned aircraft can be purchased for aew hundred dollars fln virtually anywhere by an operatr with little or n expeence. en smalluad copter landed on the lawn of the white hse,
4:58 pm
we saw such potential danger witthe aircraft. the search lab rome, new york, workg withew air is e of the six f.a.a.est sites the cntry to integrate the systems into r national airspace. are the cutting edge of advances inmanned aeria aircraft. my amendment would simply reque the secretary of efense to conduct departmentwide review of its current capacities to detect identify and remotely disarm unmanned aircraft. it would further require the secretary to examine how the department of research and development resources can be leveraged to enhance these capacities. within the department of defense, some of these our nations most advanced research is taking place. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hanna: i appreciate the committee's recognition including this en bloc. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry reserves. the gentleman from texas, mr.
4:59 pm
o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to mr. connolly from virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i thank my friend and mr. chairman. i rise today in support of a bipartisan amendment i introduced with my colleague, mr. chabot of ohio. this amendment prohibits the authorization of funds to implement any action that recognizes russian sovereignty over the crimea. the language mirrors my legislation in h.r. 93, the crimea annexation nonrecognition act which passed out of the house foreign affairs committee unanimously. it also was consistent with language included in the crong bus in december. -- conibus in december. it undermines ukrainian sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent that cannot be overstated. the u.s. must make a simple declare tiff statement on russia's illegal annexation. this bipartisan amendment does just that. i also want to thank the armed services committee leadership and staff for working with us on three other amendments that promote monitoring and
5:00 pm
evaluation for humanitarian assistance programs, improve management of information technology projects and foster better communication between government and industry and i thank both mr. thornberry and mr. smith for their leadership. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from texas the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman, mr. thornberry. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: i rise in support of the en bloc amendment. it's really common sense acquisition reform. there are numerous small business contracting programs aimed at ensuring that the department of defense is a reliable small business tech no clock -- technological and industrial base. but we rarely look at the results of these programs. the current method used to asays the health of ea the small business space focuses almost
5:01 pm
exclusively on one factor, prime contract dollars. while this is important, we're missing part of the picture. the current method ignores the fact that since 2013 we've lost over 25% of the small firms registered to do business with the federal government. 25%. that's over 100,000 small businesses that are no longer competing for contracts. we also have a declining small business participation rate which threatens the core principle of competition. it's basic supply and demand, when there are fewer offers, prices go up and that harms the taxpayer. that's what we're dealing. with i urge my colleagues to support this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the -- the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman, mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: i yield one minute to mr. ta chi of hawaii. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. takai: this bipartisan amendment will help men and women in the armed service who
5:02 pm
cain experience in maritime trades and trance toigs careers in the u.s. merchant marine to continue to serve our country this program will provide access to training opportunities necessary to meet requirements for licenses and certificates of registry. the program established by my amendment will help build on past successes, allowing the tens of thousands of currently serving military service members in the maritime trades to leave the military fully licensed to serve in the u.s. merchant marine. we can fix this now and in doing so not only allow already qualified service members a better opportunity to find a job but a chance to continue to ensure our national security. a strong domestic maritime industry is a critical component of our national security strategy. we must ensure that an adequate supply of mariners is available to support this industry. this is not -- this not only preserves american security but
5:03 pm
it preserves american jobs. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry is recognized. mr. thornberry: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. smith: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. mr. thornberry: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: i would note that i'm pleased to support the amendments we have discussed en bloc. i notice the amendments offered by our democratic colleagues, including -- include such important issues as russia, traumatic brain injury, a syria no-fly zone, human rights in afghanistan and maritime job training. all important issues and i appreciate the trickses -- contributions of all the members who authored these amendments who presented them, and who have
5:04 pm
argued for them here before the house. i hope mr. chairman, that all of those members will not just throw away the results of their efforts by voting against final passage because voting against final passage essentially means all of this work that they have put gos for nothing. members on both sides of the aisle have contributed to this product. members on both sides of the aisle need to contribute to having it become law. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and encourage members on both sides to support the en bloc package. the chair: the gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman. mr. smith: with unanimous consent can i reclaim the 30 seconds i yielded back? the chair: the gentleman's request is granted. mr. smith: i take the chairman's point but it's one that doesn't make sense from a legislative standpoint. anybody who has ever voted knows you can like portions of a bill and still vote against a bill. i don't think there's a
5:05 pm
legislator alive who has never been in that position. so the idea that if you get something, anything, however small in the bill, you are then somehow morally obligated to vote for it goes against every aspect of legislating that i have ever seen. it's our constant challenge as legislators that we have pieces of legislation before us where there's a lot in it that we like and some in it that we don't like and you've got to decide system of i reject the argument that if you get something in this bill you have to vote for it. that's not the way it works. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. thornberry: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim had yielded back. th chair: the gentlema has a minu anda half. mr. thornberry: i apprciatt point theentlema made. my poi is this has beenhe resultf bipartisan effort. never bere i don't believe ha whad a party decision to
5:06 pm
oppose this ndaa in ord to try to lerage it for some of defense. yet that's what's happing here. myoint is simple. i arecie the crickshat members on bothides ve made --he cntributions that migh es on both sid have made it's not some ttleomething hat members have gotten here. these are po issu. traumatic brain injury russia, sya,human rights. theyre sigficant contributions. my poinis not necessarily a moral oe, it's a practical one. u work to get these andnts inuded in th bill but then the bill if you ve against the bill, goes down to defeat. what ave you accomplished? noth i hope at memrs on both side, who made ontributions and who do support our stro military, will rethink the position thathey arbeing asked to take with this bill. itthat i yield back again the balance my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back his time. the estion is on th
5:07 pm
amendmentofered en loc, fered by the gentlan from texas. ose in favor s aye. those opsed, no. in the opinionf the chair the ayes have it. then bloc amendm agreed to. it is now in order to consider amenent numb 5 printed in house report 114-112. for what ose does th tleman fm alaba seek rognition? >> i ha an amement at the de the chair: the clerkill designate amendment. the cler amendment mber five prind in use report 1-112, fered by m brooks of alabama. the chairpursuant to house resolut 260, the gentleman alabama, mr. brooks, and a member oos eh will contro ve minutes. chair recognizes the ntleman from alabama mr. brooks: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman texas, chairman
5:08 pm
thornberry, o hse aed rvices comttee. the cir: the gentlemans recogzed for one minute mr. thornbey: thankyou. mr. cirman, i rise in support othbrooks amendment. pposed the gallego amendment when it was consider comittee a rema oosed to brinng this issue of igration into the defse thorization bi. there are mbersn both sides of theie with a variety of positions whent comes immigration. but a defense auorization act is not the appropriate time or pce to have this debate. remember t gallego languag doesn't changany w. 's aense ocoress th secretary should review existing auries systemf a sensitive debate wherehere can be no results that chame anng, on disacts from e provions in this ll that do matter to our troops a our nation'security. i notice that the chairman of thsenate armed seices c said plicly 'rnot gong to do anything on immigrion in the ndaa. that's myiew as well thereforer. chairma i support the brooks amendt to removthis provisionow so
5:09 pm
th we can better foc othe thngs that are essent for r troops security. i yield back. chr: the gtlemanyields ck. the gentleman from alabama reserves. th genemanrom washgton. mr. smith: i yield one mine r. gallego. thchair: does the gentn seek time in oppotion in . smith: yes, i sk time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recogniand yields one minute to the gentleman from ariza. mr.al: dreame this countryre deeply patriotic. for many, s isheonly country they know, the on the love anllome. manyannotng more than the chanceo serve in tunited states military brooks amendment attempts to strikthat ali. we approveh amendment, we
5:10 pm
leave the deep unjust stus qunchanged. right now in arica, dreamers can be drafted into the military, but they can't sign up to servee military force they choose. th simply unacceptable these young people are americans in every respect exct on paper. i fought in iraq and i know that what really mas on the batefield is t whher you have the right pape, it's whether you have the heart to fight, patriotismor your country and the righaracter. for tood of cntry, i hope w defat this deeply uided brooks amendment i back. the chair: the gentlan yields back. the gentl from washington reserves his time thehair recoges theeman from a, mr. brooks. mr. brks: i yi one mine tohe gentlman fr virginia, chairman gd lath the chair: thgentleman is reize . goode: the houseuld noke action to legitimize the pridt's unconstitutional overreach regdimmigration.
5:11 pm
especially that of creating a programo defer removal for an entclass o hundreds of thoan of uawful ail yeps. e ntleman's ament is nessary preserve the congress'nstitutionally guaranteed poweover immiation law a policy. whher and how to dealh unlawful u.s. as minors by their parents is a question that we should debate thoroughly and any legislative efforts regarding these individuals should move through regular order in the house judiciary committee which has jurisdiction overate conces must be considered when diusg this issue. t the least of which is whetr should be ablto benet om e illega activity by becoming permanent sidents based o the status of the mir they brought here illegally in the first plac th will happen if any deferred actn for childhood arrivals res yent listsn the military.
5:12 pm
i urge colleagues to support thisnt. the chair: te gentleman yields back. thentleman frombama reserv considered when discussing this issue. not the least of which is whether they should be able to benefit from the illegal activity by becoming permanent residents based on the status of the minor they brought here illegally in the first place. that will happen if any deferred action for childhood arrivals resip yent enlists in the military. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves his time and the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from the great state of washington, ms. herrera beutler. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. herrera beutler: it was said that there's no greater love than to lay down your life for your friend. that's why i'm opposed to theament. i'm proud that in america citizenship means something. it is worthy to be earned. amnesty to me means giving it away and i don't support that. i do support the ability to earn citizenship. if a person has the courage and conviction to take the oath and to join our nation's warriors to defend you and i, what more can they do to prove their allegiance? if the military, which i don't believe is an elite -- the
5:13 pm
military is not a jobs program. if someone through their merit and hard work earns acceptance into that elite fighting force, where they could die defending you and me, then i leave you with this question. what country's flag would you have draped on the casket of that brave soul? with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. brooks: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas chairman smith, of the science, space and technology committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: i thank my friend from alabama for yielding me timism support his amendment. the house already has voted against the president's executive amnesty several times. the language this amendment seeks to strike would legitimize the president's unlawful immigration actions which violate congress' constitutional authority over immigration policy. serving in our military forces and defending our country should be a privilege reserves for those who were citizens and
5:14 pm
legal u.s. residents. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment and tell the president, no more unlawful actions on immigration. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the chair will remind members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentleman from alabama reserves his time and the gentleman from washington is recognized for his time. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aguilar: thank you, mr. speaker. our men and women who risk their lives every day to keep our country safe and free deserve the utmost respect and admiration. their tasked with a responsibility far greater than the rest of us. it takes bravery and honor to put their lives on the line every day to protect our nation and to promote our ideals of liberty and freedom. i believe we all agree on this. what i cannot believe or understand is that some of my republican colleagues think that
5:15 pm
it is fair to punish those who want to take on this courageous responsibility simply because they have not yet been granted full citizenship. my colleague from arizona's amendment passed out of committee and merely recognizes the willingness of dreamers, young people brought to this country as children, serve in the military for the country they las vegas love. . we shouldn't allow our broken immigration system stand in the way our distinguished military service. i urge rejection of the brooks amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. brooks: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time for closing. how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from alabama has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman reserves that time? mr. brooks: yes, sir. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: who has the right to close on this amendment? the chair: the gentleman from washington has the right to close. mr. smith: then i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. brooks: thank you, mr.
5:16 pm
speaker. americans in our armed forces are being hammered with layoffs and reductions in force. representative gay yageo's amendment to the ndaa -- gallego's amendment to the ndaa boresens that plight. over -- worsens that plight. 92,000 positions were eliminated. this year 28,000 positions prb eliminated. over the next four years, another 38,000 mirlts fogses will be cut. between 2010 and 2019, the armed forces will eliminate a total of 158,000 uniform personnel positions, thereby costing american citizens and lawful immigrants 158,000 military service opportunities. what is the result? americans serving around the world today have been handed pink slips while they are risking their lives for america. that's outrageous.
5:17 pm
for emphasis, there is no military recruitment and retention deficit that justifies supplanting americans and lawful immigrants with illegal aliens. in 2014, every branch of the military, the army the navy, the air force, the marines, met their recruiting and retention requirements while turning away thousands of highly qualified americans and lawful immigrants. each year there are limited number of enlistment opportunities. each time gallego's amendment helps an illegal alien enlist, a lawful american loses an enlistment opportunity. the ratio is 1:1, period, that is the math. this congress should support and represent americans by voting to stop military service opportunities from being taken from struggling american
5:18 pm
families in order to give them to illegal aliens. as such, i urge this house to support my amendment to strike the gallego amendment from the national defense authorization act. mr. speaker, thank you for considering my thoughts and request. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields back his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. smith: first, i agree completely of the comments from ms. herrera butteler. if you're willing to put your life on the line for your country then your country you. it truly is your country. second of all, the united states military is not a jobs program. if you're willing to show up and put your life on the line then that ought to be honored and you ought to be accepted. the notion these people are taking jobs from americans is frankly one that doesn't make any sense. we are asking people to serve in a very difficult job to defend our country. and if people in this country are willing to do this, we ought to at a minimum accept them. by i'll even go further than
5:19 pm
that. the undocumented population in this country is a population for too long has been ignored and shoved into the shadows. we all imagine that they're somehow different from the rest of us, but i guarantee you everybody in this room knows someone who is undocumented. and the overwhelming majority of them are law-abiding people who have jobs, raise families, contribute to our community. they deserve an opportunity to be part of the country that they have unquestionably claimed as their own. now, mr. gallego's amendment that we put on in committee is one small piece of doing that, to give them the opportunity to serve in the united states military and be given legal status, i think we need to do a lot more than that. i think we need comprehensive immigration reform so we can bring the undocumented population out of the shadows, give them a path to citizenship so by support mr. gallego's amendment, i oppose the effort by mr. brooks to strip it. i think it is the least our country can do for someone who is willing to fight and potentially die on our behalf
5:20 pm
to give them legal status, to treat them as the americans that they truly are. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition? ms. with a lohr key: mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15
5:21 pm
printed in house report 114-112 offered by mrs. walorski of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260, the gentlelady from indiana mrs. walorski, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank mr. thornberry for his support of my amendment. i want to start out by saying this debate is fundamentally about risk and trust. it's safe to assume the administration is risking our national security for the sake of fulfilling a misguide campaign promise. simply put, we have too much at sake to trust an executive order from the president. my amendment protects our national security, further strengthens and extends commonsense restrictions on guantanamo transfers. it prohibits detainees from coming to the u.s., a policy which has in the past had strong bipartisan support. in addition, it restricts the most dangerous detainees from being transferred. finally, it bans transfers to yemen, an al qaeda strong hold, one of the moist does places on
5:22 pm
earth, to set -- one of the most dangerous places on earth to set terrorists four-seam. it seems like the only thing we can trust the administration to do is underestimate the threat. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. smith: i oppose this by closing guantanamo and this amendment makes it more difficult to close guantanamo which is a policy we ought to do. again, president bush, secretary gates, endless string of military leaders and in a bipartisan way john mccain was running for president, people said we need to close guantanamo. it is not something a policy that we should continue. for beginners, it costs nearly $3 an inmate now to house them
5:23 pm
there when the ones that need to be kept can be safely housed in the united states. we have proven that we are perfectly capable of locking up terrorists and protecting our country. we have well over 300 terrorists now locked up in the united states of america including the blind sheik zacharias mow sigha and -- and bad guys. we don't need guantanamo. beyond that, this amendment makes it difficult to transfer anybody. and a large number of inmates at guantanamo have been cleared for transfer. they have been deemed not to be a threat and they are cleared to be transferred. mrs. walorski's amendment would make it pretty much impossible to transfer them. so these are people we've already decided are not going to be a threat and now we're going to pass amendments saying we're simply going to lock them up and hold them forever just because. now, i understand the because. the because is there's a risk. and i'm not going to deny there
5:24 pm
is a risk if you release somebody. i will say that the statistics on people returning to the fight who have been in guantanamo are very skewed. back before 2008 when we had i think at one point we had as many as 700 inmates at guantanamo, a lot of people were released without proper care. now, they were also brought there without proper investigation to figure out whether or not they were people we should legitimately pick up. since 2008, the number -- the percentage of the people who have been released who have returned to the fight is less than 10%. it has gone down considerably. and beyond that, just as a basic system of justice, it is not our principle here in the united states that if there is any possibility whatsoever that someone will reoffend, well, we're just going to lock you up forever, that's not the principle of justice we have. there's a principle of justice that says you served your time and then you are let out. and at guantanamo we have released a fair number of people in the last year because
5:25 pm
they were deemed to not be a threat. this amendment would eliminate our ability to do that and also make it more difficult to close guantanamo which, again, $3 an inmate when we can safely do it here. and internationally, guantanamo continues to be a blight on the u.s. record. now, i will not make the argument that some make to say this is a recruitment tool. it is a recruitment tool for al qaeda and like-minded groups. they don't have a shortage of recruitment tools. our allies, countries in europe other arab states that want to work with us to try to contain groups like isil and al qaeda, they have to deal with citizens who hate guantanamo, who see it as a symbol of injustice and a betrayal of their values and our values. so working with our allies to properly confront the terrorist threat is made more difficult
5:26 pm
by the presence of guantanamo bay prison. so i oppose this amendment. i'll have an amendment after this one that would give us a path to opposing the prison. i oppose this amendment because it will make it more difficult to do what we need to do in this country and that is to close guantanamo bay prison. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to dr. wenstrup, original co-sponsor of this bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wenstrup: today sadly the threat from radical terrorism only continues to grow and i take that threat very seriously. unfortunately, the administration is still determined to close guantanamo bay detention facility regardless of the risk that it poses to u.s. national security. as in previous conflicts it's appropriate and lawful to hold detainees, and in this case until al qaeda and associated forces are defeated and surrender. guantanamo is the safest and
5:27 pm
most appropriate location. it's secure and relatively distant from the united states and terrorist safe havens. guantanamo also provides humane conditions for the detainees. they have access to health care religious and cultural materials. many have visited guantanamo and have seen the conditions in which the dangerous detainees are held. released guantanamo detainees have a high risk of recidivism. the u.s. military and intelligence community suspect that one of the taliban five has attempted to return to the fight. no one has escaped guantanamo, unlike other terrorist detention facilities around the world. and the facility has not been attacked unlike other facilities. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. wenstrup: i ask for your support and i yield back. mrs. walorski: mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i yield myself 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds.
5:28 pm
mr. smith: no terrorist has escaped from a u.s. prison either just to be absolutely clear about that. i'm not sure which prison the gentleman is talking about but no one has escaped from a u.s. prison either, no terrorist. i believe we have the right to close, is that correct? the chair: the gentleman from washington has the right to close. mr. smith: i have one more speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: thank you. i yield one minute to our chairwoman of our oversight and investigations committee mrs. hartzler. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for one minute. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i rise in support of this very important amendment. you know, we live in a dangerous world. whether it's the ongoing conflict in yemen, the march of isil the slaughter of christians by boko haram, the murder of innocence byal that back or the threat of attacking americans by al qaeda, the rise of islamic extremism is real and we need a safe, effective place to detain these terrorists.
5:29 pm
gitmo is a unique place. now is not the time to transfer these detainees or close its doors. i had the opportunity to visit guantanamo bay and see the operations there first harned and i can confirm that -- firsthand and i can confirm that gitmo is the most safest play to hold detainees who threaten the u.s. and our allies. we need to continue to protect american citizens from some of the world's most dangerous individuals. we need to pass this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from indiana reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana. mrs. walorski: i yield one minute to mr. royce. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: i rise in support of this amendment. i already expressed my deep concern for the rushed, almost frenzied manner in which the administration is emptying the detention center at guantanamo bay. we saw the dangerous taliban
5:30 pm
five transfer. just this past december, the administration released six guantanamo bay detainees to the small south american country of uraguay. these six detainees had been trained in munitions and document forgery. in quiet negotiations with them to take the six, the obama administration offered the president of uraguay reassurances that none of them had ever been involved in conducting or facilitating terrorist activities. . throwing out wit
115 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on