a. and thousands of, about 40,000 students in elementary schools are being taken care of. let's support them on the ground. rep/. cicilline: i was just in jordan and saw at border and the syrian borden the incredible work of the jordanians, you know, supporting over 1.5 million refugees fleeing syria. we have to be sure that we continue to support that. miss kabawat? kabawat: again mr. congressman, i emphasize about the solution of the protected zone. we need it. i've been also in jordan last month. it's so important to start thinking about this. we need to get the civilian in a safe way, in a safe area, that can be protected from the isis and from the bomb of the syrian regimes. we need it. this will give better position for turkey and jordan so they can take care of other things. we thanks to the american for all of the humanitarian aid they're give

together syrian people. we appreciate it. we know that you're doing a lot. but they really need to be in a safe zone. so i really asking you and seeking this, it's so important. thank you. rep. cicilline: mr. chairman if i might ask indull against for one final quep i question. the role of the current iraqi government, you know, there are many people who argue that isis is an outgrowth of policies from iraqi and syrian governments that have marginalized sunnis in particular. what do we need to see from the current iraqi government or a future syrian government to demonstrate the tolerance and inclusiveness that will prevent this kind of violence? should the united states be doing more to condition some of our support for the iraqi government on their commitment to take certain steps to protect minority populations and build a more inclusive government? i mean that's -- you know, the syrian solution is the long-term

answer. but in this interim period, can we be doing more to demand more of the current iraqi government? sister diana: mr. congressman, i think it's very important to do such things previous to your question, i mean, we are known as idps. we will be like that forever if we don't return home. so if there is efforts from both parts to help us to return home , i think that will be the solution. with your help, you know. so that will give us a better life. otherwise there will be no education and it's not about the education and health care because that won't happen when you're an idp. you don't have an identity or any entity there. our entity is back where we belong. so i think there are efforts from both parts to return home, there where we can start to rebuild, there where we can start all over again. thank you.

>> regarding syria and you're talking about long-term, we need to think about a few things. first, we need a transition not to destroy the institutions. and this is -- will happen only if we have a political solution. we need to pressure the regime to come to the negotiation table and make a -- we need a transition and we need to include everybody. and everything will be good if we can end it within a political solutions. this is a long term and this is the best way to protect minorities, to save the institutions, and have a transitions government include everybody. >> thank you. >> if i could inject here. you're suggesting to get there you need no-fly zone, safe zone, over aleppo and the other areas where in aleppo, for example

the business community, the sunni and christian and alawite business community is trying to hold out there, but they have isis on the front line but then -- but then intermittently the barrel bombs and the chemical attacks occur from the assad regime. which are dropped on the city that's trying to trying to hold out against isis so you're and -- and so you're saying you believe if there was a no-fly zone there and there was a prohibition from the dropping of the barrel bombs that would help civil society take a foothold there. could you explain that thinking to me? kabawat: sure. i did witness the

barrel bomb when i was in aleppo, and it's very, very hard for the civil society to grow went there's a -- an immediate threat to your life. yes, i'm not a military expert but i believe that we need to stop the bombs. this is a first step for the community, for everybody. rep. royce: you think also that in doing that, it helps drive a an impetus for a settlement? because then they can see that the society can't be overrun there? kabawat: and we did, there is so many example before from the local council they could run the community, and they can include the christians. rep. royce: i've note tisd,ices i've seen christian female battalions among the free syrian force there, as well as sunni and you know, i've talked to alawite business community alouite supporting the effort there in aleppo to hold on.

kabawat: we need to have a safe place for this community. once we start the barrel bombs then support the the oppositions in all the way we can, we get an example in other local -- as a witness, they knew that i'm christian and been working with the civil society and i know in syria what you see in sectarian zone now, it's a reaction because of all that happened. but in the end of the day, in the community we live together, the minute that the death toll will stop, the syrian people can continue to live and live together. >> thank you. i want to thank all of the witnesses for moving and insightful testimony here today. isis is in fact conducting a war against religious minorities , against tolerance and as you

an i want to thank our panelists shared against civilization. and i want to thank our panelists for bringing the voice of persecuted, the voice of the christian yazidis and others here today and the committee has long been focused on the robust humanitarian response and legislation that we have on the florida house, thank you for supporting that legislation today. and i think your appeals for safe zones to return to your homes have given us new to consider. to consider with an indelible -- thank you for being with us. we stand adjourned.

>> tomorrow former security cia director michael arounmorell talks about the successes and failures of the last 20 years. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senate member and house number.

also, a foldout map of capitol hill commanded and it would fit congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. c-span.org. >> the house has completed work on the $612 billion policies bill. all of but eight republicans voted in favor. president obama has threatened to veto the bill over at circumvention of the caps. on thursday, house members debated a wide range of amendments to that which still has to get senate approval. here is some of that floor debate. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 ought to accept 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 with a stroke of a pen the analysis that had led to their detention. these six former terrorists live only six blocks away from the u.s. embassy which forced the embassy to heighten its security posture. the obama administration effectively prioritized its political goal of closing guantanamo over our national security interests. the administration's best -- desperation to empty guantanamo has caused six hardened terrorists to land dangerously close to an embassy in our hemisphere. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentlelady from indiana is recognized. mrs. walorski: i yield one minute to my colleague from montana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: i rise in support of this amendment. i spent years as a navy seal. most of the last years of my service was spent hunting killing, or capturing those who had american blood on their hands. i had the honor of leading special operations troops in hunting these dangerous assailants and bringing them to justice. releasing terrorists from guantanamo bay who have committed killing american citizens, not only is a national security risk but it's also a slap in the face to every

american every man every woman who died in the battlefield to put them there. the president insists the terrorists are reformed. the facts say different. according to the director of national intelligence, nearly 30% of former gitmo detainees are confirmed or suspected of engaging in terrorist activities. the majority remain at large. a catch and release program may work for trout in montana but it doesn't work for terrorists. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from indiana, her time has expired. mrs. walorski: thank you mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized, the gentleman has 45 seconds. mr. smilt: i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. it is truly astonishing that in 2015, the united states continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime, who have been judged not to pose a threat to the

united states. continuing to hold these people without trial is a rebuke to our notion of liberty. some of these people are terrorist bus some are not they have been judged not to be a threat to the united states. some of them may be victim of the fact that we give bounties to people who say they turn in terrorists. the hatfields turned in the mccoys because why not? we were giving them a few thousand dollars. we have supermax prisons in the united states from which no one has ever escaped. there's no reason to spend the money in guantanamo and have this continuing shame on the reputation of the united states. i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. -- agreed to. mrs. walorski: i request a vorded -- a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentlelady from indiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 114-112. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. smith: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 114-12, offered by mr. smith of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: this amendment would take out of the bill all of the things that are in it that make it impossible to close

guantanamo bay prison. this is a debate we've had many times, the provisions are typically banning any transfers to the u.s., banning any construction in the u.s., of any facilities to house the folks being housed right now in guantanamo. it strips out those two and it also asks the president to give us a detailed plan on how he would go about closing guantanamo and what he would do with the inmates that are there now and requires a 90-day notice period to congress before any action could be take on that. and it is basically the same argument that i just made as to why we should close guantanamo. it was opened in the first place as a way to try to get around the u.s. constitution. basically the thought was since it wasn't in the continental u.s. habeas corpus and other protections wouldn't apply. but the supreme court a number of years ago said it is effectively under u.s. control so no, all the same rules apply

system of one argument that's frequently frot out is that somehow if they're brought to the u.s. they would suddenly have constitutional rights they don't have in guantanamo. the supreme court has already ruled on that. they have ruled that it is effectively under u.s. control and the exact same rights, the habeas corpus and other rights that a criminal or prisoner of war would have. so bringing -- bringing them to the united states would not be a problem. we have an alternative to guantanamo. it's not like there's no option. there are now, i believe 122 inmates, i forget the exact number, who have been cleared for transfer back to another country. but it's somewhere roughly half that amount. we'd be looking at between 50 and 60 inmates to transfer to the united states. we have the facilities here. as i said, we already house some of the most dangerous terrorists who have ever arrested and convicted. we have the facilities, we have the ability to hold them safety leer. -- here system of there is an

alternative. the current situation in guantanamo bay has a number of negatives. the high costs, as i mentioned, several times almost $3 million an inmate. then the international eyesore that guantanamo bay is. not just to terrorists. i don't care about them or care what they say or how they feel about us holding people at guantanamo. but to our allies in europe, to people in the ashe world who want to help us defeat the -- in the arab world who want to help us defeat the scourge of islamic ex-timism. this is an eye shore we should tissue eyesore we should close and we should make that happen as soon as possible. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> to oppose the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: i -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thorn brother: i yield one -- mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to mr. zinke.

mr. zinke: i rise to express one soldier's thoughts on closing gitmo. i have no doubt that closing this jeopardizes the safety and security of the united states and our citizens abroad. if the success or the failure of the mission at gitmo is based on the number of attacks against the united states after 9/11, i'm confident everyone in this room would join me in judging the mission has been successful. intelligence collection and national security have been strengthened as a result of gitmo and america remains a safer place thanks to the men and women serving there. coaching dangerous terrorists in a military prison and away from american families is the way it should be done. to me, closing gitmo is simply not an option. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the remaining part of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves.

mr. thornberry: i'm happy to yield to another speaker to even the time. i'm happy to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. walorski: thank you mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. everything that happened since last year's debate should force us to be more care wfl detainee decisions rather than lescareful. the rise of isil, the release of the taliban five, the war in yemen are just a few events that remind office the urningtcy of this debate. potentially most troubling is the growing threat of aqap, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, enabled by the power vacuum in yemen. aqap was formed by gitmo detainees. mr. chairman, i believe we need a commonsense policy a detainee policy that protects americans. i urge my colleagues to vote no and oppose this amendment. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. smith: we have only one more speaker. i know they have the right to close but we'll reserve until they get to the last speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i'm happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. coffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to oppose this amendment. in march of 2014, the director of national intelligence reported that 29% of detainees released from guantanamo bay have engaged or were suspected of resuming their roles as terrorists. those who remain in guantanamo are the quote, worst of the worst, unquote, so it is safe to presume that if released, an even higher percentage of them will remain a threat to our national security. i struggle to understand why we would close the fwauntaun moe pay bayh detention camp only to finance the incarceration of

enemy combatants within the united states. the need for a place to detain enemy combatants unfortunately will not go away any time soon system of unquestionably, we need a facility like guantanamo. as we engage an enemy with no respect for borders, we must not move them to our maximum security prisons while the courts determine how we should legally proceed. for our nation's security, i implore you to vote no on this amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to the chair of the -- chair of the investigation oversight subcommittee, the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. hartzler: thank you. i rise in opposition to this amendment. why? there are many reasons. but the predominant reason is it allows the following people to come to america's shore or possibly be released. here's a few people who are in guantanamo bay that the sponsor

of this amendment wants to bring here. 16 detainees associated with osama bin laden or other top al qaeda leaders. eight received explosives training, four associated with al qaeda recruiters. two that are knowledgeable about poisons. others involved in a plot against a u.s. embassy volunteer too bad suicide bomber commander of an al qaeda training camp. also k.s.m., the architect of the 9/11 attacks. k.s.m.'s third in command. the mastermind of the u.s.s. cole attack. on and on. the idea of bringing these individuals to america is foolish and makes no sense. we already have a secure fa simity that is working, to constitutional and is keeping americans safe. we need to keep gitmo open. i oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington.

mr. smith: i yield myself 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: the only flaw in that statement is the part about them being released in the u.s. that's not going to happen. if that was the plan i'd be opposed to it. but again, over 300 very dangerous terrorists held in the u.s. right now today. we have proven we can do it here . we're not going to bring them here and release them. that's not what i'm arguing for. with that, i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes and a quarter. the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i listened to this debate and it sounds as if we have forgotten everything we ever learned about american justice and american liberty. we are told that 29% of the people released from guantanamo have been returned to terror. well that simply says the bush administration did a lousy job

in deciding who should be released because since then, it's been a tiny percentage. yes, a large percentage of those the bush administration released became recidivists. so the argument is, everyone held in guantanamo should be held there forever. that's the argument. the amendment we just considered a moment ago would make it even harder, make it impossible, to release anyone from guantanamo. the opposition to this amendment is for the same purpose. we are told that these are the worse of the worst -- worst of the worst. who says? some of them have been -- have never been charged with a crime. have never been charged with terrorism. have been judged safe for release and have been told, labeled by our military, as not being terrorists, not being threats to the united states, yet we continue to hold them indefinitely. why? and by what right? k.s.m. is a me nass, indeed he. is he should be brought to the

united states, placed on trial in a federal court, he's been waiting for trial for almost 14 years because we can't get our military tribunals to work. put him on trial in an article 3 federal court and sentence him life in prison without parole as others have been. nobody escapes from our super max prisons, justice ought to be done, it ought to be meted out. we're told people will be released here. we're not demanding that even be released, or that anyone in particular be released, certainly not to the united states. we are saying the normal processes of justice should go forward. we have saying that the fact that someone lived in afghanistan and other tribe had a grudge against his family and turned him in for a bounty even though he had no ties to terrorism, we ought to know that. and that person ought to be released. because we know that about some people. instead, what we are faced with is a statute that says that nobody ought to ever be released, we ought to hold people indefinitely for life,

for no reason. it poses a threat that the president under the authority of the 2012 law can hold americans in guantanamo indefinitely and we should close it to prevent that too. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman are from -- the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. thornberry: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a quarter. mr. thornberry: i don't think anybody says we have to leave quan taun moe open forever or keep these folk the detainees there forever. . it is absolutely true we don't know how long this war is going to go. it is also true that if the president came up with a plan that could get the confidence of the american people first about what he would do with the guantanamo detainees then there may be something to talk about, but unfortunately this amendment would strike the provisions of the bill which prevent them from coming to the

u.s. which prevents them from being released to war zones, which prevents construction of new facilities and make no mistakes new facilities would have to be built because they can't be co-mingled with inmaints here in the u.s., and it strikes transfers. and then it says, oh by the way, president, give us a plan. how about we have a plan first and see whether that plan stands up to the light of day? at one point the president had a plan to take these folks to new york city and have a trial there but there was an uproar. there was a plan to take them to -- a rehabilitative facility in pennsylvania and there was >> this weekend on newsmakers utah senator mike lee. he talks about the patriot act and the usa freedom act and

other topics including the defense authorization bill. at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> house majority leader kevin mccarthy talks about his belief in american exceptionalism and the inspiration he has received from ronald reagan and abraham lincoln. representative mccarthy gave these remarks recently at the ronald reagan presidential library and museum in simi valley, california. this is 35 minutes. [applause] rep. mccarthy: thank you very much. very kind. thank you. don't go too long, you have not

heard me yet. i want to thank john. that is probably one of the nicest introductions i've ever had. i have been a big admirer of john because he has never lost what reagan taught him. he is willing to make sure the torches continue to be lit. to make sure the values of reagan are taught in other places. when i walked into the green room, i was shocked, there is a picture of me up there. i said, how did you get the already? that is good staff work. i helped lead the 100th celebration where we went to london, to prague, to budapest to poland. they wanted to honor reagan. they understood what reagan talked about, the liberties and the freedoms. they saw firsthand the change that he brought to the world. when i stood before that, and they put statues there, i wondered who made sure those were there? john made sure, and even paid

for some himself. so i thank you for that, john. and the work that you do. [applause] i know she cannot be with us tonight, but i want to thank nancy reagan. ronald reagan was a tremendous man, but together, they showed the rest of the world what values meant and what bond two good people could have. and opportunities even be able to speak here. you know, there are two other people in my life and they happen to be women. my wife, judy. [applause] and my mom. [applause] we do not get to pick our mothers, but if i could, i would. mother's day is coming. sitting next to them is a dear colleague of mine, steve.

[applause] he is a freshman, but no freshman by any means, he has hit the ground running. he is keeping the torches lit as well. i want to tell you a little bit about myself. i see friends in the room, and some i have not met. i don't come from far from here. i come from bakersfield. it is where i was born, where i was raised and i can't get elected anywhere else. [laughter] you all know bakersfield. i went to all public schools. i group in a family of all democrats. i was the first republican. you see, of all the speeches i have given, this is the one the kind of makes me nervous. not because you are out there, but because of the name on the podium. i am a child of ronald reagan. i come from the reagan revolution. he has had more effect on my life then he has ever imagined and he never really met me. you see, when i went through

school, i applied myself, by do -- that i did not do as well as i should. i admired my parents. they knew the values of reagan. they worked hard. my mother worked a job, my father worked two. they did not have great wealth, but we did not know it. we went to the grocery store to cash his check. we didn't go to the bank. when i got out of high school, i could not get a scholarship. we did not have great wealth, so i went to the local junior college. i always had a summer job since i was 12 years old. i saved my money. i always wanted to invest it. i met this guy when i was 18. he owned a liquor store, but had a car dealers license. you can imagine how an 18-year-old meets someone like that. i talked him to bring me down to l.a. to the car dealers option.

-- auction. i would go there and buy and sell cars to pay my way through college. i found out later, i don't think it was legal, but i was being an entrepreneur. one friday night, i took a few my friends to san diego state to visit somebody in college. i went to the grocery store to cash a check. it was 1985. the day before, the lottery just started. i thought, i will buy a ticket. i won the lottery. true story. $5,000. so, what i did i took my folks , to the nicest restaurant in town, gave my brother and sister each $100. i took the majority of the rest and bought one stock. because i believed in taking risks and i believed in america. we did pretty well. it was the 1980's. at the end of the semester, i told my folks i was not going to go back to school. i took my money out of the market, i refinanced my current car and went to buy franchise. i soon found out that no one really wants to sell a franchise

to a 19-year-old. so, i built my own business. it was a deli. the values that i learned from being a small business owner have never left me. you are the first one to work, the last one to leave, and the last one to be paid. it was very rewarding. i soon learned what government regulation was as well. at the end of two years, i did really well. i now had enough money saved, i could pay my way through college without working. so i sold my business. , in my local paper, they had an article, be a summer intern with your local congressman. i did not know the man, but i thought he would be lucky to have me. [laughter] so i applied and he turned me down. you want to know the end of the story is? i am now elected to the seat i could not get an internship for. [applause] only in america can that happen.

the question i pose you tonight -- can that same story happen again? could that happen today? i question if you could open that same business. i have done a lot of research when i thought to come give this speech. i wondered what you would want to hear about, what you would want to know. i thought i would just tell you exactly what i think. i believe that the time that ronald reagan was elected, we are living through it again. in washington, i hear a lot that today's world, if you look at it, is a lot like the world before world war i. i believe it is a lot like 1979, 1980. i believe that for a few different reasons. think about what government has done. we have a v.a. system that can

't care for the vets that defended us. you had to fight to get the answers. you have an irs system that goes after you based on your philosophical beliefs, and when the person gets caught, there is no accountability, they say they have lost their e-mails. the government spent billions of dollars on a new health care system and they can't even build the website. it goes all the way down to the secret service. a man that does not even have both legs working perfectly jumped the fence, went through the door. we found out that they did not lock the white house. the alarm didn't go off because it was broken. you know why it didn't go off? it was broken. they did not fix it. they turned it off. when the ebola crisis hit

america, we brought in the military to handle it. you found america was incompetent. did not think about foreign policy. when was the last time, as americans, we watched other americans being held hostage and we felt weak about our response? 1979 in iran. and today, when it comes to isis. when was the last time a u.s. ambassador was killed on foreign soil? that is a direct reflection of the respect the other countries have for us or the fear that they have of america. in 1979 in afghanistan, and ambassador stevens just recently in libya. when was the last time we watched the soviet union invade another country and you felt the response from the president was weak? they invaded afghanistan and jimmy carter's response was to not send our athletes to the olympics being held in the country.

what do you think the soviet union thought then? great, more gold medals for them. today, they invade the ukraine. no stopping with putin. we did not have minsk i we have the minsk ii agreement. he continues to lie. there are russians on the ground. when jimmy carter was president, he went to sign a treaty, but it was not ratified. ronald reagan ran against it. we have a president today that talks to the enemy of iran. we have an administration today

that when we go around the world, our friends don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. why? because who do they befriend? when jimmy carter was president, his u.n. ambassador had to resign. why? he privately met with the plo when we had told our best friend israel, we would not, and he was caught. that same time of what i tell you about in 1979, i do not tell you to depress you. i talk about this because if there was ever a time to embrace the reagan revolution, it is now. in my research to speak tonight, i did think long and hard about what i wanted to say. if you will give me permission i want to read one passage. "do not mistake me, no result -- reasonable man who sees the world as it is, who views the deterioration of our economy the waning of our relationship

with our allies, the growth of the soviet might, and the sufferings of our recent past could underestimate the difficulties before us." those are not my words. those are then-candidate ronald reagan's words on the eve of his election in 1980. you see, ronald reagan, the night before, bought 30 minutes of all three networks. he spoke directly to the people. that exact same speech could be spoken today. just days away before he transformed our country. he talked about the growth of government. he talks about the weakness of america where we had fallen back, and when we fall back, someone else fills the void. or we had to accept this new malaise or this new norm of what

was going forward. he did not agree with it. he said there was a better way another way to move forward. i believe that same thing could be spoken today. you know, in my office, inside washington, i have an office for being majority leader. i had never been in this room until i was elected majority leader. i did not know it existed. in it, i wanted to put some paintings. so, i asked a friend of mine. everything in my office has a purpose. there are two paintings in my office. one of abraham lincoln and one of ronald reagan. abraham lincoln is in black and white because of the time in which he served, what was going on in america. reagan is all in color and smiling. there are many nights that i spent alone, and i am a little strange, i talk my paintings. i ask them, what advice would you give me? when i sit before and watch what the administration tries to do they do not govern by trusting

the people, it is all by executive order. when i look to reagan, i think he would probably tell me a story. my father was good at telling a story. anytime that something went wrong, he would say, oh that is just the story of the man with a heart attack. you all know that story right? a man has been married to a wife of more than 50 years and has a heart attack. he wakes up at a hospital and says to his wife, honey, you have always been there for me. you remember, when we got married, and i came home and have lost my job, you stayed with me. no one would hire me. and when i joined the army, what did you do? you join the nurses corps. so you could stay near me. when they shot me, you took care of me. let's admit it, you raised both of our daughters, but when i went out and created those

businesses that ended in bankruptcy, you did not leave me. and i had this heart attack, and for the first time, i thought i would die. i wake up and who do i see? i see you. i'm beginning to think you are bad luck. [laughter] you look at the administration. they are inept, but they blame us. whatever problem you reps, somehow it is somebody else's fault. so, when i sit and talk to these two men on the wall, do you ever wonder what they would tell us today? you know why i picked the two? i think by far they are the finest presidents we have ever had. i believe he only served one term. i believe god put them there for a purpose. ronald reagan ran before and did

not win. i think the time that god put him in then was the time we needed him. we needed to transform. what advice would they give to all of us? i believe both of them would say the first advice would be the same. believe in the exceptionalism of this country. do not be shy of it. there is a reason why we are exceptional because our country was created differently than any other country before us. i say lincoln would say this based on the gettysburg address. you all know the words. it's less than 270. do you ever read the words "four score and seven years ago"? do you ever read -- "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal?" but he goes on to say, if we

fail the government, the people shall not perish from the earth. he did not say that france or england would pick up the torch. he said we would make it. no other country was created with the idea of liberty and that everyone is equal. ronald reagan knew this better than all the rest. you know why? ronald reagan understood something very fundamental. that america is more than just the country. america is an idea. an idea that free people can govern themselves. that government powers are derived from the consent of the governed. that each and every one of us are endowed by our creator. with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if you ever asked me why is the picture of reagan in color and smiling?

because he was a happy conservative. he was happy because he understood his policies brought people greater liberty and freedom. if there's one bit of advice that i can give to anyone running for president, the happy -- be happy about our policies and invite more people to join us. we do not need to yell, we need to shout to be able to govern. the second bit of a vice that i he was not sworn in until march 1861. in that short amount of time seven states left the union. with technology today, you can look at every word and search every word of lincoln. never once did he blame buchanan. can you say the same for our current administration? reagan brought us the 11th commandment.

he never spoke ill of someone else. he ran through the same primaries and difficulties. he lost in a race for the presidency. he brought his opponent, george bush, in to be his vice president. when reagan gave the speech on the eve of his election, he didn't give it alone. he had his vice president, george bush, sitting next to him. i think it is our responsibility , as others come to this podium who want to run for president, lets and still values that reagan taught them. let's keep the 11th amendment and not speak ill of other republicans. the next advice that i believe reagan and lincoln understood best -- peace without freedom is meaningless.

think for a moment. peace without freedom is meaningless. you can sacrifice one for the other. lincoln understood -- he could and did the civil war a little early. he would have gotten peace, but would he have freedom for all americans? he had the emancipation proclamation, but he did not have the 13th amendment yet. reagan understood this probably better than any other president. on the eve, in 1986, in iceland, the whole world was watching. they thought the agreement would be signed with gorbachev.

gorbachev just wanted one thing that you could not have fdi. reagan understood that up our freedom, not just to america. present reagan offer the technology to the russians as well. there would be freedom for the entire world. gorbachev said no, thinking that reagan would want peace more than freedom. reagan understood these are not have one or the other, he wanted both. history has shown, even though the pundits would write that that was wrong, you got a better agreement. reagan understood the you never went into a negotiation without the willingness to walk away. if there was ever a time for this a administration to look to reagan, now is the time. as they negotiate with iran, do not just hope for peace. do not sign an agreement unless you get peace with freedom.

[applause] the other question that i think the administration should see -- reagan could negotiate with the soviet union. he was never afraid to not say who they were and what they did. he spoke the truth. he made the negotiations not just about missiles, but about human rights. that is why they did not want to negotiate with them, but it is why he was able to win. you know, reagan talked to be able to beat the soviet union. his staff said, we need to have a meeting about this, we need to make a plan. this is the greatness of reagan. he believes in the common sense

of the common man. he didn't just believe it, he lived to it. they all came to him and said, this has to stop, we need to have a whole discussion. reagan summed up the battle with the soviet union in four words: "we win, they lose." if you ask reagan today -- when i go back the senate just voted on being able to hold the president in check for negotiations. [applause] if you ask reagan today, should he signed on the current agreement? i do not think he would use for words, he would use two: "hell no." you know what is ironic -- we have the democratic administration going through some of the same challenges that jimmy carter went through. both of those presidents won the nobel peace prize, unlike reagan, who brought more freedom to the world than those two presidents.

there is a quality of reagan that every elected official should understand. he did not care who got the credit. if you cared, he would have signed the agreement with gorbachev in iceland because the world was prepared to give him the nobel peace prize. this was never about himself. it was always about the country. a trait we should look for as we move forward. the other advice that i would say he would tell us today -- do not put off tell political decisions for future generations. the whole role of president is about ideas. the first thing lincoln -- the whole debate of slavery did not start in 1850's.

it started in the creation of our country. our forefathers believed it was too divisive, so they left it out. by making that decision, they in essence decided hundreds of thousands of grandchildren were going to die. we do not have the same tough decisions, but we have tough ones that we should not put off. reagan did not. reagan got tax reform when the democrats controlled the house and senate. being got social security reform to protect it for the next generation. how was he able to achieve this? he did not get into talking points. he went directly to the american public. he trusted us. he trusted our intelligence. he did not think the government

had to be so big to tell us what to think. he went and explained. he did not talk about one bill but talks about what america could be. tip o'neill is famous for saying, "i have a 20 vote margin, i will defeat any tax plan that ronald reagan has." so, ronald reagan went directly to the public, told his story, and you watch the newsreels today, and thousands of calls to the switchboard change that opinion. he did not trust on, he trusted us. everyone who wants to run -- let's make it not about them but about the country. i will to you -- one of the last ones, reagan probably something up best.

he said, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem. in the same talk on the eve of the election, ronald reagan said that he did not believe in no government, he believes in limited government. he also believe the very best people should serve in government. he did not sit back and plan. he put the team together before he was elected. why? he did not want a va system that cannot care for veterans, or an irs system that was not held accountable. he wanted a government that was efficient, accountable, and did not take one dime extra to do its job. we should embrace that. in the house today, we should think about big ideas and big reform. that is why we are talking about tax reform this year.

that's why we're talking about 21st cent tury curious. that same debate that ronald reagan had on the eve of his election about government and agencies being too big, it is back again and only larger. last year, there was a study -- what does regulation cost of business? do you realize that to small businesses, the cost is greater. we love to do manufacturing in america today, but small businesses, a cost of $35,000 per employee. how do you compete with that? this demonstration has added hundreds of thousands of new pages of regulation. i was up in napa county, speaking to a high school. i was talking about the challenge of holding us back that the government can do.

i do not leave and no regulation, i believe in common sense. one student in the back raised his hand and asked, how can we farll this far behind? i asked the student, do you play a sport? he said he was a swimmer. i said, let me give you an analogy. i asked him to picture america competing with every other country. right after world war ii. we go to the lots of the swimming. we jump in the water. we win. we not only win, but we are so fast that we get out and dry off before second and third arrived. the next year comes out and we say, that is pretty unfair. we won the war, some of the others have to rebuild more than us, we should probably swim with a weight belt, why don't we had a little higher tax to america? we jump back in and win. the next year comes around and we say, we should have higher regulation than others.

every year after year, you are adding five or 10. then, they obama administration, he has the stimulus, atd 50, then the health care systemd,d 25. now we don't win. it is time that we remove the weight belt so that we can compete with the rest of the world and create the jobs back in america. [applause] i will tell you. i have taken this mantle from ronald reagan. i have just brought together a task force. we meet in my office regularly. my advice to them is that i want

them all to become individual paul ryan's for everything will agency the way paul is for the budget. if we created the agencies today, with a look the same? the goal is to make them efficient and accountable. why would we have so much duplication? why would we not modernize? the v.a. system still uses paper. when the v.a. system first started, they used paper and we got our news from the radio. we should be able to change. we know it is not an easy task before us, but we will not give up. i always like to say, when i give a speech, my wife tells me this -- she says, you should be a little like liz taylor.

she always gave the advice to her husband, i will not give you long. [laughter] tonight, i talked about two significant men, but they were just that. just men. they helped transform this country in this world. we have the same responsibility before us. certain things happen in my life and happening yours that you never forget. it is significant to me. i remember the day that i fell in love with my wife. i remember the day i got married. i remember the day of the birth of my two children. i remember the day i accepted christ. i remember the day i became a republican. they were all in different order. i want to tell you why i became a republican. i watched jimmy carter put a sweater on and tell me i had to accept something less, that the best days were behind my country.

i watched ronald reagan stand before podium and say, no pastels, bold colors, and go to the shining city on the hill. that was america. i knew what he meant by the light. that was freedom. liberty. i knew the light went beyond california, and even beyond maine. when president reagan spoke and talk to exceptionalism, they postedrotested him in europe bobby other side of the berlin wall, they celebrated him. they are the words that inspired me. don't you believe that the shining city on the hill is america? don't we also agree that that light has been dimmed a little?

i love america. i love its people. i will tell you this. i know eight years of this president has done damage, but we can correct it. the task before us is to join together, climbed the mountain and re-charge the light so it burns brighter than ever before. god willing together, we will do it. just as in 1980, under the leadership of ronald reagan. thank you and god bless. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪

>> tonight on c-span's q&a, veteran canadian astronaut chris hatfield produced many videos of his activities on the international space station. >> the only time i felt a shiver of fear go up my back was on the dark side of the earth, looking at the one side of australia, eastern australia in the darkness and watching a shooting star come in between me and the earth. at first i had the standard reaction of wishing upon a star. but then i had the sobering realization if that wasn't a huge rock from the universe going who knows, 20 miles a second, that missed us and made it down to the atmosphere. if it had hit us, it was a big enough one that you could see it.

if it had hit us, we would have been dead in an instant. >> tonight on c-span's q&a at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> now i discussion on the future of television with a group of industry leaders. topics include ultrahigh definition 4k video next-generation broadcast standards, and that neutrality. speakers include the former fcc chair michael powell, who now heads the national cable and telecommunications association national association of broadcasters ceo gordon smith and consumer electronics association ceo gary shapiro. this is an hour and five minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this super panel on the future of television. we have a trio of panelists who leave industries that are vitally interested in that future.