focus on their basic responsibility. and we are hopeful that they will vote in favor of the commonsense bipartisan reform proposal that's already passed the house of representatives. >> we are going to leave this now. take you live to the floor of the u.s. house. it's been coming back in going to be considering four bills dealing with natural resources. also including protecting cultural artifacts and safety for native american children and votes expected in the house after 6:30 eastern time. also in the senate continuing work today on the u.s.a. freedom act dealing with n.s.a. surveillance. watch live coverage of the senate on c-span2. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, catholic

church, providence rhode island. the chaplain: hear us, o god, we pray, that we may begin these summer months refreshed and renewed. give new vigor to our efforts. help us to be always mindful of the guiding hand of providence as we seek to better our country and the world at large. let us remember that we are not always the best arbiters of our own good that we can be wrong about what is best for us and that our own desires can sometimes bring us harm. confident in your assistance we turn to you for your protection and ask you to save us from the difficulties that we bring upon ourselves, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof.

pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. search the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. mr. killedee: ask all -- mr. kildee: i ask all present to join us in the pledge. 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 pro tempore: the chair will entertain request for one minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from american samoa seek recognition? mr. sablan: thank you very much, mr. speaker, that is the northern mariana islands. mr. speaker this month 72 samoans were exiled to my home, the northern mariana islands, will receive the ceremonial

farewell they were never given 100 years late. in 1909 the 72 samoans were exiled to the mariana islands by the governor of german samoa, nir crime? they tried to reinstate traditional samoan practices outlawed by the german colonial regionian. they remained there in 1915 when they were repatriated by another colonial power, japan. and the story was almost lost in time. thanks to the work of the northern mariana council the history of these exiles have been documented. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize our american manufacturers as we work to knock down trade barriers, barriers abroad so american

exposhters are sell their products overseas. mr. tiberi: many opponents have outride lies. lie that is impact american trade agreements on american manufacturers. whirlpool is a great example. an example that continues to be cited as an american company that has virtually shut down its plants in america because of trade. it's astounding because it's not true. there are 22,000 american whirlpool workers. they are makers of iconic brands. more than 80% of whirlpool products in the united states are made in the united states. their products come from ohio communities like collide, mareon, finley, ohio not to mention plants in other states. one in every five jobs in ohio depends on trade. with new trade agreements, barriers abroad will be removed . so whirlpool and other

manufacturers have the opportunity to sell their american made products overseas. let's spread the truth. trade sports american jobs and increased trade will build a healthier american economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. kildee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. well, michigan of all states knows that we need to fix our crumbling roads and bridges if we are going to remain competitive as a nation. it's long past time long overdue for this congress to rebuild our infrastructure, to pass legislation to fully fund on an extended basis the highway and transit trust fund bill. unfortunately, instead of working on a big infrastructure bill, last month congress passed a mere two-month extension. an extension that gets us no further in repairing our nation's crumbling

infrastructure. my constituents are fed up with more delays instead of real action on road funding. no city, no state, is going to move forward on major projects because congress extended this fund by 60 days. no more temporary extensions. no more delays. let's get to work on a bipartisan, long-term plan to invest in our nation's roads, our bridges, and our ports. we have to believe in ourselves. we have to bet on the american worker and american business if we invest in infrastructure, they will pay us back with productivity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house lot

of argument that if you can't point to a specific plot that was specifically foiled by this narrow provision then we don't need it at all. i don't buy that, mr. president. it is part of our national security tool kit and -- on the communicators on c-span 2. host: for more on the future of nsa spying powers and sort out

last night us session we are joined by niels lesniewski. where do we stand as of right now on the legislation to replace the now expired patriot act? guest: the next thing we are going to see is with the senate having voted to proceed and take up the usa freedom act, that will be the vehicle for the debate that is going to be had today and tuesday. what we are hearing is that late last night, before the senate adjourned, mitch mcconnell, who has been a critic of the house bill from the beginning, said he wanted to amend it. richard burr, chairman of the intelligence committee announced what his intentions would be in terms of amending

the house bill. the biggest thing that is new as of early this morning is that burr is going to try and the men the house bill to provide a year-long grace period for transitioning the holding of the bulk phone records from the nsa and telephone companies. the house bill only gives 180 days to do that. or want it to be a year. -- burr wants it to be a year. the obama administration\house bill -- backs the house bill. burr is trying to push it to a full year. host: the change of who would hold these records from the nsa to the phone companies, the most headline grabbing part of the act. what about the other components of the patriot act that expire? are those also included in what

would be the new usa freedom act? guest: yes. the other provisions, which mcconnell tried to renew on their own, without section 215 authority for the bulk collection of records, those would be revived as well. those are less controversial provisions presumably. it has not been clear how effective they are. how often they have been used. some senators will say they have been used -- what their effectiveness is, they cannot say. the problem in the intelligence community is you often cannot

tell people how you are using things. host: that was a question we got from a caller in our first segment. are there numbers of how successful the patriot act has in -- has been? guest: there are some people in the intelligence community who will put out numbers regarding the success of various programs but you're always looking at such a narrow sliver of what is actually going on it is difficult to emulate how effective patriot act provisions have been. host: we have seen before with a provision or bill getting ready to expire, short-term extensions to move less controversial parts. there seems to be enough support. why was senator mcconnell not able -- why was not -- why wasn't senator mcconnell able to

? guest: when mcconnell made that offer, senator paul objected to that as well. host: the man he is supporting for the president? guest: this is also true. paul decided he was going to exercise his prerogative as a senator, which is his right, to allow the entire program, the three provisions in their entirety, to expire. if you are the democrats come you are blaming mcconnell for this is much as paul because there was no real reason for taking the memorial day recess knowing this was coming down the pike. it seems like there was a calculation on the part of mcconnell that there might be some opportunity to get a deal sunday night that did not

materialize. host: if you want to talk to niels lesniewski about this debate that happened last night he is our expert on senate proceedings. he has been following the debate closely during his time at rollcall. he is with us for about the next 45 minutes or so. before we get the calls we want to ask about what this has done to the relationship in the senate specifically various republican senators. we want to show viewers a clip of some of the back and forth between senator john mccain, who was below the floor, and senator -- who was speaking on the floor, and senator rand paul who was trying to get a response from senator mccain. we'll play that in a second. if you could set up what was happening? guest: this was a situation where -- just before the senate

was set to recess for meetings. senator dan coats, the republican from indiana, was in control of the floor. as a result, he was the one in charge the time. what happened was, john mccain and rand paul got into a spat over who control floor time. host: here's a bit from that exchange. [video clip] >> mr. president? mr. president? >> i want the regular order. >> mr. president? >> i would be happy to yield to the senator from arizona. >> maybe the senator from kentucky should know the rules of the senate. the gentleman has the floor and is open to response to a question. my question is, the words are

powerful and accurate. >> how much time remains on the clock for the republican time? mr. president? how much time is remaining? >> i asked for the regular order. >> i think the chair has made clear this editor from indiana has the floor -- the senator from indiana has the floor. >> i know the senator from kentucky understands -- >> i would ask you, the senator from indiana, you have seen the events lately that are transpiring. isis has taken home i read -- isis has taken palmyra. destroying antiquities. remindamadi has fallen with men

women and children being massacred. his this program as critical as it has ever been since its inception? we are losing everywhere. host: some tense moments on the floor of the senate. this from a group senator rand paul has started referring to as the eye roll caucus. guest: that was a reference to an event that happened last week when he was speaking on the floor and there was a video from the floor. we say c-span does not control the camera's. the senate controlled camera actually picked up on something it often does not lindsey graham, the republican from south carolina who was announcing his presidential bid today was actually rolling his eyes at rand paul as he was

speaking. lindsey graham is generally going to be in line with john mccain's -- that is the group that is now in open war with rand paul. one of the things i'm wondering is the extent to which senator mccain is going to be out and about in the country as a surrogate for lindsey graham may be appearing outside of rand paul event. host: lindsey graham's wrote to the potential -- road to the potential nomination. you can watch it here on c-span. that is happening in south carolina with road trips quickly to new hampshire and iowa. those all-important first

primary states. we have niels lesniewski with us to answer your questions from what happened last night in that unusual senate sunday session. let's start with greg, columbia mississippi. my for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. a couple questions. the nsa, the cia, the fbi, all these agencies. i understand there was a call from the trainer of the pilots who hit 9/11. he called the fbi to let them know that all of this was going to happen or something weird was happening and they ignored it. now we come up the patriot act and it seems to me we need to train the people at the agencies

better where they can figure out what is going on. how much is the patriot act cost? host: a couple questions. are there members who say that we have -- that law enforcement has the power they need, they just need to use it better? guest: that would be one of the things that someone like senator paul would be talking about. the other thing the caller mentioned is the one we cannot answer, necessarily how exactly does the patriot act cost. the way that the budgeting for the intelligence committee -- community is done, we eventually get a top line figure for some of the intelligence agency spending. sometimes referred to as a black budget where you or i or anyone

else who is not privy to the proper security clearance can see the details of it. the question of how much does the patriot act cost to implement is something we cannot know because we cannot know the details of the nsa. we do not know the details of how much resources the nsa is putting into that program. host: a question for you from one of our viewers watching on twitter. who do intelligence agencies and contractors actually obey? guest: there was the debate, in theory the answer to the question would be that the intelligence community has to report to the intelligence committees of the house and senate, as well as something called the gang of eight.

this is not the immigration gang of eight from a couple years back. the leaders of the house and senate as well as leaders of the intelligence committees who are pretty to -- who are privy two and ask for level of information -- to an extra level of information. there have been incidents in the past where the cia has not necessarily listened to directives that were given and we had the debate of the last couple of years about whether or not the senate may have been spied on as part of an investigation into the use of torture during the bush administration. it is a question of how much the intelligence community listens to its oversight. host: headlines on this topic. on the front page of roll call.

senate advances patriot act overhaul but too late to foil rand paul. if you want to read the story by steve dennis, you can do that. we have niels lesniewski with us for the next half hour or so. this from the miami herald, nsa forced to hang up u.s. spying for a while. the front page of the boston globe, phone records program expires. the front page of the los angeles times, it's nsa spy program shut down. nsa cannot snoop on phones but controversial program will likely be back on tuesday. you and virgil, what do you think? caller: the holding is nothing but a debacle.

you have no idea how much it does cost. put all these records in a pile, the stack would probably reach to the moon. this is enormous. the number of calls -- i had my own personal experience with the patriot act, the so-called patriot act. nothing patriotic about it. my church, which i have been a member of 20 years i was very much openly against the iraqi war. it is obvious that it was a debacle that we were getting ourselves into. i was against it openly. somehow or another, the bush -cheney heimcheney-rumsfeld got a hold of my opposition and sent a letter to my church that i've been to for 20 years and their

executive letter got so shook up about that. they asked me to leave the church. i had been there for 20 years. i didn't mind because i was giving $100 a week to the church and it signifies thousand dollars a year. -- saves me $5,000 a year. no ahead and kick me out of the church. i easily found another place to worship god. host: that was virgil in las vegas, nevada this moniker we rning. dick cheney coming out with a book this fall. can you talk about the voices coming out with the debate over privacy? guest: we saw on the sunday morning shows that general hayden is back in talking about the sources issues.

cheney seems like an obvious candidate -- the former vice president seems like an obvious candidate for someone who will be in the news again particularly if we see a situation where someone like rand paul probably most likely gains traction in the republican primary process and in the process of trying to get the republican nomination for president in 2016. because obviously senator paul's views on foreign policy and national security issues are so far removed from those of the george w. bush administration that if someone like paul gets traction, you will probably hear more and more from the likes of mr. cheney. host: a few more tweets at we have been talking this morning. silky rights and -- sukie

wrightson, whenever anything has worked patriots, freedom, or liberty and its names i am suspicious of the motives and the purpose. she asked for definitions of the term. karen became a wrightson on the mccain and graham relationship. generally aligns? graham and mccain are joined at the hip. vernon, new york on a line for independence. caller: good morning. how are you? host: you're on with niels lesniewski. caller: in the patriot act why couldn't changes have been done internally if they needed to have changes done? because all you do, they already have your name. just enough -- they just have your number and then they track your calls. in the freedom that, the telephone companies keep the calls, but for how long?

there are over 1500 telephone companies in the united states alone. if one says i will keep them from four months and one says i will keep it for two, think of the laws. another thing i have to say before you comment. last night i was listening to c-span someone called up and praised edward snowden. now i have a problem with a person that not only changed the face of america as far security that we had to scramble the navy, the army, the marines, the air force to change our codes. i mean, he called him a great leader and humanitarian.

to give classified documents to somebody else is more than a felony. it is a war crime. host: that is sarah and vernon, new york. talk about the timing because there is some question on that. guest: our caller from vernon raises a really good question in that regard because angus king, who is an independent who caucuses with the democrats in maine, was concerned for a very long time of the freedom act about how long the phone companies were going to keep these records. we learned last night that intelligence chairman richard burr is trying to amend the house bill in several ways, one of which i did not mention earlier would require notification by the phone company is there going to keep records less than 18 months. so essentially what burr wants

to address is something the caller picked up on, which is is concerned that if the phone company decided in upstate new york, i think it would be verizon, if they decided they were only going to keep the records for a couple of months, that there would have to be some way of the u.s. government would know that in advance and try to be able to adjust accordingly. host: shirley is in detroit michigan on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning to you. my concern is this. anything that our government wants to do to protect us when it comes down to security, i've am for. as far as listing into regular conversations and whatnot, that is something that is kind of puzzling to me. there is a lot going on in our country and around the world and i can understand why they want

the patriot act to stay, i guess, the way it is. i think you really have to understand politics and the government itself about the patriot act, but there are a lot of men and women who are coming into this country every day. they have been coming in here for decades. and nobody really knows who is really in our country anymore. they can't even keep up with who is coming and going in this country. if you have got the situation that has taken place with isis and god knows who else, a lot of men and women are being recruited out of our country. they're coming from europe andpeople. whatever our government has to do to keep this country safe. it is starting to get really frightening. and i do not think i'm the only one -- yes, i am a democrat, but

i will say when it comes down to the security of our country what ever they have to do to keep us safe i am four. r. host: several members making that exact point on the floor the sentence. -- of the senate. guest: members of congress would argue that this program does not even as it was designed, the program has now lapsed since midnight, section 215 was not actually for people listening in on your telephone calls or my telephone calls or anyone else's. it was pertaining to the metadata behind the calls in the patterns of who people called and the like. one thing that i think is important to point out is that one of senator paul's concerns even with the usa freedom act is the possibility that it could lead back to full collection --

bookulk collection through some sort of ancillary means. i will use somewhat perhaps a ridiculous example, but bear with me here. if someone who was involved in terrorist activity or coordinating with isis or something like that, if they were to call into this program this morning, would then all of c-span's phone records then be scooped up in the net from the phone company? that is the kind of thing that senator paul is concerned about with the revised program. host: on her twitter feed, get your popcorn and program. the paul fight against the gop power structure could be very entertaining. reality tv for free. that is at c-span washington journal. calling in for hawaii.

judy, is it hawaii? caller: i stand with brands. rand. i'm appalled that so many people in congress so easily give away our rights to privacy. people are very uncomfortable. i have conversations with friends and i do not even what my husband to hear. we want our privacy. it is not proven effective at all. they have not gotten anything out of this metadata collection in the time that they have had to do it. and the worst thing about it is is that if people feel and fear of their own government spying on them, they become less creative. we have been the most innovative austan oriole country that has ever existed -- entrepreneurial

country that has ever existed. this is having affects on all that. if people come up with ideas they will not easily share them or plan them if they think they are being spied on. it has a lot of effects that we do not really think of. i don't think that they can use the way that they solved crimes before and continue to use those ways and get approval from a judge and use probable cause. host: judy is a rand paul supporter from hawaii. rand paul tweeting out last night after the senate session, "thanks to your help, provisions that allow book collection on innocent american citizens have expired." there was another tweet that rand paul put out " continue to celebrate this victory." a contribution to a presidential

campaign. guest: it was convenient timing that this came on made 31st -- may 31 because we're talking about the end of the month. there will be campaign finance reporting numbers that will become available at some point in time and we will see how much of a money bomb so to speak that the rand paul presidential campaign got out of this, as well as any sort of associated clinical action committees. the other thing that will be interesting to see is if anyone on the other side in response gets a lot of money. i was talking before the break to lindsey graham, who is announcing his presidential bid this morning. he said that when he got back to washington he was going to go aggressive to counter rand paul's argument that, and this is a paraphrase of something that senator graham told me, but senator graham's view is that senator paul believes that the

nsa is more dangerous perhaps when isis. -- than isis. that is the level of the rhetoric we are getting into. host: a money bomb is a term used as a quick online rush. rand paul searching for a money bomb this past weekend. larry in pleasantly, tennessee. good morning. caller: niels, i was wondering if you are aware of a $1.9 billion project that is building and one million square-foot facility for the nsa and it is in utah. it has been on the internet for months and months now. if you are not aware, you might want to look into that because that is going to be a massive storage facility to just hold

everything that they're getting. host: have you looked into it? guest: i've heard of it, but i've not looked into it and i will look into it more. host: randy in ohio on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, sir. does this thing not help us catch the boston bomber when they bombed the marathon? did this thing help us catch them? the other thing is -- i do not understand rand paul. he is not going to be president. i'm going to tell you now. he is done and shot the gop in the foot. my grandson is in the navy. he is protecting that you go out there. has he done nothing? i don't care about my phone conversations. if i want to tell my husband i love him, the whole world can hear me say. i don't care. i'm not hiding. they are doing wrong, but you know what?

i would rather have them have my information instead of god for bid 9/11 happening again and got for did this time instead of hitting new york, they hit kentucky. guest: host:host: if you topics there -- if you topics there. guest: it is the breath of difference in this debate. the caller from hawaii and those two collars, you see the gap that will be clear and the republican field although it certainly looks like senator paul is going to be an outlier based on the candidates running at this point. host: certainly plenty of time to go before the vote in the primary and the caucuses in iowa. according to "the washington post" story on that, the latest polling numbers in bloomberg

news shows that paul is the first choice of 10% of likely iowa caucus-goers. that is high enough to be tied for second place behind wisconsin governor scott walker. results reveal weaknesses. his standing, for instance, is well below the 21% tally one by his father in the 2012 caucuses. and a new survey found that paul's favorability rating has led by nine points and cheney were, the biggest drop for anyone in the field. those are some the polling impacts that we are seeing. jacksonville florida on the line for independents. you are on the line with niels loosen us a listener ski. guest:caller: does anyone really believe that the nsa has stopped listening and all calls after midnight? after all that has been done? guest: the obama administration

and others said that that was the legal limit for collecting data and they cannot continue to do it after the expiration. although one would say, and the caller does raise a point, given the classified nature of many of these programs and given perhaps the track record of some intelligence agencies in the past, that is a question that is not a question that anyone can answer definitively. whether or not things stopped way they were supposed to stop at midnight is certainly something that is open to speculation. host: let us go to don waiting in michigan on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i as a democrat have to stand with rand paul on this. host: with rand paul? caller: yes.

i agree that we should not be collecting this data. if they have a suspect, get award and go to a judge. -- a war and go to a judge. rant and go to a judge. if we get scared, are we going to lock everyone up as a suspected terrorist? it is wrong just like the people we had in cuba in those prisons over there. that is wrong. you have people who have not committed a crime and have gotten locked up. host: could you see yourself voting for rand paul if he makes it to the general election? caller: no. i'm leaning towards sanders. host: and if it is a rand paul versus the hillary clinton vote, could you see yourself? caller: maybe. caller:host: maybe from don and

michigan. his rand paul getting support -- is rand paul getting support from democratic voters as he goes through this effort? guest: some of his support seems to be crossover support for more libertarian minded liberals and i think you raise a good question of the caller because if as someone anticipates we have a hillary clinton contest on the democratic side. one of the things that we are going to see this paul is arguing and his campaign is arguing that he would be better suited to defeat secretary clinton that a lot of the others in the republican field because he appeals to a different set of voters than a traditionally republican leaning republican. host: a tweet from gregory about

the 215 program, we would be better served with that money in our pocket and in job creation. eddie and florida on the line for democrats. eddie, good morning. caller: is this me? host: it is you. go ahead. caller: it is betty. host: sorry about that. caller: what i would like to say is that we should not give up the constitution and the bill of rights. i have personal experience with this. i was put on one of these government lists for no reason except my ex got involved with some bigwig in the government. and i know that once you are put on these lists that you cannot get help from anyone. because with your identification , with your sopping cards -- shopping carts or whatever every time they run them they see that you are on the list and no one will help you. there is nowhere to turn. there is abuse going on in this

program, just like obama's whistleblower. how many whistleblowers he has had. they are trying to shut people up from what they're doing. if you open the door to this and you let them do this to american citizens with no proof, then where does it stop? i do not see why there cannot be judicial overview and why they can't go to a judge and say judge, this is what we have and we want to start this program on them. give us 30 days or three months and we will come back and show you what we have got. host: niels lesniewski, what are the arguments from the other side on those kinds of proposals? guest: one of the questions that i think that we have for existing investigations that were started using this in these programs that have now laspsed eventually, you do have to go to a judge and get a warrant.

but there was a question about what exactly is being allowed to continue by this secretive court. i do not think we know that you did the other thing is that we do not know exactly what the next thing is going to come out of the second circuit court of appeals in new york city, which had been the court that senator paul has been siding and saying in that the 215 program is illegal. host: let us go to north carolina on a line for independents. we have about 10 minutes left with niels lesniewski. you are on the washington journal. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was personally affected by this listening in on our phone calls. i have a friend in west point and i've called him one day and told him about the cd i had that i was going to send him. the cd -- someone was there on

the actual date of the buildings was not down in new york. i was going to send him the cd because he has friends in new york city that he was want to send and make more of these cds and send them out to people in new york city. so i package the city so i knew it would not get broken. when he received a, he said the package was not damaged but when he opened it, the cd was snapped in the middle. ok, that cd involved actual footage of this person team there and taking pictures on the day that the 9/11 attack happened. the one that was really focused on was building seven that nobody wants to talk about. building seven was eight hours a full eight hours after the buildings fell down, it was actually when building seven fell straight to the ground in

under six seconds. host: we will hold off on conspiracy theories this morning. we had a whole segment that we did late last year about that topic on our c-span website that we did on "washington journal" if you want to go back and watch that. it is with the 9/11 architects and engineers for truth. that is the name of that group. it is on our website at c-span.org we have a few minutes left with niels lesniewski. we want your ex receives -- expertise on the patriot act expiring and where we go from here. gary is on the line from ohio. caller: good morning. they had that patriot act before 9/11. they had that patriot act in their pocket trying to get it passed for years. now how come if this patient act is so good, how calm there was

what 187 something nsa agents that was forced to retire, plus the assistant nsa director? these people all stood up for america and they got fired and there is nobody on the court to represent the people that if they take somebody to a pfizer court that they have no representation. host: remind us what a fisa court is. guest: the foreign intelligence surveillance act which is the underlying law here is a bit of a secretive federal court for handling and adjudicating these claims.

and a lack of representation for people who i guess you would describe as defendants or people who were going to be subject to the laws the backcourt overseas -- that backcourt overseathat court oversees. there are several groups that are advocating for the group subject to those proceedings. it is difficult because with everything else that we have been talking about this morning. there is this classification issue. how exactly that would be done or how effective networks is an open question. host: let us go to greg waiting in kissimmee, florida. good morning. caller: i want to make a general comment about the american

people and how it comes about through this stuff. the problem i have -- and i'm an independent, but i will probably change to republican so i can vote for rand paul in the primaries. the reality of it is that the legislature, just like the president, they do stuff that is not what the people really want. the president does that to the congress. if you wants to do it, he just does it. the legislation does it. they create situations in the world from the stuff that they do that makes this general paranoia among the people something that is outstanding. the problem is is that the average americans have to send their sons into these wars and into the situations that are created by this general insanity to clean up the messes that the government makes. i have a brother in law who has been involved in government service for a long time, 30 years. and the truth of the matter is

that a lot of the people who are really drawn to work in these kinds of programs, they are the kind of people that thrive on secrecy and privacy and paranoia and stuff like that. i appreciate rand paul tried to point out that this is not what americans want. just like that gentleman who had his cd brokered you can put all kind of stuff together, it's a conspiracy or not. the american people cannot figure it out. that is the problem we have gotten into with this private world of our government that is doing things that do not have anything to do with allowing gimmick and people to do things that the american constitution has allowed us to do. host: i will let you join in on that. guest: i think that is one of the things that i think the intelligence community and the intelligence communities and the intelligence committees on capitol hill could do a better job with. i think they knew this

particularly in recent years explaining what it is that they do. it would probably be helpful. in the senate intelligence committee, they meet behind closed doors for a couple of hours most every tuesday and thursday that the senate is in session. and the attendance is really good for members of that committee. the members block out time significant time from their schedules for these meetings that they obviously cannot really tell us a whole lot of what is going on. but i don't think that the average constituent of someone who is a senator or their senator is from am a state on the intelligence committee knows that the senator goes to that many meetings or what work that they do. host: neil is waiting in fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. my comment is about the nsa. why isn't it picking up all the illegal activity done by congress, by the clintons, by pretty much most of the democrats? why are they not finding hillary's e-mails, her telephone calls, her text? she has basically sold off everything to the state department to the highest bidder. i'm not sure what the purpose of the nsa is if they cannot find the biggest crime that is being done right now under our noses. host: niels lesniewski, and brings up a question. our members of congress subject to -- are members of congress subject to these provisions under the patriot act? guest: in theory, yes. i don't remember the exact details, but your viewers can look on rollcall.com because i

wrote a story last year when bernie sanders actually was trying to ask the intelligence community questions about whether or not he has been subject to surveillance. and the answer is that he got, i believe suffice to say, were not all that detailed. so in theory anyone who is having phone conversations that are involved in the bulk collection, yes. if they are collected in bulk, that would include members of congress. host: you have a story of senator leahy visiting bow biden, the vice presidents late son. can you talk about the tributes last night to the vice president 's son? guest: the unusual part of

yesterday's session, which we sort of knew going in after the tragic news saturday evening of the death of beau biden, the former delaware attorney general and joe biden son, that there would be tributes and my mcconnell and harry reid open the floor with tributes. there were other senators who spoke, including leahy. the story i wrote was about how leahy wants -- once ran into biden unexpectedly in iraq w hen he was serving over there as part of a delaware unit. as a result, they just sort of ran into each other and then leahy called the vice president's office right after the fact on the way he had seen him. host: if you want to read that story, it is on rollcall.com.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> last night the senate voting to move forward with the house-passed u.s.a. freedom act. that bill would keep most of the nsa surveillance programs in tact. but it would end the bulk collection of data on phone calls. the debate continuing in the senate with live coverage on c-span2 and because the senate did not pass the u.s.a. freedom act or any legislation on n.s.a. surveillance, a number of provisions in the patriot act have ex ex -- have expire and will not be renewed until the senate passes the u.s.a. act or until the house and senate come to an agreement on another bill dealing with n.s.a. surveillance.

>> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered with time warner cable to learn about the history and literary life of lincoln, nebraska. >> one of the most important american writers of the 20th century. she was given almost every literary award possible in her lifetime before she died. except for the nobel prize. she was known for some of her masterpieces like "the professor's house," "death comes to the archbishop" and many others. in 1943 she had a made a will which had a few restrictions in it and one of which was she did not want her letters to be published or to be quoted in whole or in part. she left behind at least 3,000 letters that we know about now. the biggest collections are here in nebraska. furthermore, in her will she left one other important thing she said, she left it to the sole and uncontrolled discretion of her entrustees to decide whether or not they enforce her preference and they

believed, as the organizations, that it belongs to our shared heritage and we ought to know more about her. >> an important historical figure in nebraska's history was solomon d. butcher. >> solomon butcher was a pioneering photographer out in custer county in western nebraska. he took photos from about 1887, 1886 until the early 1 90's, of homesteaders and houses and was able to tell the story of important development in american history. i am going to show you one of my favorite images of the solomon butcher collection. it's actually the photo graph of the cistman sisters. it is four sisters who each took a homestead claim in custer county. this shows women homesteaders. it was the first time that

women could own land on their own. it didn't belong to their husbands, it didn't belong to their fathers. single women could own their own land and that was a really big deal with the homestead act. so each sister, each of the sisters took a homestead near their father's ranch. they each built a small house on the homestead was part of the homestead act, and they would take turns staying in each other's house and working each other's farm. so the sisters really pulled together and made it in nebraska. >> watch all of our events from lincoln saturday evening at 6:00 on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> the house expected back in at any moment.

returning 3:00 p.m. eastern time to work on four bills dealing with natural resources, including protections for cultural artifacts as well as safety for native american children. we expect votes on those bills tonight sometime after 6:30 p.m. eastern. live here on c-span. further proceedings today 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 later. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 404. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 55, h.r. 404, a bill to authorize early repayment of obligations to the bureau of reclamation within the northport irrigation district in the state of nebraska. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from

virginia, mr. beyer, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: thank you. as we begin the debate on this particular bill, i am pleased that the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith, is here with us to introduce this very effective and important bill and let me yield as much time as he may consume to mr. smith to explain his piece of legs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized -- mr. bishop: let me yield as much time as he may consume to mr. smith to explain his piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. smith: this typically repays their capital costs under long-term contracts the under the current contract, north port is exempt from annual capital repayment if this courage fee exceeded $8000 per year. given the carriage fee has

greatly exceeded this amount every year since the 1950's, north port's capital repayment debt has been stagnant at over $923,000 since 1952. so long as the debt endures, landowners are subject to burdensome reporting requirements and acreage limitations and no revenue is generated for the federal government. i introduced this bill to provide members of the north port irrigation district under their dated reclamation contract. allowing producers within the north port irrigation district to pay off their portion of the contract, means government will receive funds otherwise uncollected and landowners will be relieved of costly constraints which threaten family-owned operations. for example, at a water and power subcommittee hearing last year, one member of the north port district testified that acreage limitation also prohibit parents from passing down or even selling farmland to sons and daughters who also own land in the same district.

as the chairman mentioned, similar legislation has passed under bipartisan majorities and according to the c.b.o. could generate as much as $440,000 in federal revenue. this is a very simple bill which would make a big difference to some family farmers in western nebraska. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you mr. speaker. h.r. 404 would authorize landowners served by the northport irrigation district to prepare their annual construction contracts for the north plat project. in exchange, landowners will no longer be subject to acreage limitations. i ask my colleagues to join me in support of this good bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. mr. speaker, you know, this bill is an excellent piece of

legislation that solves a problems that should never have existed in the first place. it's curious the current federal law does not allow a landowner to make an early repayment on federal irrigation projects. it's an outdated law. it's a hurdle that is silly similar to a bank prohibiting a homeowner paying off their mortgage early. mr. smith's bill removes the prohibition for individual landowners within the northport irrigation district. in return of these payments, these farmers will no longer be subject to the acreage limitations imposed by the reclamation reform act. this bill will accelerate revenue coming into the treasury. it's based on two recent precedents that was passed which both a republican and democrat-controlled house. today we are trying to continue those efforts by adopting this particular bill. and with that mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i'm sorry. did the gentleman yield back? the speaker pro tempore: yes, he did. mr. bishop: then i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 404. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1168. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 58, h.r. 1168, a bill to amend the indian child protection and family violence prevention act to require background checks before foster care placements are ordered in tribal court proceedings, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. bishop: thank you mr. speaker. at this time -- for this excellent piece of legislation i'd like to yield to the sponsor of it, mr. cramer of north dakota to explain his piece of legislation for as much time as he shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his good work on this important legislation. mr. speaker, during the last congress, while i served on the natural resources committee, we held an oversight hearing regarding the child protection crisis on the spirit lake indian res. are vation in north dakota and response to numerous child deaths as well as whistleblower reports that were

detailing unsafe tribal placement of almost 40 children in abusive homes, many of which were headed by known and convicted child sex offenders. in an effort to protect these children and children around the country, i introduced the native american children's safety act, a bill that senator john holding of north dakota has introduced in the united states senate. this bill implements across-the-board minimum protections for children placed in foster care at the direction of a tribal court. these standards, mr. speaker mirror existing national requirements for nontribal foster care placements ensuring that tribal children receive at least the same, if not higher standards, of foster care for children -- nontribal children placed in foster care. this bill is bipartisan. i believe is noncontroversial. it was reported out of the natural resources committee both this congress and the last

congress with unanimous consent. i also want to take the time to thank several members of the administration, particularly the b.i.a., as well as health and human services for their assistance in refining the bill. i also want to thank the national indian child welfare association who assisted in refining the bill, and as well as the national congress of american indians. all of these refinements to the bill helped make the bill better. it more importantly provides the flexibility to the tribes in fulfilling the obligations of the bill, and i think it makes it a much better bill. i thank everybody that was involved and i thank my colleagues and hope we can pass it without objection today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota yields. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you. currently native american tribes and their tribal courts use procedures and guidelines that very significantly from tribe to tribe when placing a

native american child in a foster home. current law does not require that federal government or indian tribe perform rigorous background checks on foster parents or foster homes in order to ensure the safety, health and protection of native children. consequently, there have been appalling cases of native american children ending up in dangerous and unsafe living conditions. because they're placed in an unburdensome foster care system that fails to provide background checks. we need background checks of individuals and institutions that foster native youth. h.r. 1168 strengthens background checks prior to placement of native children in foster homes and sets a uniform manner in which federal and tribal agencies may conduct such checks. i ask my colleagues to stand with me in support of native american children in passing mr. cramer's h.r. 1168. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: this has been a

fully explained, it's a wonderful thing to protect indian foster children to provide these background checks. it's well overdue. i appreciate and commend the gentleman from north dakota for his hard work on this issue. i have no other speakers on this particular bill. i'm ready to close whenever the gentleman from virginia is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: i yield back the balance of my time mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1168. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 533. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 56, h.r. 533 a bill to

revoke the charter of incorporation of the miami tribe of oklahoma at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from virginia mr. beyer, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you mr. speaker. i again ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: and with that mr. speaker, we have another piece of legislation that does wonderful things, should have done earlier than this but this time we'll get it through the system. i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. mullen: this is an outdated governing structures that helps economic development. we wrote this bill because charters can only be removed literally by an act of congress. the miami tribe has said that the outdated charter is

inoperable. it imposes restrictions on business operationes that are unmanagement able and unnecessary. oklahoma's known for its entrepreneurial spirit, especially among our state's tribes. it's important that congress remove these hurdles for investors business partners and potential customers. as lawmakers, it is our job in congress to foster an atmosphere that promotes economic growth across the country. i take this responsibility very seriously, and i hope that you'll join me today in eliminating a needless economic burden on the miami tribe in my home state of oklahoma. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at the request of the miami tribe of oklahoma, h.r. 533 simply revokes a corporate charter issued to it by the federal government. under the oklahoma indian welfare act and the indian

reorganization act many tribes had charters in the 1930's and 1940's. they were aimed at enabling of them to pursue private relationships for some entities . these are looked upon with suspicion. the charter must be revoked by an act of congress. mr. mullin, on behalf of his constituents is a good congressman and complying for the tribe's request of this bill. similar bills have been passed without event and i ask my colleagues to stand with me in support of mr. mullin's noncontroversial bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, let me say just a few words about this particular piece of legislation by myself. it's a one-page piece of legislation that should be easy to read and those are always dangerous because they are easy to read but it grants the request that comes from the miami tribe in oklahoma to

revoke a charter of incorporation which was issued back in the new deal era 1936 law that was implemented in 1940, and as we know any of those pieces of legislation that age that well have got to be reviewed at a specific period of time. right now we have a situation in which this tribe finds itself in a cumbersome situation with an outdated document that puts on limitations and uncertainty in the tribe business when they don't have to because they are dealing instead with business activities that come through their tribal constitution. they're doing it the right way. and unfortunately requires an act of congress to allow them to do what they ought to be doing and are doing in the first place and just clean up this act. so only we can do that. so it's in accordance with the tribal wishes, in accordance with congressman mullin who represents this particular tribe in the house. he has sponsored this. this is a good bill. the department of interior does not object to this piece of legislation. an identical version passed in the 113th congress by voice

vote. i hope we do it again and make sure we go all the way through the system and actually do what is right for this particular tribe. with that i'm going to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. . mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i am going to speak very slowly as i'm waiting for someone else to show up on the next bill. and would there are yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from oklahoma for another couple of anecdotes as to why this piece of legislation is needed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma to delay as long as he needs. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is a piece of legislation that unfortunately we tried 2 1/2 years, way too long, to try to get through this body. but also it opens an important conversation about taking a look at all these charters.

mr. mullin: why is that congress has to come together -- why is it that congress has to come together to pass commonsense legislation that should be up to the tribes themselves to make the decision? when they're hearing the businesses, the atmosphere that these tribes are able to operate under, they're not able to go out and provide the jobs to not just their members but also to the communities to which they live in and thrive in. miami tribe is a large employer of the city of miami. the city of miami has been in a situation to where they have lost two major employers and they look to these tribes like this they create not just jobs as a casino but manufacturing jobs jobs that help our national defense. and yet they're hindered constantly by the effect that they simply can't do the work without asking congress'

permission. they're a sovereign nation. why is it that they would have to continue to come back on something that isn't needed, something that dates all the way back to the 1930's? unfortunately this is exactly where we find ourselves today and i'm so glad that this is actually one of those things that's a bill: approach. commonsense does prevail -- a bipartisan approach. commonsense does prevail in this house sometimes. we started this in the 113th congress and now we're in the 114th congress and we're still talking about it. we're six months into the 114th congress and we're trying to get a commonsense piece of legislation passed. if i remember correctly, chairman, last year when we tried to put this through there was only one no vote. if that's not bipartisanship then what is? this should have been on the president's desk already. i join my colleagues in supporting this bill but i also

want to thank them for their patience, for the city of miami and the tribe of miami for their patience, and the opportunity to bring this up again. so mr. chairman with that i'll yield back to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i appreciate the yield very much. i certainly don't want to break any protocols we may have. so therefore i want to echo what the gentleman from oklahoma so brilliantly and so fluently and obviously not slowly enough said. with that -- ok, mr. speaker, once again we'll go through

this concept that hopefully -- does the gentleman from virginia, even though i realize you've yielded back, would you like some of my time? mr. beyer: i would be happy to take some, mr. chairman, if you wouldn't mind. mr. bishop: bless you. i will yield him such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: mr. speaker, i rise to extend my gratitude to the congressman from oklahoma for teaching me how to say miami. i've been mispronouncing it as miami all through my short presentation. i also want to thank him for his leadership in being so responsive and there are perhaps many other laws on the books that we should look at, in a very simple way, to revoke the charters if necessary. i'd also like to offer my help to the congressman from miami with our two virginia senators. this sounds like it passed this house with only one negative vote last year, perhaps the senate is the place where this is being held up. if we can provide some support to him and moving through this true -- this through the senate side, i would be delighted to do that. i yield back the time that the

chairman has so kindly given. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, may i -- may i inquire how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 12 1/2 minutes. mr. bishop: can i yield a portion of that time to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. young: this bill is a good piece of legislation. i want to thank mr. mullins for bringing it up. while we're on the subject, i'd -- mr. mullin for bringing it up. while we're on the subject i'd like to point out the necessity of the child welfare act of this congress -- act, thank this congress passed, which i was a sponsor of -- that this congress passed, which i was a sponsor of. he's here. mr. speaker i will talk about the foster care homes, the need for volunteers, so we don't

have 300 children in my state staying with state supervision instead of being adopted. we'll talk about that later. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. speaker with great appreciation to my good friends from oklahoma and virginia and alaska i yield back. 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. 533. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 979. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 21, h.r. 939 a bill to designate -- 979, a bill to designate a mountain in the john muir wilderness as sky

point. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop and the gentleman from virginia mr. beyer each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have fine legislative days to revise and extend their remarks include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, there are some times when we can do nothing to repay the sacrifice that our fellow men have done for us, but in some small way we can try to show our gratitude. this is one bill that does that. with that i would like to recognize for as much time as he may consume the sponsor of this piece of legislation, mr. mcclintock of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman, the chairman of natural resources, for yielding. mr. speaker, marine staff sergeant sky mote cared about a

lot of things. his fellow marines, his country, his family, his community. but his father, russell, recalled that he never cared about medals, he never showed them to us. once he said, i found one in his laundry. the irony is staff sergeant sky mote received the second highest medal one can be bestowed, the navy cross, for his heroism in defending his fellow marines on the last day of his life, august 10, 2012. he cross -- the cross is in addition to the purple heart, nate i have marine corps commendation meddle, the two combat action ribbons and mr. goodlatte: conduct medals he earned during his nine years of exemplary service to our nation. the u.s. marine corps that prides itself on maintaining the highest standards of the american military tradition, staff sergeant sky mote stands

conspicuously above and beyond. on that day, that last day of his life sergeant mote was at his post in the tactical operations center of the first marines special operations battalion in helmand province. on that day a so-called afghan police officer opened fire on the marines who had come there to help that country. when the attack broke out, sergeant mote was in an adjoining room. he could have easily escaped to safety. quote, he instead grabbed his m-4 rifle and entered the operations room courageously exposing himself to a hail of gun fire in order to protect his fellow marines. in his final act of bravery, he boldly engaged the gunman now less than five meters in front of him until falling mortaly wounded end quote. according to the citation, it

was mote's actions that stopped the attack and forced the attacker to flee. it was this heroism for which he received the navy cross. we know he didn't care much about medals, but he cared so deeply about his marine corps brothers that he gave his life for them. and many who would have perished that day will go on to lead long and productive and prosperous lives because sky mote sacrificed his own for them. as did captain matthew nokian of california who also gave life to defend his fellow marines that day. staff sergeant mote and his unit had been in the thick of the fighting in afghanistan, often functioning as a commando force. during their tour, he and his unit were often engaged in day-long fire fights and mote in particular had often exposed himself to grave danger. his family didn't know a lot of this at the time.

his step-mother said, he'd always say, i'm going to go on camping trip or on a hike. he didn't want to give us any reason to worry. his father said that although his son was indifferent to medals, he was intentionally proud of his e.o.d. badge designating his service as an explosive ordinance disposal technician. as russell mote explained he was just a humble person doing his job and his job was to protect his team. he was not like a gung ho military person, you wouldn't know he was in the special forces. to the o.e. -- with e.o.d. technicians, bombs are not something to be avoided but something to be sought out and disarmed. on one such day, mote diffused two i.e.d.'s crawled through a heavily seeded mind field to save the life of his team leader who had been wounded and then directed the evacuation of his unit. on that day he earned a navy marine corps commendation medal with the v for valor.

on another different day nearly three years ago, sergeant mote returned home for the last time. thousands of his countrymen stretched out more than a mile on el dorado hills boulevard to silently express their gratitude and respect for this hometown hero. hundreds more lined overpasses to pay their respects along the motorcade route, still more stood silent vidge until front of the elementary school in rolling hiddle middle school where he'd attended. 1,000 more waited for him at the church. many knew him by his deeds. a fortunately few knew him as a person and rounted stories of his growing up in that community. his father recalled how sky loved life, family and friends and he loved being a marine. he loved to surf, he loved to hunt and hike in the sierra. marsha perhaps put it best when

she said, it was just everybody's friend a would do anything for anybody. sky mote was 27 on that fateful day in afghanistan. he was born june 6, 1985, in bishop, california. when he was still young his parents divorced and his father brought his children to el dorado. he married marsha and there they raised sky and their four other sons. their there sky joined f-4 -- 4-h. he raised pigs and rode horses, he join the civil air patrol. at the high school he lettered in track and cross country. he camped and biked and hiked with his family throughout the sierra. and from the time he was a child he spoke of someday joining the military and defending his country. right after graduation in 2003, he did just that. and nine years later he returned home to be laid to rest by a country that honors him, a hometown that remembers him and a family that misses

him. mr. speaker, i wanted to share a little of what i've learned about marine staff sergeant sky mote because it helps to answer the question that james first asked, where do we get such men? well we get them from the heart and soul of america. we get them from good and decent families like the motes. we get them from little towns like el dorado, california. we come here today to the hall of the house of representatives to try to honor a hero who didn't care much about metals -- medals. lincoln at gettysburg noted our difficulty in doing so when he looked over the quiet battlefield and noted that in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. the brave live and dead who struggled here consecrated it far beyond our poor power to add or detract. but nevertheless we tried. lincoln was right.

we cannot add to the honor of his deeds, we come instead to draw inspiration from them. we reflect on a young life with all the hopes and joys and aspirations of a long and productive lifetime ahead, all sacrificed for a country that to this day represents what lincoln called the last best hope of man kind. . we come in gratitude to know that in every generation there are such heroes among us that will step forth from the safety of hert and home within mortal peril to protect their fellow citizens. paton put it best that it's foolish to mourn the men who died. rather, we should thank god that such men lived. we come out of recognition that although the suffering of these fallen heroes has ended, the daily sufferings for their

families go on day in and day out. many of them spend their memorial days not at barbecues but at their graves. we honor their loved ones in hopes that in some small way we can help fortify them against the lost that they bear every day of their lives. but most of all we come in recognition of shakespeare's plea that this story shall the good man teach his son. a few years ago i had the honor to visit members of the third united states infantry old guard who tend the tomb of the unknown soldier at arlington cemetery. they are meticulously dressed and painstakingly drilled as they honor the memory of our fallen warriors. it is quite an impressive sight. and on a warm spring day like this, thousands of tourists will show up to watch and to join the old guard for a moment to honor the sacrifices

memorialized at the tomb. but tourists don't often show up during hurricanes or in driving snowstorms or at 2:00 in the morning in sleet, in hail. but the old guard does. they commit two years of their lives to this service under the strictest of conditions. i asked a young sergeant, well, why, why do you do this? his answer was simple and direct. because, sir we want to demonstrate to our fellow americans that we will never forget. for that reason mr. speaker, i bring this bill to the house today with the unanimous support of the entire california congressional delegation. we do so to assure that our fellow americans never forget marine staff sergeant sky mote. in consultation with his family we've identified a mountain in the john muir wilderness of the sierra national forest overlooking where sky mote and his family often camped and hiked.

this bill proposes that it forevermore be known as sky point, as a token of our nation's respect of heroism, its appreciation of its sacrifice, its sympathy for his family of its solemn pledge that succeeding generations of his countrymen will never forget him. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 979 would designate a mountain peek of the sierra national forest in california as sky point in recognition of fallen marine corps staff sergeant sky mote. sky served our country honorably as a u.s. marine for nine years. in one tour of duty in iraq and two in afghanistan. as -- he was deployed to

afghanistan as part of operation enduring freedom. however, on august 10 2012, sky's battalion received heavy gunfire from an attacker dressed as an afghan police officer. jumping into action, sky exposed himself to the gunfire in order to distract the shooter and draw his attention away from fellow marines. in his final act of valor, he engaged the attacker in the open, allowing his comrades to find safety. for his heroic actions, sky received the navy cross, a purple heart, the navy marine corps commendation medal two combat action ribbons and three good conduct medals. the mountain peak this bill seeks to name was special to him. every year creating lasting memories, sergeant mote and his family set up camp. designated at mountain peak sky point we will honor staff sergeant sky mote's memory and ensure his selfless sacrifice to his country and fellow

marines is not fore -- forgotten. i hope they have an opportunity to learn of the men for whom the mountain is named. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: we have no further speakers if the gentleman is ready to yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: i yield back mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: we can name this as a small gratitude to this noble sold yes, noble warrior, staff sergeant mote for all he's done for us and on our behalf. it's a fitting tribute and the least we can do for him and his family. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 979. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1335. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 274 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1335. the chair appoints the gentleman from new york, mr. collins, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1335 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the magnuson-stevens fishery conservation and management act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. chairman -- sorry -- h.r. 1335 makes a decent federal law a better federal law and i commend our

friend from alaska, mr. young, for his leadership, his dedication to try and strengthen and update our federal fishery laws. the bill before us on the floor represents years of hard work on a comprehensive re-authorization of the magnuson-stevens fishery conservation and management act. that is why this bill was given such a high priority by our committee and with such a major effort of trying to make the first bills that came out. this bill originally passed in 1976 was updated in 1996 and again in 2006 and illustrates the same principle that all bills age and though principles of government may be eternal specific administrative laws are in need of constant review by a legislative body that is our job. this bill does that. it's a good bill for our economy. it's a good bill for our job. the seafood sales impacts $159 billion. $59 billion added impacts. 1.3 jobs -- 1.3 million jobs

earning $39 billion in income every year. commercial fishermen industry adds $9..6 million pounds of fish that brings another $1.5 billion in revenue from their catches. there are 11 million recreational saltwater anglers that spend $25 billion in trips and gear and $58 billion in sales and they support 300,000 to 400,000 u.s. jobs. the commercial and recreational fishermen and the seafood industry that manage how fish get to our table -- from the boat to our table, they support this legislation. i want to re-emphasize that is perhaps unique, the first time that all three elements commercial, seafood industry, recreational fishermen are all in support of updating this law in this particular fashion. this bill provides flexibility and it's a bill for the entire nation. so it provides flexibility that is essential to the fishing community in new england. it provides and incorporates state and local data on making fish population assessments

which is significant for the fish community in the gulf of mexico. it provides greater transparency as to how management decisions are made in a very open way which is what it's supposed to be doing in the first place. the proposed changes were not developed overnight. the resources committee held 10 hearings, heard more than 80 witnesses in the last four years in deliberating changes that is needed for this particular law. that's why i'm very pleased of the positive statements that have been made by both sides of the aisle on this legislation. during the last congress, the ranking member at that time said, and i quote him the changes that were negotiated on a number of provisions of this bill were something for which he thaad the majority. another one -- thanked the majority. another one of the minority members said, i appreciate the fact that you reached out to us on the democratic side of the aisle and many of the provisions that you mentioned that are in the bill did come from input on the democratic side. those words speak for themselves.

the bill is a product of years of work, having reached out to members on both sides of the aisle, having reached out to members in different regions of our country, reached out to stakeholders of varying perspectives and reached out to the agency to craft a re-authorization that improves the process. we have done that. it is unfortunate in my mind the administration recently announced opposition to this bill. rather than giving you my thoughts of that or maybe that's a reason why you would support it in the first place, let me simply quote the new bedford standard times. they did an editorial in their paper in that bastion of conservativism, massachusetts, they disagreed with the white house opposition of the bill and they ended by saying, and i quote again, looking at the bill and its accomplishments of making management more responsive to science and contrasting it with the empty arguments of the white house policy statement seems very clear where politics fits into

this. mr. chairman, this bill is a win for consumers, it's a win for the industry that puts food on our tables, it's a win for the restaurants, it's a win for the recreational fishermen it's a win for a better and more tolerance parent science, a win for our taxpayers. there's no significant increase in the cost but there is a significant increase in the solutions in this area which is once again why all the major players who are involved in this, both the commercial side, recreational side, are in common agreement this is the way we need to go forward. and with that we are not quite done. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you very much mr. chairman. last year the natural resources committee reported a bill almost identical to this one with only one democratic member voting in favor. dubbed the empty oceans act by fishermen and conservationists

across the country, the bill met stiff opposition on and off capitol hill and republican leadership did not bring it up for consideration by the full house. that showed remarkable restraint and good judgment. fast forward one year to today's debate and the vote on a legislation that has the same flaws, has drawn the same opposition. the only difference is this time around not a single committee democrat voted to report the bill. committee republicans did not reach out to us to discuss changes that might have made this bipartisan effort even though the original magnuson-stevens act and the 1996 and 2006 re-authorizations were bipartisan and passed both houses of congress with virtually no opposition. these efforts made necessary, legitimate and incremental changes to u.s. fisheries law

that has moved us closer and closer to achieving the goal of sustainable, profitable fisheries. we have an opportunity to re-authorize magnuson and continuing moving in the right direction, but once again house republicans have let partisanship get in the way of progress. instead of working with us to craft thoughtful, targeted legislation to update magnuson, republicans have taken this as an opportunity to assault bedrock conservation laws while at the same time taking us back to fisheries management policies that we have known have failed fishing communities in the past. as chairman bishop said himself when testifying before the rules committee last month, these are not just modest amendments, these are major amendments and i could not agree more. provisions in the bill, which will end successful efforts to rebuild overfished coastal communities, short-circuiting public review under nepa is a

major amendment. overriding the endangered species act the an fick wits, and the national marine sanctuaries act laws that have made fisheries more sustainable and protected by protecting valuable sea life are major, major amendments. these amendments are also unnecessary. noaa recently announced that the value of u.s. fisheries have reached an all-time high while the number of overfished stocks have reached an all-time low. we should celebrate these gains but also recognize that we have room for improvement. not all fisheries have received the benefit of the transition to sustainable harvest levels because the transition is still under way. . for example overfishing of atlantic cod in new england waters happened in 2013 and 2014 despite mandate to end overfishing. the measures in the law will end this overfishing, we re-build the stocks but not if

the bill before us were to become law. we must stay the course, fully rebuild fisheries that can contribute land contribute $31 billion to the economy and support half a million new jobs. we cannot afford to go back to the bad old days where politics trumped science in fishery management. instead let's go back to the drawing board. and work together on a bill to re-authorize and keep improving on our fisheries. thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time arizona reserves. the committee will rise to informally receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 184, cited as the native american children

safety tax in which the concurrent of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee is in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. chairman, i am pleased to recognize the sponsor of this piece of legislation, senior member of our committee, as well as someone who knows more about this issue than probably anyone else on the floor, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: thank you mr. chairman. thank you, chairman of the full committee. history is a wonderful thing. people who went through the same experiences have seen things differently. for the record, i'd like to direct the ranking member. while he's correct that this will eventually become public law passed the house under special rules, the original bill passed the resource committee, h.r. 5018 it passed after a very long markup with a

vote of 26-15 with only four democrats voting in favor of the bill. the gentleman from arizona volted against the bill. and signed his name. at this point the previous re-authorization act were noncontroversial and partisan is not true. i think whoever wrote that for you ought to do a little correct history. as one that sponsored this bill way back in 1975 and became law in 1976 it's probably the most successful legislation that ever passed this house, to create a sustainable yield of fisheries for the united states of america. to have someone try to hi jack this legislation -- i had jack this legislation -- hijack this legislation by interest groups when all those involved, the fishermen, the recreational, the restaurants, the conservations that know fisheries, the state of alaska and all other states support this act and the improvements we've made in this bill. yes, we have some flexibility. the bill would amend the

fisheries conservation act. the premier law, as i mentioned before. it allows for regional management of fisheries. the law gives guidance through national sttstds and creates a process that allows the council to develop fishery lands. it will provide a constituent-based approach. remember, this is not about the government. this bill was written by this congress for the people. not noaa, not state department, not the sierra club, not the pew group it was written for fishermen for sustainable yield of fish for the communities. it provides a regional concept. it's critical to the protection of cosal communities and allowing stakeholders to be a part of it. to address the ever-changing needs of fisheries and fishing communities i've been through this, from the original until today, the congress passed

various amendments to this act changed it based on the knowledge of times, gains through experiments -- experience in the mid 1990's congress addressed overfishing, including production of hab at it. improvement of fishery science and reduction of bicatch. there were issues of the time and they were addressed as needed. a factor of that time also included a lack of resources to provide needed data to the regional fisheries management council, something that continues to this day. a lot of decisions made without science. the act was last amended in 2007. congress included measures to set science-based annual catch limits to prevent overfishing, including a requirement to end overfishing within two years. harvest reduction. if harvest levels were exceeded , we now reach a point where overfishing has ended in this country. h.r. 1335 started being

developed four years ago. the committee held over a dozen hearings with testimony from over 100 witnesses. as with the last re-authorization, aligned with a main purpose of the act, to balance conservation with economic use of the resource. h.r. 1835 was the middle road. while many complain the big's -- the bill's flexibility rolls back protections, that's not accurate. the flexibility in the bill is based on science. rebuilding fish docks will be based on the bioology of the fish stock. harvest levels will still be based on science. and levels of overfishing will not occur. the regional council will continue to follow recommendations of science and statistical committees. during every re-authorization cycle, the act is updated to be closely in sync with current day science, management techniques and knowledge. as the fishermen communities they develop better techniques and learn lessons from implementing the law, congress takes that knowledge to improve

that law. flexibility is the corner stone of the law. the act promotes regional flexibility recognizing differing ocean conditions, different fisheries, different harvesting methods and management techniques. the state community it impacts. again, i want to stress this, mr. chairman, this bill was written for fish and communities. not all these other interest groups. as i said in the rules committee, i will not stand by and watch other interest groups hijack this piece of legislation, take it away, the sustainable concept of our fisheries. and the healthy concept of our fisheries. and the healthy concept of our communities for other reasons and other causes. if you want to do that do an independent legislation. we don't need any ocean antiquity experts -- acts, we don't need any sanctuaries under this bill. we don't need some outside groups telling the fishermen,

the communities anded sciences that our belief when they know little about it. i happen to have the largest coast lines in the whole of the united states all put together. and we've done the job we should be able to do. this bill makes this job easier for the united states of america, for giving us the ability to have a sustainable yield of fish and a community to take care of. with that i strongly urge the passage of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i agree with the distinguished chairman, mr. young, that the act is working. and that we should leave it alone and allow it to work. the inclusion in previous re-authorizations of the alaskan model science-based has been a key reason why it continues to work. let me at this point yield to my colleague from california, the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps, for 2 1/2 minutes.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. -- the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding and, mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 1335, which would undermine the proven and effective management of our nation's fisheries. for nearly 40 years the fishery conservation and management act m.s.a., has worked to protect america's fisheries and coastal committees -- economies. in more recent years it has established programs to protect and restore defleeted fish stocks ensuring these resources will be around for years to come. and these programs are working. in fact, last year marked the lowest number of fishery stocks overfished. ensuring these stocks are healthy is essential to the long-term success of the fishing industry and to food and job security. but protecting and restoring these stockses require that we

both acknowledge the need to manage our fisheries and fund the science necessary to properly assess their health. unfortunately h.r. 1335 does just the opposite. instead of working in a bipartisan manner to improve and modernize m.s.a. h.r. 1335 would dismiss and roll back existing effective management efforts. it would weaken proven management standards, it would reduce the efficacy of fish stock rebuilding programs and undermine existing laws that work in concert with m.s.a. to protect our fisheries. and it would create gaping loopholes that allow for overfishing and mismanagement under the guys of increasing flexibility -- guise of increasing flexibility. these misguided provisions would threaten the viability of an entire industry and harm the health of our oceans. simply to benefit a few special interests. effective fishery management ensures a sustainable industry by accounting for uncertainty and environmental change.

and m.s.a. works hand in hand with other environmental legislation to ensure the long-term viability of fishery resources. yet h.r. 1335 needlessly unravels this well-balanced system by undercutting other existing protections, under key long standing laws. like the national marine sanctuaries act, like the endangered species act, and the national environmental policy act. mr. speaker there's a bipartisan agreement on the need to protect and promote america's fishermen and the fishing industry. but rather than building on what is already working under a current law this bill would gut the proven management system that is currently in place. we should work together and be striving to enhance smart effective management and provide the resources our nation's fishing communities are asking for. h.r. 13535 is -- 1335 is short sighted counterproductive. i urge all my colleagues to oppose it. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. the gentlelady from arizona reserved. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. to further speak about a position or an issue that has the support of the recreation community and the industry at the same time, which is unique, it's one of the senior members of our committee, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia mr. wittman. the chair: three minutes, is that correct? mr. bishop: at least. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. as co-chairman of the congressional sportsman's caucus, i rise in strong support of h. rrment 1335, the strengthening fishing communities and increasing flexibility in fisheries management act and would like to thank my colleagues, chairman rob bishop, and subcommittee chairman young for all their efforts to bring this important piece of legislation to the house floor for a vote. according to the latest report released by the national

oceanic and atmospheric administration, in 2012 the u.s. domestic seafood industry had a sales impact of $141 billion and supported approximately 1.3 million jobs. h.r. 1335 makes the necessary reforms to support these jobs and our fishermen by promoting better science and requiring state and local data to be considered in federal decision making about fisheries. last year i spoke with commercial fishermen from the pacific coast, atlantic coast and the gulf of mexico and the common theme in our discussions was the need for better data and scientific analysis to improve management. the u.s.s. has a long heritage in fishing. to continue that heritage we need to have quality, diverse data and scientific analysis to facilitate educated decision making on fisheries management. h.r. 1335 allows for just that. the bill increases transparency and provides much-needed

flexibility in the law for fisheries managers to properly consider the environmental and economic impacts of decisions affecting fishing communities. and it is important to note that h.r. 1335 makes all of these key reforms to fisheries management without authorizing any new additional federal spending. we can do the job with the existing resources. this bill also makes great strides in the saltwater recreational fisheries. saltwater recreational fishing alone has a $70 billion impact on our nation's economy and supports over 454,000 jobs. marinas grocery stores, restaurants, motels, lodges tackle shops boat dealerships, clothing manufacturers, gas stations and a host of other businesses and entities benefit from money spent by recreational anglers.

this industry does not just impact coastal communities, but enables job creation and robust economic development in a variety of regions across the country. improving recreational data collection and a transparent review of allocations in the southeast are all great tools that h.r. 1335 gives noaa to effectively manage a recreational industry that is a significant economic player in the united states economy. h.r. 1335 is widely supported by a coalition of sportsmen and conservation groups including the congressional sportsmen foundation and the center for coastal conservation. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 1335, in support of access to our nation's resources and the 1.3 million jobs that are supported by fishing. thank you, mr. chairman, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia's time has expired. the gentleman from utah

reserves. the chairs i recognizes the gentleman from arizona. . mr. grijalva: in addition to more than 100 commercial and recreational groups that have all opposed this legislation and from the atlantic coast, pacific coast, the gulf of mexico and related fishery and commercial areas that opposition is -- seafood news, a respected market analysis for seafood, said that this act is a recipe for overfishing, unsustainability and would move u.s. world class fisheries management backwards. let me now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. dingell ranking member of the oversight committee for the resources committee. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise in opposition to h.r.

1335, legislation that is very important to re-authorize the historically bipartisan magnuson-stevens act. while i have nothing but the utmost respect for my colleague from alaska mr. young i'm afraid that i fear that this legislation would take our fisheries management system in the wrong direction. the bottom line is magnuson-stevens is working today. u.s. fisheries have been remarkably successful since the last re-authorization in 2007. if it isn't broken, why should we try to fix it? according to noaa, 37 important fish stocks have been rebuilt to healthy population levels since 2000. and the number of stocks subject to overfishing has been cut in nearly half since 2006. h.r. 1335 would eliminate

critical conservation tools that have been essential to our recent success and would also undermine critical environmental laws like the national environmental policy act and the endangered species. i hope that we can work towards a compromise so that magnuson-stevens can be re-authorized in a bipartisan manager as the last two bills were. until then, i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing h.r. 1335, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from michigan yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, another great worker, a member of our committee the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. hice: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise in strong support of h.r. 1335, the strengthening fishing communities and increasing flexibility in

fisheries management act. mr. speaker, i'd first of all like to thank the bill's sponsor, our colleague from alaska, mr. young, for his continued leadership on this important issue. additionally, i commend chairman bishop for ensuring that this bill has gone through regular order while being considered by the natural resources committee. h.r. 1335 makes necessary improvements to the magnuson-stevens act. as you know, mr. speaker, our u.s. commercial fishermen generated $5.1 billion in revenue between 2012 and 2014, and i know that with these necessary changes and improvements our fishermen will be able to contribute even more to our economy. in addition to the impact that h.r. 1335 has had on our commercial fishing industry, this legislation also has a strong impact on the recreational side of the

industry. for an industry that generates $58 billion in sales while supporting nearly 400,000 jobs, h.r. 1335 encourages our local professionals to have a more active role in determining regulatory measures rather than the one-size-fits-all management approach that's been used in the past. furthermore, h.r. 1335 will also adjust the method of counting red snapper mortality. this is an important issue for the recreational fisherman because it will increase access to the waters in the gulf of mexico so that our nation's sportsmen have the ability to enjoy our natural resources while making valuable contributions to the economy at the same time. mr. speaker this legislation has been crafted in a delicate way to ensure the necessary balance between our commercial

and recreational fishermen. both sides of the fishing industry will benefit from this bill and provide our states with more input. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1335, and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia's time has expired. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you again very much, mr. chairman. let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1335 the magnuson-stevens act re-authorization before us today. management of fisheries in the united states is extremely important especially in my home state of new jersey where the fishing industry's an important economic driver of the state's economy, generating billions of dollars a year in revenue and supporting tens of thousands of jobs. this bill passed out of the house natural resources committee without a single

democratic vote and president obama has threatened to veto it. this doesn't need to be a partisan issue. we should be working together in a bipartisan fashion to make commonsense reforms to magnuson-stevens. there are important fishery management reforms in this bill that i strongly support, such as the flexibility language and modifications to the annual catch limit requirements. however, i'm troubled by the language in the bill that makes unnecessary changes to nepa, the endangered species act the national marine sanctuaries act and the antiquities act. this bill would vest much of the authority in the fisher management councils instead of with the appropriate federal agency. it's not appropriate to vest regulatory authority for these purposes in a body like a fishery management council. fishery managers play an important role in crafting measures in consultation with noaa fisheries, yet, they lack the expertise to appropriately review and analyze the impacts and requirements of nepa or the eng dengered species --

endangered species act. this bill has language that i authored on data collection, and i'd like to thank the authors for including this important section. this would ensure that fishery management councils are collecting the best information possible about recreational fishing. it would implement a grant program to allow states to improve recreational data collection and require the national research council to issue a report on improvementes that have been made and need to be made with reek -- recreational data. and this make sure we are not closing needed fisheries. mr. speaker, there is positive reforms to magnuson-stevens in this legislation, but unfortunately it weakens important environmental laws of nepa and the e.s.a. in the process. that is unfortunate. i hope we could have had a bipartisan bill that actually reforms magnuson-stevens in it a preferable way. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

new jersey yields. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from new jersey for joining us here. i quoted you earlier in my speech when you were saying something very positive about this bill last time around, but i'd like to put into the record the concept or state for the record the garden state seafood association which is from your home state of new jersey which also supports this bill as they have said simply that it adjusts sirn specific problematic regulations that have not proven to function as intended since they were add or amended in the last re-authorization a decade ago. there are problems with the status quo. this bill fixes. and to illustrate that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan also a hard worker of our committee. and language he added in our

committee, which made an impact for the recreational fishermen. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. duncan: i'd like to support h.r. 1335, the strengthening fishing communities and increasing flexibility in fisheries management. i'd like to thank them for including my amendment of the morris dill commission. one of the top priorities was requiring a review and adjustment if warranted of the allocations of missed -- mixed fisheries. despite the tremendous importance of allocation -- maximizing the benefits our fisheries add to the nation, federal fisheries managers have refused to revisit allocations most of which were done decades ago because of lack of clear guidance how decisions should be made and because these decisions are inherently difficult. my amendment included in the committee text would prompt the development of criteria that should be considered in allocation decisions and require a periodic allocation review.

the language does not prescribe any specific shifts in existing allocations but rather a science-based review and potential adjustment if needed. recognizing the high number of important recreational important fisheries in the region, the geographic scope is limited to the south atlantic and the gulf of mexico. you see the poster beside me. as vice chairman of the congressional sportsman caucus, i represent 1.3 million anglers and organizations that they belong to that support this bill. let's be clear. the clole goal here is to allow more fishermen, whether commercial fishermen or recreational anglers, to take more fish in a responsible manner. we want policy based on sound science compatible with the facts in the water, not the informed opinions of a desk jockey bureaucrat in washington, d.c. this was in the m.s.a. re-authorization bill, introduced by senators rubio and big itch in the 113th congress and i want to thank my

colleagues in the natural resources committee for including language and i urge passage of the final bill. this is common sense for re-authorizesing magnuson-stevens. the gentleman has done a tremendous job on this and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina yields. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maine, ms. pingree. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chair, thank you, mr. grijalva, for the time. i rise to support the re-authorization of the magnuson-stevens act but not the bill we have before us today. like many of my colleagues here in congress who represent coastal states, i know the importance of a vibrant fishery and the importance of federal policy in this area that keeps our nation's fisheries moving forward. i live on a small off-shore island and many of my neighbors make their living as fishermen, as do many of my constituents.

the most lucrative fishery in my area is for lobsters and one of the most sustainable and successful industry because lobsters and fishermen have taken a long-term view. it is so successful and so sustainable because it's been carefully regulated for decades. strict rules have led to bigger and bigger casms and rising income for fishermen. this fisheries is proof that building a strong fishery happens first by ensuring there is a resource for fishermen to harvest. iconic species like haddock and pollock have been devastated by overfick phishing. they can still make a comeback but not if we turn our backs on them and the fishermen who depend on them. the collapse of many fisheries have taken a toll on fishing families and communities but slowly we're -- rebuilding this species is rebuilding our hope for the future. now is not the time to abandon these efforts. now is not the time to give up on the progress we've already made.

the only way to guarantee healthy fishing communities over the long term is to rebuild the fish stocks use using science-based methods and i'd ask my colleagues to support more funding for science. the future of many coastal communities is based on sustainable fisheries, not rolling back management systems that give just a few fishermen a short-term boost. i urge my colleagues to support many of the amendments that will be on the floor this afternoon that will try to improve this legislation, and i urge a no vote on the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from maine yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i'm pleased to recognize for two minutes another hardworking member of our committee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. mckarter. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. mac arthur: thank you, mr.

speaker. there are probably as many boats as people in my district and that's because i represent one of the most beautiful stretches of the atlantic ocean from north to south. the southern part of the jersey shore. and i have thousands of charter and commercial fishermen tens of thousands of recreational fishermen that either make their living from the sea or get some respite and go out and do some recreational fishing and i hear from them all the time that the current magnuson-stevens act is simply not working any more for them, it's outdated, it's arbitrary. we're continuing to protect fish stocks that have been completely rebuilt. . it's desperately in need of reform. the economic impact in my state loon is $1.3 billion from the recreational side, over $2

billion on the commercial side. 30,000 jobs. there is nobody that lives along the coast that wants to go back to the wild west days that anyone can catch whatever they want and destroy the fish stocks. nobody wants that. but the current system is not working and it needs to be reformed. this is a good bill that offers real solutions. it preserves fish stocks and yet it recognizes the needs of our fishermen and relies on fact-based science, an amendment that i proposed that i'm physically pleased with, it encourages marine students to be involved in the data collection and requires the government to look to them for that. and we can do it at lower costs and with better results. i encourage my colleagues, don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. this is a good bill. it deserves to be approved. and i urge my colleagues to stand behind it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields.

the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. graham. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. graham: thank you, mr. chairman. in the panhandle of north florida, red snapper is a way of life. thousands of commercial fishermen and charter boat captains depend on a healthy catch to make a living. tens of thousands of recreational fishermen spend their free time and personally invested and thousands of restaurants serve red snapper to hundreds of thousands of visitors to the area everywhere. seafood is a $7 billion industry in the gulf and red snapper is a big part of it.

like any valuable asset, we need to preserve our fisheries for future generations. i applaud the chairman and ranking member for opening this dialogue about how to improve current law protect our ocean resources and best serve our constituents. unfortunately, i think this bill falls short in its current form. my constituents tell me there are more red snapper in the gulf than there have been in a long time. i think that shows at least in part this law is working. but i also hear widespread destruct of the system and the data that the system produces. in that regard magnuson isn't working nearly as well as it could and i want to recognize some of the healthy reforms in this bill that could improve the situation. it is an extraordinary challenge

to count all the fish in the sea. it's nearly as hard to count how many fish are being caught. but i think we could do both better by getting the states and stakeholders more involved and providing modern electronic monitoring technologies as this bill does. despite those good provisions, florida would not be florida without a.m. will opportunities for recreational fishing and a robust commercial fishing sector. while current law isn't perfect i think the contentious nature of this floor date is a good occasion that it isn't going to narrow the two sectors. we need to improve -- the chair: the chair recognizes

the gentleman from utah. ms. graham: i'll submit the remaining comments. mr. grijalva: i yield 30 seconds. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida for an additional 30 seconds. ms. graham: the better alternative is to keep doing what's working and to improve data collection techniques wra they're lacking. to that end, i'm proud to support an increase of $10 million including in the c.j.s. appropriations bill for gulf of mexico fish stock. these are the kinds of efforts that build real confidence in the fishery. i look forward to a conversation about how to work together going forward. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady from florida yields. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i appreciate you gave the gentlelady.

she illustrates clearly how the problems that exist are structural problems that can't be solved if we just add more money to the situation. to further that issue, i would like to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. weber for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. weber: i thank the gentlelady from florida for her comments. in texas, we have a great snapper fishing industry as well. andlers, recreational and charter boat captains. and my daughter and first three grandchildren live in florida. so florida is my second home. mr. chairman, i actually rise about h.r. 1335 to talk about a proposed amendment by the gentleman from louisiana, representative graves, to change the sthapper fishing system. -- snapper fishing system. the problem with that is that the amendment is a plan that was

developed by five people that wanted to change the way noaa does things and turn it over to the five states and that's a bad idea and i'll tell you why. the current plan has been working since 2007. to actually double the population of snapper, indeed has provided a 30% increase in the quota this very season. businesses have been working long along the texas coast and to my gentlelady from florida, the florida coast to develop lasting fisheries, because their livelihood depends on it. mr. chairman, i'm an air conditioning contractor. we have a commissioner in texas that regulates us. we want people on that commission that understands the hvac industry. we do everything to promote the industry, to make sure that we have a good stable industry that takes care of customers in texas and i have to know and believe it's the same way about the fishing industry. they want the fisheries to last.

restaurants depend upon on it. not just the andlers but those who want to go to eat at the restaurants. there are a lot of groups opposed to mr. graves' amendment the list of 42 others. gulf-led snapper is an american treasure and access to all not with just with a boat and trailer. we have heard the facts and figures about the number of jobs and amount of revenue and how big that industry is. my good friend from louisiana, dr. fleming, a member of the committee has stated that some tweaking is needed, but by all three groups of stakeholders, charter boat fishing commercial boat and andlers. i heard with my own ears the chairman of the natural resources committee said he

wants to work with the groups in the coming days. the government shouldn't be in the business to pick winners and losers. to implement an unknown plan would put pressure on the individual states to outsupply the other states with a longer fishing season to attract tourists and money to outcompete the other states. fisheries would be devastated and the jobs and markets that are supplying red snapper to restaurants across the country would be gone. ultimately it's the american consumers who have come to like the local seafood that would be disenfranchised, not to mention the businesses that supply them. so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water or the fish with the salt water, let's bring all parties together in a thoughtful and meaningful discussion that benefits all involved not just a few. for this reason, i urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman from louisiana's amendment well intentioned as

it may be, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: may i inquire how much time each side has. the chair: you have 14 minutes remaining. mr. grijalva: let me yield two minutes to my colleague from california mr. lowenthal, a member of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lowenthal: if gutting the successful conservation provisions of magnuson were not enough, the problem also is that this bill will also weaken out bedrom environmental laws. first, it makes magnuson in this re-authorization, it makes magnuson the controlling statute in the case of any kind of conflict with the national

marine sank tue areas act. if we think about this, there is no rationale for giving the councils that are authorized in magnuson the authority to regulate fishing in marine sanctuaries or inmon youments. those areas represent a tiny fraction of u.s. waters and now managed by scientists and other staff who consider more than just fishing interests. we're really here to understand how to balance fishing with the other purposes in order to protect vulnerable species and habitats. for the same reason that we don't allow state fish and game departments to make decisions about hunting in national parks or monuments onland these councils should not make decisions about fishing in our parks, our national marine

sanctuaries or national monuments at sea. but that's not enough. the bill takes a swipe at the endangered species act by requiring these councils, not federal agencies which are now responsible for the recovery of species to implement the fishery restrictions necessary for endangered species compliance. these councils lack expertise and they lack the resources to implement the endangered speaks jees act. what are we going to end up with? recovery is going to be delayed and the negative impacts to fishing communities are going to be prolonged just the very thing we wish not to happen. the chair: the gentleman from california? the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. lowenthal: these assaults on

key conservation laws are far outside the scope of a fisheries bill. we are talking about a fisheries bill. we are not talking abo should not be talking about gutting key conservation laws. it's unfortunate that a historically bipartisan effort like magnuson re-authorization has now become the subject of an anti-environmental crusade. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i wish to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, to address an issue that will be part of this bill and the discussion as it comes up. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. graves: i would like to thank don young who are

recreational andlers as we tried to remedy an gin justice. and i listened to some of my colleagues that we should be fair and people should come to the table. let me tell you what is happening at the table. the commercial fishermen gets to fish for 365 days a year, use long lines and wempes and the national marine fisheries and the gulf council, they have chosen to limit the man and woman to limit it to 10 days and 10 days and somehow they think that by expanding the recreational season back to where it was before, somehow it would hurt the fish in the gulf of mexico. the reason is they tell us because they are larger today that the recreational fishermen are catching them that much faster. in 2007, in 2007, the

recreational andler had 194 days to fish with their families in the gulf of mexico. 194 days. in eight years they have taken the american family down to simply 10 days. it is proof that the american sportsman doesn't have a chance with the federal government in charge of the rulemaking process in the gulf of mexico with regard to the recreational snapper season. the garrett amendment which i support the chairman's main piece of legislation would give the states the right to set based on science, not some arbitrary number, but based on science, the recreational season for the andler in the gulf of mexico. mr. speaker, that is the only way that recreational season will be restored as we andlers were promised it would be restored when the stocks came back.

. who do they belong to? mr. bishop: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. scott: there are 30% of the people that get 50% of the snapper in the gulf of mexico and when the commercial quota go up they automatically get an increase. those fish belong to the public and i think it's time to discuss whether or notin any increase in the commercial quota should actually come and be auctioned as any other public resource would be when we made those additional resources available. but for now the garret amendment goes a long way towards restoring -- gashity amendment goes a long way toward restoring the right of the angler. i yield. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. and the gentleman from utah has 3.5 minutes remaining. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman, i

continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i will let the gentleman from arizona that i'm the final speaker so i'm reserving. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you very much. let me in closing you know, congress first enacted the fishery conservation management act in 1976. and the primary goals were two, to end the unregulated fishing by foreign fleets in u.s. waters and to develop our domestic fleets that could reap the economic benefits of all the fishery resources, considerable resources that our nation had. the law worked. foreign fishing was phased out and investments in domestic fleets were increased. unfortunately, these capitalizations worked so well that domestic fishing soon

replaced foreign fleets in overexploiting u.s. fisheries. in 1996 and 2007 the re-authorization for enact to end overfishing, overfish stocks, improve fisheries and habitats and minimize bycatch. these changes ended overfishing in nearly all fisheries and put overfished stocks on a path to rebuilding. most important, they insulated fishery management councils from pressure to make political-driven decisions that hurt fishing communities in the long run. contrary to those previous re-authorizations h.r. 1335 was developed with very little input from democrats and was -- and was ordered reported on a party line. i should note at the last re-authorization the other body made significant changes to the house-passed legislation and created a more bipartisan

template that many of us could support. you know, supporters of this bill will argue that the requirement to rebuild overfished stocks needs more flexibility, but the magnuson-stevens act has already proven to be plenty flexible. the law allowance councils to delay rebuilding when the biology of the stock, environmental conditions or international management considerations present challenges. because of this broad but fair exemptions more than 50% of all overfished stocks have rebuilding plans that long -- longer than a 10-year baseline in the act. further current law gives council two years to put a rebuilding plan in place and an additional year to reduce, rather than end, overfishing. that is three years of time before significant harvest restrictions go into effect. what's more the act only requires a rebuilding plan to have a 50% likelihood of

success. if a council loses the coin flip, it does not have to shut down the fishery. instead, it has to start over. that's how things have played out over the last few years over cod in new england. history shows us that councils have an excuse to delay when councils have an excuse to delay over rebuilding overfished stocks. this bill -- this bill makes up the following excuses. it's too hard to work with other countries who may be impacting the stock of the fish so we should just catch more and deplete the stock faster. the stock of the fish cannot be rebuilt by only limiting fishing so there is no point to try and limit fishing and -- if the effort is 99% of the problem. it's inconvenient to rebuild the overfished stocks and swim with healthy stocks so we

should just catch the weak once wuns until they're listed under the endangered species act. and my favorite, there are unusual events that makes rebuilding more difficult. these excuses are each bad enough alone but they would have the requirement of magnuson completely meaningless. this would not give the magnuson cap more flexibility, it would break it. with that i urge a no vote on the legislation and yield back the remainder of our time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, there are some agencies of government that if a bird were to fly over the capitol they would claim credit for it. that perhaps is one of the situations in which we find ourselves today. the problem is the status quo is not effective. it is not working. those who work and live in this area deal with this industry,

they recognize there is something that needs to be changed. that is why, as i stated earlier the garden state seafood association said there are problematic regulations that have not proven to function as intended. that's in the status quo. while the national fisheries institute, another group that actually supports this bill, wants to do so because it would more effectively coordinate with the councils who are currently there. we have a situation right now in which others have spoken here the gentleman from texas, the gentlelady from florida about problems that exists within the status quo and we are presenting now a bill that's supported of those working in the industry, supported by those who are commercial fishermen and those who represent the recreation fishers. we have a standard 10-year plan for some species. that's that don't exist is silly. there needs to be some transparent. some decisions are made behind closed doors, this bill

mandates that not be the case. there needs to make sure there is scientific data from all sources is used and recognize that is not happening in the status quo. there needs to be the ability of cutting red tape. some people have talked about the change of nepa. without recognizing first that the law already mandates a similar process to nepa with the exact same information and requiring these agencies go through their process and go through nepa does add to the opportunity of greater litigation costs. all those issues are addressed in this particular bill. it needs to be re-authorized. we need to move forward. this is one of the bills that's taking a long time, four years in the process, lots of discussion, lots of amendments. we are now moving this bill forward so it can go to the senate they can work its will, we can come back to a conference if necessary, but we must move forward in this for the benefit of the communities that use this area as -- this area as their likelihood and preservation and the present

system has flaws that need to be fixed. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources 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 114-16. 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 the house report 114-128. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report 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, may be withdrawn by the proponent at anytime before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-128. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. dingell: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-128 offered by mrs. dingell of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274, the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from -- the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from

michigan. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. chairman. the national environmental policy act also called nepa, is a critically important law, not only for protecting the environment but also for protecting the people's right to participate in government decisionmaking. sadly h.r. 1335 the bill we are considering today would short-circuit public review and comment on fisheries management decisions casting nepa aside in favor of an inadequate, poorly defined process that would make regional fishery management councils the ultimate arbiters of whether or not their own decisions would impact coastal communities and ocean ecosystems. forcing important nepa analysis to be fast tracked onto a council's timeline would eliminate crucial oversight steps that provide stakeholders an opportunity to impact the public policy. while i know my colleagues had

good intentions, the practical impact of this language means that local communities and businesses will not have the same opportunity to comment and have input on decisions that will impact their livelihood. i don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really want to limit public participation in this manner. my amendment simply strikes the harmful language from the bill that undermines nepa because limiting transparency and accountability is not the right thing to do. nepa has a simple premise -- look before you leap. for decades, nepa has improved our environment and fostered fairness in our communities by ensuring that government remains accountable to the people. the nepa process requires federal agencies to review

their proposed action in light of their potential impacts on the human environment. the places where we all live, work and play. most importantly, nepa gives the public an opportunity to review and comment on actions proposed by the government, adding unique perspectives to the evaluation process that highly specialized mission-driven agencies might otherwise ignore. in that way, nepa is the ultimate check on big government, a uniquely american and essentially democratic small be, law written and helps people execute their rights and freedoms. our founding fathers would certainly be proud. i hope that my colleagues will agree that existing nepa protections should be preserved and ask that you vote in favor

of my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, seek recognition? mr. bishop: i wish to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. in response to the amendment, i simply have to say no. it does not assume the system. we do have a problem with transparency in the process that we have the underlying bill changes that by requiring these decisions to be made public and made openly. but the specific issue that dealing with nepa misses the step, misses an important point here. current law requires fishery plans to require a statement that is required by the law now, that is in line of everything you go through to do an environmental impact statement under nepa. what this amendment would do is simply require the process to do everything twice. you do a fishery impact

statement first and then you restate and redo the same business with the same costs attached to it for the nepa analysis. that is simply red tape. it's an unnecessary delay. it makes some of the scientific information obsolete before they're done. it burdens the management, the resource council which is why those, once again, who works in the system said this is an unnecessary part and one of the reasons they like the efficiency that's been added by the basic underlying bill. the most important reason, though, why you don't want to accept this amendment is if you add two different approaches, two different statements that have to be made, you give attorneys two different opportunities to litigate. you give more opportunities to litigate, more opportunities to delay and that's ridiculous when it lacks common sense because you're doing the same thing in both processes. cut the red tape, cut the litigation opportunity, cut the delays and help us move forward. i reject this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time.

. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mrs. dingell: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: two minutes. mrs. dingell: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from maine. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: i rise today to support the dingell amendment as many of us know, our nation fisheries do not work on artificial time lines. to make sure they are getting environmental policy analysis that preserves our resources, we can't force these studies to be fast tracked. the underlig bill would force analyses to be rushed and therefore cut stakeholders out of the process. at a time when we are trying to make sure that we keep stakeholders engaged, they would actually give less consideration under the bill that we have on the floor today. we need to ensure our

communities are given a chance to weighing in and that the process -- and in that process we look at the current environmental impacts of those plans. my colleague has said that her amendment would restore common sense and require us to look before we leap. i couldn't agree more. i urge my colleagues to oppose artificial time lines for reviews and urge my colleagues to support the dingell amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: reserve. mrs. dingell: i want to quickly respond to some of the comments made by the other eyed. federal agency responsibility for nepa is effectively being eliminated by this law in an alternative undefined process which is being established, hindering the public's ability to influence policies and protect their rights, stakeholders, including

businesses and individuals would get less consideration in the council process and would not have a way of voicing their concerns and influencing the directions of plans or projects that could threaten the environment or the livelihoods of these people. it is simply common sense that plans to manage our valuable resources be properly assessed before resources are harvested. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i recognize the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. mr. young: i thank the chairman i would like to remind my colleagues, this was requested by the communities so there wouldn't be a delay. we are not eliminating nepa. there is a process in the act which was not in the original act. i will say that and i did support it when it went in.

to require outside interests that they are not respecting those in the community which is what her amendment would do. lets other outside interest groups get involved in this issue of sustainable fisheries. this has always been a fishery community bill, not an outside bill or interest groups getting into the issues of sustainability. and community activity. through transparency. what you do is you start a duplication of the process. it's not necessary -- we aren't eliminating nepa but adding to it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. bishop: has the gentlelady yielded back? the chair: she has. mr. bishop: the environmentally friendly approach would be not to accept this amendment because think of all the trees that you are going to save pi. we are doing this process in the law requiring nepa and the

fisheries' statement is a republically occasion of the process that's already there. it doesn't need to be there. you are not cutting anyone out. it is one of those things that you need to do the first time and do it right the first time and don't do it a second time to allow lawyers to come up with another chance to litigate one more time. i urge its rejection. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. dingell: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from michigan will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 2 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-128.

for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. chairman i rise to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 114-128 offered by mr. keating of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to the house resolution 274, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. keith keets my amendment builds off of years of efforts to reform the use of the asset forfeiture fund. during this time, noaa has conducted reviews and audits for the use of forfeiture monies but it's important to authorize specific uses to help our struggling michigannermen and at the same time promote sustainable fishing. my amendment would ensure they be used for five things, stock

assessments. this bill authorizes the use of state personnel and resources and cooperative research between industry and public science and use of vessels to survey data for fisheries. my amendment expands beyond that by authorizing broader use of forfeiture funds. this is particularly important in the northeast where timely information may be the difference between the success or failure of a small fishing business. secondly, it helps with shoreside monitoring. one thing i have heard from fishermen from new bedford and proper vince town it's the transition from monitoring from noaa to fishermen. nearly three years the department of commerce declared a fishing disaster in the northeast as they face the long-term challenges coming back from this disaster, this is no

time to switch the burden of the cost of monitoring on to them. third, it advances conserves engineering. additional funds will help them adopt knew gear and technology, reduce the impact on the marine environment and promote sustainable fishing for future generations. commercial and recreational fishermen use an array of gear, and the inclusion of untargeted fish turtles and marine mammals as spy catch. there are have been efforts to promote sustainable means of fishing like scallopers in new bedford to dredge to protect sea turtles and new england aquarium collaborative that has warned marine mammals away from gear net. fourth, additional research for

an impact statement. councils are required to develop statements to take into account a proposed management plan and impact on fisheries and fishing communities. in doing so, the bill shifts the responsibility from nepa to the council. and while i have concerns about how this will be implemented, i do believe it's critical we provide councils with adequate resources. finally, the bill and the amendment will help funding priorities like efforts to rebuild and maintain sustainable fisheries and ensure healthy ecosystems. no doubt that additional funding for these efforts is a win for fishermen on both coasts, on all coasts in our country. and i yield my time to my colleague from massachusetts, mr. moulton. mr. moulton: i would like to thank my colleague and friend from massachusetts for the time and all the work he has done along with mr. lynch on behalf

of our state's fishing community. i rise in strong support of this amendment, which clarifies the uses of noaa's asset forfeiture fund so we can make smart investments in scientific research and preserve a viable fishing industry. this amendment will provide our fishermen, businesses and fishing communities with the assurance that the money in the asset forfeiture fund will go towards improving the science behind sustainable fishery management practices. additionally, the amendment offers fishery councils the resources they need to better serve our fisheries and fishing communities. at the end of the day, both the fishermen and the environmentalists want the same thing, healthy and sustainable fisheries. i believe that the amendment will help achieve this objective through meaningful and targeted uses of noaa's asset forfeiture fund. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah, mr. bish on op, seek recognition? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection. mr. bishop: in 2010 the department of commerce inspector general reported that noaa was misusing these funds for all sorts of purposes not actually helping the fishing community. that's one of the reasons why we are clearly saying the status quo has problems and this bill needs to go forward. this bill recognized that these funds should not be used to add to the bureaucracy. and therefore in the base bill, we actually put in provisions to allow up to 80% of these enforcement funds for collection, data and science. what mr. keating and others have done is take the process one step further and something i think is a very commonsense solution to a problem that we do have in the status quo. and i appreciate what you're

doing. and i support this amendment. and i urge everyone to vote yes on it. i reserve -- unless no one else has anything. they've yielded back? i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. 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 4 printed in house report 114--128. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lowenthal: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-128 offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274, the gentleman from california, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from california. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lowenthal: unfortunately the bill before us, h.r. 1335 undermines nearly two decades of progress making u.s. fisheries profitable and sustainable. few weeks ago, noaa reported that overfishing has hit an all-time low, and the number of rebuilt stocks has hit an all-time high, largely because of the success of magnuson-stevens act, the reforms of 1996 and 2007. the same reforms that this bill today before us would undercut. in an attempt to add good policy to an otherwise unproductive bill i'm offering an amendment to improve the management of one important fish stock, the gulf of mexico red snapper. last year during a series of

natural resources committee hearings on fisheries' policies, we heard from members and witnesses, who were irate over the fact that the interior department was allowing offshore oil platforms and drilling rigs in the gulf of mexico to be decommissioned in a way that was killing red snapper and destroying important snapper habitat. after intense questioning, it became clear that in the current process for decommissioning rigs, noaa, which is part of the department of commerce, is not regularly consulted by interior agencies. as a result noaa does not even conduct surveys to determine if the department of interior is about dismantle a productive artificial reef teaming with red snapper and other fish. mr. chair i agree with my colleagues from the gulf states who feel this is ridiculous and needs to stop, but how do we do it? then i remembered we have a

mechanism in place for resolving this kind of conflict at sea called the national ocean policy. the national ocean policy, the national ocean council has governance of public resources like air traffic control for the seas, the council coordinates all of the users of our oceans and helps them determine safer, less contentious and more efficient utilization of ocean resources. my amendment would direct the agencies responsible for implementing the national ocean policy to work with the gulf states and other stakeholders to develop a prpt process that would present -- a transparent process that would preserve red snapper. a vote for this amendment is a vote for more fishing opportunities in the gulf of mexico and a vote for a bipartisan solution to promoting

red snapper habitat. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the lowenthal amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, seek recognition? mr. bishop: i wish to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i'd like to yield a minute to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, on this particular amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: this amendment was offered in committee. it failed. it's my understanding that the rigs and platforms already required to eliminate harm under their leases. in fact, most of the fishermen i talked to in the gulf coast region is that platforms are man-made reefs and that red snapper love them. i don't want to give the nags ocean council any authority. the council was created by executive action, and until the congress passes legislation regarding the national ocean policy congress should not implement measures to support

it. it's not an action of congress. this is an action by executive order and remember this bill originally was sustainable yield, sustainable communities. nothing to do with an ocean council deciding what's going to happen to override the magnuson-stevens act. this is a bad amendment, and i oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. california. mr. lowenthal: california. close to massachusetts. how much time do i have remaining, mr. chair? the chair: two minutes are remaining. mr. lowenthal: thank you. as you just heard from the other side, mr. chair, of the aisle, they agree with me that there needs to be more coordination amongst all the stakeholders to make smart decisions about rig decommissioning and red snapper habitat. but they refuse to move forward with this proposal simply because they oppose the national oceans policy which incidently, as we all know in this room, that its predecessor

was the u.s. commission on ocean policy, which was first established by president bush. they opposed the national ocean policy on the grounds that it's a program that's authorized by an executive action or an executive order of a president that they don't like. this seems to me to be pretty petty. why would we create now a new group to bring together the stakeholders to address just this one issue when we already have a council and a policy that can do exactly what everyone wants to be done? national ocean policy is not a failed policy like some suggests, nor is it an instance of executive overreach. it is merely a commonsense way to facilitate multistakeholder collaboration on complex ocean issues. mr. chair, my amendment directs agencies and stakeholders to work together to come up with solutions to decommission rigs

that work for everyone involved. this is a commonsense solution that promotes red snapper habitat and more recreation fishing opportunities. i urge a yes vote on the lowenthal amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i wish to yield a minute to the gentleman from louisiana mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from california for offering this amendment. we had the opportunity to discuss this in committee. i'm very sensitive to the fact that we do things in a manner that sustains all of our fisheries and protects our ecosystem. however, as we discussed in committee, i did request of you, number one, a request that if you let us get together as the gulf states, continue to work with the department of the interior. we have larger concerns about some of the way this important reef structures, such as rigs,

have been handled by the federal government. we are the concern of not handling this. i respect the gentleman in offering in amendment. i will vote not in favor of this amendment so we can talk more on this i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from california, have you -- you've yielded? mr. lowenthal: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: then allow me to conclude debate, if i could. last year in congress we had a hearing where we saw a huge number of red snappers killed by the removal of a decommissioned oil platform that had been authorized by the department of interior. this amendment does not really change that but what this amendment would do is an attempt hopefully futile attempt to basically give validity to the administration's national ocean policy a policy that was done without transparency, almost in

the cover of darkness, and implemented by executive order. what we're talking about is not something that's an executive action but as properly said by the last few speakers from our side, it's a legislative action and this bill takes that legislative responsibility and does it the right way. we do not need a nontransparent executive order to be enforced here. what we need to do is allow the agencies of jurisdiction to actually do their job, defend their rules and allow the legislative branch to work its will. i urge a no vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lowenthal: i ask for a -- mr. chair, 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 california will be postponed. mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chair. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-128. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-128 offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection, so ordered.

mr. young: the amendment i'm offering today makes a few clarifications to the underlying bill. it modifies language in the bill allowing the use of graduate students in a collection of recreational fishing data. they're studying to expand it and when the students can be used as clarified. the amendment also clarifies a guidance prepared by the national academy of science regarding the economic benefits of commercial and recreational fishing within the mixed used fisheries is to be given by the south atlantic and the gulf of mexico councils. the amendment would also modify the provision regarding the council review of limited access programs to include not only the benefits of the program but also any adverse impacts. lastly, the amendment includes language to allow stock assessment to include information from universities, fishermen -- fishing communities and research institutions in addition to the state and federal fisheries data it would require a schedule for when stock assessments should require and would have a waiver when it doesn't need assessments.

this is a good amendment and ask members to support it and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska -- for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you. the reporting requirements and stock assessment mandates in this amendment would impose significant new costs to noaa but the amendment provides no additional thunder funding. the majority already complains that noaa doesn't do stock assessments quickly enough. this unfunded mandate would further slow that process. further, these concepts have not been vetted by the natural resources committee. we have not had an opportunity to get feedback on the legislation from noaa. the agency that would inevitably be responsible for implementing it. we need to hear from the administration about any potential costs or unintended consequences of this amendment. in particular, the original requirements of the guidelines

envisioned in this bill would take away the discretion of expert scientists and undermine an ongoing effort noaa is conducting to improve stock assessments across regions. further the mandates, deadlines and reports would likely cost moneys that is not authorized to be appropriated. i would like to have additional input on the requirements this bill imposes with respect to developing and following new guidelines on data collection and on cost recovery by the agency. for these reasons, i urge a no vote on the amendment and reserve the balance. the chair: does the gentleman from arizona have additional speaker or speakers in regard to this amendment? mr. grijalva: no, we do not, mr. chairman. the chair: does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time on this amendment. mr. grijalva: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. does the gentleman from alaska wish to close debate for --

mr. young: i would -- i yield back my time but i will close debate. i don't agree with the gentleman from new mexico. mr. grijalva: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from alaska is ready to close so he has the right to -- all right. the gentleman from alaska can proceed then. young young i disagree with the gentleman from new mexico's comments on this. this does not add any additional cost. why people say that, i don't know. all this does is very simple. i explained it when i explained my amendment and i urge the passage of the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized to close debate on this amendment. mr. grijalva: my good friend, mr. young can perptually try to move to new mexico -- i still love arizona and will remain in arizona. i want to say for the reasons of opposition have not changed to the amendment.

the unintended consequences, the lack of information as to what the data collection will be. any impending cost that would be acured by noaa would have to undertake and feedback both by the agency that would be responsible, feedback from the resources committee and feedback by the administration to this amendment would be i think important additions in order for this house to be able to make an informed decision on the amendment. lacking that information i remain urging a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the remainder of our time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back the remainder of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. 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 6 printed in house report 114-128. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. graves: i have an amendment made in order. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 114-128 offered by mr. graves of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: mr. chairman, when i was a child growing up in south louisiana fishing for -- recreational fishing for red snapper, we were allowed to go out all year round. we could enjoy fishing with our family in excess the bounties of the gulf of mexico. as a matter of fact, the gulf of mexico is so productive, we

don't have just a great recreational fishing in south louisiana we have great commercialization as well. we have some of the best restaurants in the nation. we have a very robust commercial fishing industry. in fact, mr. chairman, the second biggest commercial fishing industry to -- only to the state of alaska. which i think is unfair because it has the crab shells. mr. chairman, the reality is we have seen the seen the national marine fisheries service the last several years continue to use science that is not as robust as that that the states are using to manage their fisheries. mr. chairman, the fishing that -- the access for the recreational fishermen went down since i was a child. even from the 1990's it was down to 200 days until today when they say it's limited to only 10 days for recreational fishing. parents and their children can go out for 10 days. now today the national marine

service has split up the charter for hire in the recreational to allow them to go out for 45 days and effectively allow the commercial fisherman to go out for year round. i want to be clear, mr. chairman. this is not about pitting the different sectors against one another. what this is about is ensuring we're using the best science and ensure that we're providing access to all fishers, the recreational, the charter for hire and the commercial. it needs to be based upon the best science. we can have much better management of that resource by ensuring consistency between state waters and federal waters the five gulf states have come up with a plan, unanimously the five gulf states have come up with a plan to manage those. mr. chairman, my amendment simply codifies that agreement of the five gulf states and allows those states to manage the red snapper fishery identical to how the striped bass fishery is managed on the atlantic coast. i reserve. the chair: the time of the gentleman from louisiana has expired.

. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you again mr. chairman. i'm disappointmented to see this amendment back again after it failed to pass in committee. i understand -- no, thank you, i claim time in opposition. excuse me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm disappointed to see this amendment back again after it failed to pass in committee. i just had a fishermen want to be able to keep more of the red snapper they catch. but the solution is not to steal fish from a responsibly managed and accountable commercial sector that provides millions of americans the opportunity to choose healthy fresh, sustainable gulf red snapper at stores and restaurants. nor is it the solution to hand mansionment over to gulf states before they have developed a plan for managing the resources of more than just trust us. simple arithmetic shows there are too many people putting too much pressure on the red snapper stock to sustain a reak

reactional fishing season that lasts for more than a few days. to address that problem, private boat anglers will need to present creative solutions, such as those at the commercial and charter for hire sectors have developed. noaa is doing an incredible job of rebuilding the stock and the gulf council has the ability to debate and adopt a regional management approach or other alternative management strategies without this being -- without this sbeenches from washington. i urge a no vote on the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from alaska. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for one minute. mr. young: i understand the gentleman's concern, from louisiana, on the current status of the red snapper management and support actions taken by the gulf states that are supported by many of your constituents. the amendment being offered today has started the proprocess excuse me, but i respectfully suggest it needs

further discussion. i support regional solutions but have concerns with proposals that will take the red snaper fishery out of the management act. i'm willing to continue to work with the gentleman, chairman bishop, and other members as well as fishing groups involved to try to find solutions to the management issues impacting the snapper fisheries. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. the gentleman from arizona continues to reserve. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman this amendment is supported by the american sport fishing association c.c.a., the coastal conservation association the center for coastal conservation the congressional sportsmen's foundation, the international game fish association national marine manufacturing association, recreational fishing alliance and the theodore roosevelt conservation partnership.

mr. chairman, i'm struggling with understanding the concerns that i recently heard expressed by the other side. mr. chairman this is identical to how the atlantic striped bass is managed on the east coast. why is there not an amendment to withdraw that authority if it's so problematic to have the five gulf states consistently manage the natural resources in their state waters as they do today indiana the adjacent federal waters, it has been proven through various hear thags the committee has had that the science being used by the states is much better than the science that's being used by the federal government. mr. chairman with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time louisiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: mr. chairman, i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from louisiana have additional speakers? mr. graves: i recognize myself for 30 seconds. mr. chairman i want to include in the record a one-pager that was released by the various groups that i expressed, but

also would like to include in the record a document that was written by the five gulf states that explains the management, this document was written in march of this year. and with that i yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from utah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. chairman, in the same way federal lands have to have access or federal waters -- our fralt waters have to have access as -- our federal waters have to have access as well. there's a problem with the red snapper. this extends the coastal waters by nine miles, requires incorps ration of state and local data on the red snapper management. but everyone else grease that just the population is -- agrees that just the population is undercounted, by just counting fish doesn't mean the fishermen will have their days in federal waters. with that i want to work with the gentleman, mr. miller from florida, any other coastal state representatives to have hearings and move along with

other bills that may come about. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from utah has yielded back to the gentleman from louisiana. mr. graves: mr. chairman, thank you very much. in closing, i just want to say that i appreciate the chairman's offer to move the legislation that the distinguished chairman of the veterans affairs committee and i will be introducing soon, that pertains to this exact issue and have hearings on this as well. with that, mr. chairman, i withdraw the amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-128. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wittman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 114-128

offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 274 the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would give the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, noaa, fisheries the authority to implement management practices better suited to the nature and scope of recreational fishing. i hope we can all agree that commercial and recreational fisheries are fundamentally different activities. with dissimilar harvest data collection systems that can benefit from direct and different management techniques. commercial fisheries are managed for yield, commercial land can usually be counted or weighed in realtime, thus quotas can be enforced in realtime. this allows managers to close a

fishery well before the allowable catch is exceeded. in short a commercial fishery's catch can be managed in realtime based on datas from verified landings. recreational fisheries are different. and should be managed for expectation as opposed to yield. anglers fish for a variety of reasons, but a lack of fish will make them go less frequently or stop altogether. anglers and fishermen need to believe they will have opportunity to encounter fish with the hope they may catch some, possibly including some large enough to take home. instead of yield, abundance and a-structure are fundamental to fisheries. maximizing yield has little meaning in most recreational fisheries.

that is why noaa's national marine fisheries service should manage recreational fisheries based on expected long-term harvest rates, not strictly on yield or poundage-based quotas. this has been successfully used by state fisheries managers in our freshwater and co-fisheries providing exceptional recreational finishing opportunities while -- fishing opportunities while ensuring sustainable fish populations. by managing the recreational sector based on harvest rate as opposed to a poundage-based quota, managers have been able to provide predictability in regulations while also sustaining a healthy population. while the act does not specifically prohibit such, it should direct the national marine fisheries service and regional councils to consider alternative strategies to commercial management for

appropriate recreational valuable fisheries. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment that provides additional flexibility to improve the management of important recreational fisheries and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from arizona claim time in opposition to the amendment? mr. grijalva: yes, i do mr. chairman, thank you. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: i understand and appreciate the motivation hinleds the gentleman's amendment -- behind the gentleman's amendment. recreational fisheries are inherently different from commercial fisheries. the language is similar to the alternative rebuilding strategy section in the underlie looing bill. one of the -- underlying bill. one of the few parts that does not harm conservation efforts. however the provision states clearly that the alternative strategist must be in compliance with the requirements of the act, including ending overfishing, setting science-based catch limits and sticking to

rebuilding timelines. this amendment does not include those safeguards and therefore could be construed to allow overfishing or delay rebuilding of overfished stock. we have made too much progress in managing fisheries to back track now. with that i urge a no vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i would tell the gentleman from arizona that this amendment does not in any way stop national marine fisheries service or the councils from preventing overfishing and making the needed changes to management. this bill purely provides them the flexibility and adaptability to properly manage recreational fisheries, which we all know, as the gentleman from arizona said, we all know are different than those commercial fisheries. i want to make sure that they have the opportunity to manage

the fisheries properly. especially in light of recreational fishermen and the local economies that depend on viable, sustainable recreational fisheries. we know that we have to make sure we're making good resource decisions and we do that by providing that flexibility and adaptability. this amendment allows us to do that. it allows recreational fisheries and the management thereof to be treated differently than commercial fisheries, which we've all seen through time, we must do if we're to manage them in the best interest not only of the resource itself, that is the fish, but to manage in the best interest of our recreational fishermen and the economies that depend on them. with that mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you mr. chairman. without the safeguards that are included in the act being part

of this amendment, we continue to recommend a no on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in the house report 114-128. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. huffman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-128 offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 274 the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: thank you mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huffman: i rise in support of our amendment in the nature of a substitute and i do want to express my respect and appreciation for mr. young and his commitment to fisheries management issues over the years. i know many members, including myself, are very concerned about the sustainability of the fishing industry in our own districts. i represent about 1/3 of the california coast, including many working coastal communities. and the importance of marine fisheries to my district and i would say our country, cannot overstate it. u.s. fisheries have not only shaped the cultural identity of coastal communities such as those i represent and our country, but they have also

contributed economically in a very significant way. nearly 9 -- $90 billion and 1.5 million jobs. recreational fishing provides important opportunities to bring families and communities together and of course subsistence fish something a culturally significant tradition that provides an important food source for many people. however, i do not believe that h.r. 1335 represents a constructive approach to ensuring abundant resources for current and future generations of finishermen. this bill would take us backward in many respects roll back important elements of the act that are critical to making fisheries and the fishing industry in the united states economically and environmentally sustainable. i also don't believe that successful fisheries management has to include taking hot shots at bedrock environmental laws like the endangered species act, the antiquities act and nepa, as this bill seeks to do. for those reasons i can't support it. .

congress enacted the magnuson act in 1974. second to develop domestic fleets that could reap economic benefit from our considerable fisheries resources. it worked and it worked so well that domestic fishing soon replaced foreign fleets in overexploiting u.s. fisheries. the 1996 re-authorization required regional i shalleries contract the first time to end domestic overfishing and to develop rebuilding plans. and then the 2007 re-authorization added an important timeline for rebuilding plans and also enforced catch limits. the original law together with these amendments established a fisheries management system in the united states that is now a model for the rest of the world. an important point here is all three of these acts were bipartisan bills developed and approved by republicans and democrats alike because everybody recognized the need

to maintain sustainable fish stocks and to support domestic, commercial and recreational fishing. these were endeavors that drastically improved the i shallies in our country. in fact, -- the fisheries in our country. in fact, they have the lowest number of stocks overfished or -- and a total of 37 stocks have been rebuilt. this is evidence that our science-based approach to determining stock status and to managing for sustainability is working. but contrary to previous bipartisan acts of congress this bill was developed with very little input from democrats and subsequently it passed out of committee on a strict party line vote. no democrats voting in favor and not a single democratic amendment accepted. every witness at each hearing that committee held on this topic in the last congress agreed on one thing, that the magnuson act was largely working. this is not a situation where we should be overhauling the law in a wholesale way to a situation where we should be

making small improvements so that the law can continue to work well into the future. now, mr. chairman, we want to have meaningful discussions with our republican colleagues and develop bipartisan legislation in the spirit of previous successful magnuson act authorizations and to this end i introduced the fishing economy improvement act with my friend mr. sablan, and we're offering a germane version that would re-authorize magnuson and leave intact the requirements to rebuild overfished stocks and set annual catch limits. the substitute amendment would also make improvements to the act. it would prioritize cooperation between scientists and fishermen on research efforts a collaboration that produces information, improves management outcomes. it infuses new funding into cooperative research allowing the agency to accept outside funding and it modernizing

fishing collection and management by encouraging the use of electronic monitoring. the amendment makes improvements to the operations of the regional fisheries council as well by increasing transparency and public participation in the process. and it requires that councils consider the interest of native alaskans, pacific islanders and native americans who depend on fish for their livelihoods. our hope is we can use this re-authorization process to start a thoughtful constructive and bipartisan -- thoughtful constructively and bipartisan conversation. and pollutions, acidification and ocean warming, it's essential we re-authorize magnuson and build on the legacy of science-based management the fishermen in coastal communities i represent and those whom my colleagues represent deserve that conversation and more importantly they deserve a bill that honors the decades of work that have gone into making american fishery management more sustainable, both economically and ecologically.

i urge my colleagues to support our substitute amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from utah claim time in opposition? mr. bishop: yep. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. bishop: thank you. i appreciate the amendment that's been presented by the gentleman from california. it's a much better amendment than was presented in the committee in which there were elements in there that dealt with the california drought that dealt with n.g.o.'s being able to contribute that never should have been part of it. i appreciate him not putting those in this particular amendment on the floor, but at the same time it does roll back all the flexibility that was significant and important here. it rolls back the transparency that needs to be in effect. the underlying bill specifically requires the scientific and statistic akal communities provide information in the transparent manner and

allows council to provide webcasts or audio in such meetings and put it on their website within 30 days of that particular meeting and requires an opportunity for public comment or proposals that are regulating or relating to the use of electronic monitoring technology. those would also not be included if this amendment were to take place. the -- some of the bedrock laws that are referred to here are indeed not taken out of the process. that was handled in one of the other debates we had on a different amendment which simply says what we're trying to do is avoid just regoing -- going through the motions a second time to try and cut the red tape for more efficiency. so that nepa law or fish management act, they're the same thing. why do it twice when once is sufficient? why waste the time and energy and effort of public bodies to do that? and all those once again would be reinstated, that double effort would be reinstated at the same time. with that, this bill has a four-year process, not a recent process. it goes back to several other

times and in my opening statements i did quote from the leadership of the minority party at the time two years ago in that committee how much they were grateful for the input they had on this bill and for taking ideas from the democrat side that were incorporated and those ideas are still in the base bill. it's one of the concepts here i would love to have a bipartisan bill but more importantly i want to have a good bill. a bill that solves the problems. and you have heard speeches from both sides of the aisle that simply the status quo is not working. there are too many problems that need to be solved. and that's one of the reasons why the underlying bill is still being supported by all the peam who were involved in the -- people who were involved in the industry by the charter side the recreational side. i appreciate the gentleman from alaska for having a good process and i say go with the underlying bill. it provides better progress, better significance in the future.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: mr. can chairman, may i inquire of the balance of my time? the chair: the gentleman from california has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. huffman: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maine, a district that certainly understands the importance of sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries. the chair: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for two minutes. ms. pingree: thank you very much. thank you, mr. huffman, for giving me this opportunity and for caring so deeply about our coastal communities and our fisheries. i rise in support of the huffman-sablan amendment because it would update this without throwing away core programs. in particular the huffman-sablan amendment would modernize fishery data collection by using electronic monitoring and fisheries survey technologies. these are the technologies that our fishermen need to update the current program and they are the wave of the future, no

pun intended about that. i think it's helpful for us to recognize the fact that noaa's budget for the so-called wet side programs has been facing devastating cuts as well as the sequester cuts over the past several years. as a result, now more than ever we need to look at how we can make our dollars do more with our fisheries. electronic monitoring is a place where we can make an investment in the future that will help our fishermen today. also, the substitute amendment will ensure that we leave intact conservation programs that have been helping us to address overfished stocks. in the gulf of maine we have seen the crisis in our fisheries firsthand and we want to make sure that we are not forgetting all the work that our men and women who make their living on the water have done. we do not want to roll back important conservation and management guidelines. so, again, i support the huffman-sablan amendment, i appreciate my cligse for working on this -- colleagues for working on this and i urge

all of my other colleagues to do the same. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from maine yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: might i inquire how much time i have? the chair: the gentleman from utah has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. bishop: well let me give -- yield at least two minutes to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from alaska. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for two minutes. young ynk i thank you. -- mr. young: i thank you. the gentleman's amendment, i'm pleased to report, he has accepted a portion of our bill, but there are some question about the endangered species act. we had a case in alaska where noaa, which i don't know how it happened. they put the sea lion on the endangered species because of fishing and there was no connection between the fishing and the so-called decline in the sea lions and it killed the community with no science.

and come to find out the sea lion had moved away from the area where there's more abundant food, not from fishing. fishing doesn't have any problems at all, but it killed that community. and i argue that in this case if any of the fishes are endangered, that's ok. the fishes themselves. but when you have a species hurting the fishing community and it didn't affect the sustainable yield, you see why i think this amendment is incorrect. i think you have to consider again, the purposes of the magnuson-stevens act which originated in the house was for sustainable fisheries and sustainable communities. when you have another act interfere with that, doesn't have any science, then i think it's incorrect. so i understand what the gentleman is saying. i -- the electronic monitoring for fisheries is good. the lady from maine mentioned that. it's in the bill.

there's a lot in this bill that's in the sablan amendment, but what you're trying to suggest you roll back to transparency and i think the community activity which hurts the original base bill which is the bill that i sponsored. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you mr. chairman. i'd say the process listing under the endangered species has science. it's a rigorous and public process and subject to being challenged in various ways. so we think it's robust and has proven itself. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer, who also represents a coastal state that understands the importance of sustainably managing our fisheries. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chair. and thank you, mr. huffman. mr. chairman, i'm proud to speak of the substitute amendment. this amendment would complement

rather than overhaul the fishery process in place under magnuson-stevens. while the current m.s.a. may not be perfect, we heard from many groups again and again that it works. we made incredible gains since the last re-authorization in 2007. in the annual report issued in april, no report of the number of domestic fish stocks listed as overfished or subject to overfishing has dropped to an all-time low since 1997. three more fish stocks were rebuilt to target levels since 2014, bringing the total number of rebuilt u.s. marine fish stocks to 37 since 2000. this amazing process is the result of the combined efforts of noaa, the regional fishery management council, the fishing industry and other stakeholders. noaa currently has pending proposals to tweak the implementation of m.s.a. and that provide sess should be allowed to -- process should be allowed to continue. what is needed is updates to the m.s.a. that keeps the law current, not weakening of the law and roll back of conservation measures such as those proposed in h.r. 1335. h.r. 1335 would undermine the great improvements we have made

to make our fisheries economically and environmentally sustainable. without addressing some important factors impacting our fisheries today. for example i'd hope to offer an amendment to h.r. 1335 that would have provided councils with the way of taking the effects of climate change into account when establishing annual catch limits and rebuilding timelines. but the rules committee declined to allow me to offer it on the floor despite the critical need for us to deal with the real impacts that climate change is already having on our oceans and our fisheries. i urge our colleagues to support the huffman-sablan amendment which would modernize the data collection of fisheries, improve the fisheries data collection and provide a way for noaa to accept outside funding of research between scientists and fishermen. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: reserves. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: mr. chairman, i

have nothing further. i urge an aye vote on this amendment in the nature of a substitute and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: mr. chairman, i appreciate it. i appreciate the opportunity of going through all these amendments. this is one amendment that does not necessarily move us forward in the process. i wish it did. it did not. sometimes there are even little tiny bits and pieces that have to be in there and are one of the reasons why we're starting from scratch again that i would ask to be removed. mr. huffman does name a fund in here, the fisheries conservation and management fund, after a gentleman whose association and members have been in more than 0 federal cases brought against the federal agency in 2007, much of that litigation has been aimed at the bureau of reclamation and water projects, farmers and ranchers who serve by them. congress should not be rewarding such serial

litigation. that's one i would have been asked to be removed had we started from scratch in this process. above all, the amendment simply erases liability, erases transparency erases the science improvements that are part of the underlying bill that are so essential, that the elements of those people who live in these communities who recreate in these areas who use commercial side, the fishing side, we're not doing what we need to do. the present system does have flaws and it needs to be changed and we need to move forward in that bill. the underlying bill does that. this amendment does not do that. i urge a no vote on this particular amendment and urge to us move forward with the bill as written. with that i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from utah has yielded back the balance of his time. all time having now expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i move the committee do rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. mr. speaker the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1335, directs me to report that it has come to nos remain title of the resolution thron -- that it has come to no resolution

thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the care of the -- the chair of the committee of the whole house on state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1335as and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the chair will postpone further proceedings today on additional 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. any record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek

recognition? mr. young: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 336. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 72, h.r. 336 a bill to direct the administrator of general services on behalf of the arc visit of the united states to convey certain federal properties located in the state of alaska to the municipality of anchorage, alaska. the speaker pro tempore: mr. young and mr. larson will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 336. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, h.r. 336 would direct the general service administration on behalf of the national archives to convey properties in alaska to the city of anchorage.

i'm pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation, which will bring savings to the taxpayer. the national archives has determined that it no longer needs the property to be conveyed in the bill and wants to sell it as part of its efforts to strengthen footprint and reduce cost to the taxpayer it. will require fair market value to the property based on independent appraisal. i urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise to support h.r. 336 by directs is general services administration on behalf of the archivist of the u.s. to convey nine acres of property in anchorage, alaska, to the local municipality in exchange for its fair market value. the archivist and g.s.a. have reported this property is underutilized, there's no need to keep this property in the federal real estate inventory.

the sale is consistent with the policies supported by the committee on transportation and infrastructure which has directed g.s.a. to help other federal agencies identify and dispose of unneeded property. as a result i encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and yield back the balance of my time. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time having now expired, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 336. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition?

>> h.r. 944. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to suspend the rules? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 73, h.r. 944, a bill to re-authorize the national estuary program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, and the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. gibbs: mr. chair, i yield as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. gibbs: h.r. 944, introduced by mr. lobiondo re-authorizes the national estuary program found in section 320 of the clean water act. estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that are important to ecological and economic basis of our nation. congress first authorized the national estuary program in 1987 with amendments to the

clean water act to promote the protection of the significant water estuaries in the united states that are deemed to be threat understand by pollution, development or overuse. unlike many of the programs under the clean water act, the national estuary program is a nonregulatory program. instead it is designed to support a collaborative, voluntary effort of federal, state and local stakeholders to restore degraded estuaries. using consensus building in a collaborative decision process instead of a topdown regular approach the national estuary program has been effective as promoting locally-based involvement. in addition it leverages nonfederal money for restoration activities by providing funding for the program. in re-authorize of the national estuary program h.r. 944 makes prudent fiscal adjustments. the bill re-authorizes section 320 of the clean water act through 2018 by the amount of $27 million a year. this amount is consistent with appropriations over the past five years and in recognition of the fiscal realities of

today, it decreases the authorized level of funding by $8 million a year. h.r. 944 also directs more funds to where they need to be and the individual estuaries in the program. the bill achieves this by reducing amount of discretionary funds made available to the e.p.a. finally the bill allocates a portion of eligible program funds for competitive awards to federal, state and local stakeholders to address certain high priority estuary needs, including algae blooms, hypoxia, flooding and invasive species. this is identical bill that passed the house by voice vote in the last congress. i urge all members to support h.r. 944 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 944 and i'm pleased the house is considering h.r. 944, a bill that i introduced along with

mr. lobiondo and murphy to authorize the national estuary program through 2020. i want to thank my colleagues for their hard work in pull puling this legislation together. estuaries are critically important to the health of our nation's environment and our economy. the watters are a unique mixture of freshwater and salty sea water. estuaries provide vital nesting and feeding areas for many aquadic plants and animals. they also help maintain healthy ocean environments by filtering out sediments and pollutants from rivers and streams before they flow into the ocean. in addition to improving habitat for critical wildlife like salmon restoring estuaries can have important carbon sequestration effects. for example, a report last year on an estuary in my district found that currently planned and in progress restoration projects will result in at least 2.55 million tons of co-2 sequesters from the atmosphere over the next 100 years. that's the equivalent of a year's worth of emissions from a half a million automobiles. over half of the u.s.

population lives in coastal areas, including along the shores of estuaries. these areas provide 69 million jobs and contribute $7.9 trillion to the economy recently. these gains come from commercial and recreational finish fishing as well as tourism and other forms of recreation. by one estimate, restoring our estuary areas could create more than 30 jobs for every $1 million invested. in the pacific northwest and across the country, healthy estuaries like the pew jent sound support fish birds and other wildlife and sustain important economic and recreational activities like fishing, tourism and many other forms of outdoor recreation. estuaries serve as spawning areas for salmon, another critical driver for our regional economy. unfortunately human activities have led to decline in the health of estuary threatening them and many parts of the country. population growth in areas of budding estuaries led to an increase in storm water runoff and sewage discharges.

ultimately polluting the waters with toxins. the national estuary program, which would be authorized by h.r. 944 is an important part of remedying these problems facing -- facing our nation's estuaries. since 1987 the program has operated successfully at the e.p.a. in partnership with other state and local entities and has fostered innovative solutions at local water quality problems. funding from the program helps create solutions to nurture estuaries back to health, like the comprehensive plan we have for pew jet sound recovery. this bipartisan legislation we have today will ensure that local organizations across the country in partnership with the e.p.a. can protect and restore estuaries for the benefit of future generations. so i support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it as well. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. gibbs: i wish to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from new jersey is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. loebsack: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. lobiondo: thank you mr. speaker. first i'd like to thank chairman gibbs and chairman shuster and ranking member defazio, napolitano, for helping to bring 944 the national estuary program re-authorization, to the floor. i'd also like to thank colleagues, mr. posey and murphy of florida, and especially mr. larsen has been great to work with on a number of issues. this version of the national estuary program re-authorization is fiscally responsible by reducing the authorization levels by $8 million while ultimately increasing the amount of money each estuary program will receive. it's a very commonsense approach that helps get the job done. this re-authorization will detail just how the e.p.a. is to spend the authorized and appropriated money. unlike many of the programs under the clean water act, the national estuary program is a nonregulatory program.

that was mentioned before but i think it bears repeating. it's a nonregulatory program. instead it is designed to support collaborative voluntary efforts of federal, state and local stakeholders to restore degraded estuaries. i think this is exactly the approach that will get results and an approach that len courage people to be working together -- that will encourage people to be working together for something that can actually see a very positive result with our estuaries. unfortunately the national estuary program has been losing money due to e.p.a. administrative costs. by setting limits of 5% for administrative costs for the e.p.a., we can guarantee 80% of the funding goes to the end user. the n.e.p. and nonbureaucratic red tape. in this year's re-authorization we have set aside 15% of the funding for competitive award program. this program will seek

applications meant to deal with urgent and challenging issues that threaten the ecological and economic well-being of coastal areas. by structuring how the money is spent and lowering authorization levels this legislation strikes the right balance of fiscal and environmental responsibility. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. larsen: we have no further speakers and urge our colleagues to support h.r. 944. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. gibbs: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has yielded back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 944. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the after i havetive the rules are suspend d, the

bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until

our parents had a bar and

restaurant where they worked long, hard hours to support us. that instilled important values and work ethic in lindsey and me. i have some great memories of this town. one of my fondest memories is lindsay telling many -- teaching me how to how to ride a bicycle right over there he'd hold the bicycle as a pedaled, he'd give me a big push and shout, keep pedaling and he's the one who comforted me when i stopped pedaling and fell off the bicycle. as i got older, lindsay started to college. our parents were so proud. he was -- lindsey started to college. our parent were so proud. when he left, we missed him terribly. i can remember being so excited on fridays, i couldn't wait to get out of school. i knew lindsey was on his way home for the weekend. i would stand on that sidewalk what seemed like forever, wait

on the grey hound bus and when he arrived, we would be so excited to run back down the street to see our parents. as excited as i was to see lindsey, i think i was more excited to see the expression on my mother's fates when we walked through that front door and she saw him. when i was around 10 i remember our parents had finally saved enough money to buy that house next door to the store. it looked a little different then but we were so happy. life was good. we loved this town and the people in it. then our mother started to get sick. she was in and out of the hospital a lot and lindsey stayed by her side day and night. he never left. then on june 9 1976, almost 39 years to the day, she lost her

battle with hodgkins disease. i was 11 years old and lindsey was 20. only 15 months later, we lost our father. it was a really tough time for us. i can remember the day my father passed away standing in the living room of that house, absolutely scared to death and lindsey wrapped his arms around me and promised me he would always be there for me and always take care of me. and i can assure you he has done that. he has never let me down. as hard as it was for him, lindsey went back to school while i lived in seneca a with a very special aunt and uncle. but lindsey came home every weekend, unlike most students who stayed on campus and had fun, lindsey came home to check on his little sister.

now that i have a daughter who is almost 21, i realize how young he was and how hard that had to be on him. what a huge responsibility it was but he never made me feel like a burden. he made me feel loved and secured -- secure he made sure i went to high school and to college and even legally adopted me. she's been by my side through some wonderful times, he's been there through many special events in both my childrens' lives, emily and nicole and he's been by my side through some very tough times. the values we learned in this town, the work ethic instilled in us by our parents and the love we received from the people in this community are what got us through those tough times. those are the values lindsey took to the air force, to the

state house in columbia and to the united states senate. with your support, i know he will take them to the white house. [cheers and applause] when i needed lindsey, he put my interests ahead of his own in politics he has done the same thing, putting the country's interests ahead of his own political interests. we need that kind of leadership in the oval office today and lindsey graham will provide that. [cheers and applause] libbedsee, i love you so much -- lindsey, i love you so much. you mean the world to me. i don't know what i would have done without you. and i am so proud of you. and i know our parents are looking down today beaming with pride. ladies and gentlemen it is truly my honor to present to you

the next president of the united states lindsey graham. [applause] >> thank you. >> i am lucky to have carline as my sister. dmb to have darline as my sister and i'm lucky to have ver ma may and hollis as my aunt and uncle who took care of my sister. thank you. welcome to south carolina.

my hometown. many of you have known me for a long time. i'm not aging that well am i? some of you have known me since my family lived in the back of a bar in that building. but i'm pretty sure no one here including me ever expected to hear me say, i'm lindsey graham and i'm running for president of the united states. thank you. i hope -- ok, i'll turn back there. i hope they hear that all over the world, that i'm running for president of the united states. it's because of you that i can make that statement. everything i am, everything i will be, i owe to the kindness

and generosity and example of people of central clemson seneca wahalla, and other small towns throughout south carolina. thank you. thank you for everything. i want to be president to protect our nation that we all love so much get ready i'm ready. i want to be president to defeat the enemies that are trying to kill us. not just penalize them or criticize them or contain them but defeat them. ronald reagan's policy of peace through strength kept america safe during the cold war. remember those times? but i've come to conclude we will never enjoy peaceful coexistence with radical islam.

because its followers intend to destroy our way of life. however, america can be and will be secure only if we have strength. security through strength will protect us. i want to be president to meet our problems head on. honestly and realistically. for the purpose of solving them, not hiding them or taking political advantage of them. i want to be president to make government work for you, not the other way around. i want to make government keep its promises to you. to support your dreams. to embrace your values. and to reflect your character.

i want to be president to help us build a future greater than our amazing past. and i will work with anyone to do it. we made some dangerous mistakes in recent years. the obama administration and some of my colleagues in congress have substituted wishful thinking for sound national security strategy. every day, the headlines attest to the failures of the obama-clinton policies. it is sad for me to report to you that barack obama has made us less safe. simply put, radical islam is running wild. they have more safe havens, more money, more capability, and more

weapons to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11. they are large, they are rich, they're entrenched. as president i will make them small, poor, and on the run. i'm afraid some americans are grown tired of fighting them. i have some bad news to share with you. the radical islamists are not tired of fighting you. in partnership with others, we must take the fight to them. building lines of defenses over there so they can't come here. building up and supporting regional forces to go after their safe havens that could be used to attack our homeland. the world is exploding in terror and violence. but the biggest threat of all is the nuclear ambitions of the

radical islamists who control iran. ladies and gentlemen there are no moderates in iran running their government. if the united states isn't firm in our intention to deny them such weapons, iran will trigger a nuclear arms race and the least -- in the least stable region on earth, making it more likely that people who aspire to genocide will have the most effective means to commit it. our close ally israel, is at risk as a result of obama's failed leadership. with israel, we share values, we share democracy, and our friendship is unbreakable. to our friends in israel, i will never abandon you.

[applause] i will always stand firm and -- in supporting the one and only jewish state. i, too say never again. i'm running for president because i have the experience, the judgment and the will to deny the most radical regimes the most dangerous weapons. but to defeat this enemy it will require more than military might. the most powerful weapon in our arsenal isn't a gun. it's an idea. the terrorists are selling a glorus death. we must sell a hopeful life. i've learned from my travels that a small schoolhouse in a remote region, educating a young

girl, can do more damage to radical islam than any weapon we possess. however, radical islam is not the only threat we face. elsewhere, old adversaries are seizing opportunities to challenge our interests. putin seized ukrainian territory and threatened nato allies. china is build, literally building, their own island in the resource rich waters claimed by other nations and challenging free navigation to the seas. our allies feel the absence of mesh leadership. our adversaries are taking advantage. american weakness anywhere hurts us everywhere. our enemies are embold and our

friends are going it alone. both reactions are detrimental to our national security interests. it is time for north korea come back. and come back we will. and the way you come back is to make sure that the next president must be an informed and decisive commander in chief. ready immediately to deal with the threats i have just described. we learn oferede the past six years that speeches aloan won't make us safe. if that were true, we'd be really safe. superior power and resolve is the only way to be safe. i'm running for president of the united states because i am ready to be command for the chief on day one. [cheers and applause]

i am ready on day one to defend our nation. with sound strategy, a strong military, stable alliances, and a steady determination. i've been in the middle east more times than i can count. as a united states senator and a reserve officer in the united states air force. to all who have served our country, raise your hand. god bless each and every one of you. i've got one simple message. i have more experience with our national security than any other candidate in this race. that includes you, hillary.

we will have a reset with russia that sticks. i know the players, i know our friends, and i know our enemies alike. most importantly ladies and gentlemen, they know me. i have listened, learned, and prepared myself for the job of commander in chief. i've served in the air force for 33 years. and it has been a true pleasure and honor. aye spent much of my adult life as part of the team committed to defending america. protecting our way of life. making sure that we're safe. politicians focus on elections. the military focuses on the

mission. if given the privilege to serve as your president, i'll focus on the mission to defend america, to protect our way of life, and to leave the next generation a stronger safer, better nation than we inherited. that will not be easy. it never has. there are dangers that must be faced and as usual, the best of us will have to face the worst of them. the best of us are the 1% of americans who are the men and women of the united states armed forces. i cannot promise as commander in

chief that their dangers that they confront will be less. the risks they run, the sacrifices they make will be fewer, or easier. but i can assure them they will have the leadership to defeat our enemies. i can promise them their sacrifices won't be wasted. and they won't fight with their hands tied behind their backs. we will end this conflict on our terms. we will win. those who believe we can disengage from the world at large and lead from behind, vote for someone else. i am not your man. those who believe the best way to defend ourselves is to lead

the world, to make history rather than be overwhelmed by it, i ask for your support. join me if you want to tackle the problems at home that have been kicked down the road because they're too hard to fix or too easy to demagogue. washington's failure to do the hard but right thing has put social security and medicare in serious jeopardy. anybody on srs and medicare? anybody want to be on social security and medicare one day? all of us. as my generation retires, both programses are on track to go bust. we're living longer and fewer workers are supporting more retirees. that's unsustainable. everybody knows it. but not everybody will admit it.

we have to fix entitlement programs to make sure people who need the benefits the most receive them. that's going to require determined presidential leadership. i know from personal experience how important these programs are. to the lives of millions of americans. as darline mentioned, we lost our parents when i was a young man and she was in middle school. we depended on social security benefits to survive. i've been fortunate. i've done better than i ever dreamed. if i and others like me have to take a little bit less and pay a little more to help those who need it most, so be it.

and younger people, you may just have to work a little bit longer. as president i'll gladly do what it takes to save a program that once saved my family. now to those of you who yearn for a healthy and safe environment, i will join your cause. to those who seek energy independence, i will be your champion. i am tired of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy oil from people who hate us. we must have energy independence. and i believe in the process it's possible produce a safe, clean environment and create new well-paying jobs for americans of all yen rations.

to my fellow republicans, i'll be a champion for limited and effective government and a strong national defense. i'll be a voice for social conservative values without apology. or animosity. i love my party. i am committed to see it grow and prosper. to my friends in the other party, on the big things we share a common faith. i'll work with you to strengthen the country we both love. our differences are real and we'll debate them. but you're not my enemy. you're my fellow countrymen. my enemies are those who despise

our shared values, the enemies of enlightenment, the culture of death that seeks to destroy the dignity of life. we'll fight them together with our partners and we'll win. to americans who trust neither party, i will seek the political common ground our nation so desperately needs to find. that's what aye done before, don't take my word for it. examine my record. i've got the scars to prove it. i intend to be a president not of a single party, but of a nation. i want to do more than make big goth smaller. i want to help make a great nation greater.

i've traveled the world and had experiences and opportunities i never dreamed of. i've been lucky so much of my life, but never luckier than in the people and place i come from. [applause] those of you who have known me for a long time know i have had some ups and downs. as a young man i lost my parents, struggled financially and emotionally, and i would not have made it through those times without you. and the example my parents set for me. there are a lot of so-called self-made people in this world, i am not one of them. my family, my friends,

neighbors, and my faith picked me up when i was down. believed in me when i had doubts. you made me the man i am today. i'm a man with many debts, to my family, my friends, to you, south carolina to the country. i'm running for president to repay those debts and to fight as hard for you as you fought for me. in the end ladies and gentlemen, that's the only promise i can make. and it's the only pledge i will sign. the only one that matters. if you made me president, i'll

fight each day harder than i fought the tai before. -- the day before, to keep this country safe prosperous, and as good as the people who made it great. i humbly ask for your support and your vote. i will work every day to make you proud. god bless. [cheers and applause] >> we break away here with a reminder, more coverage coming up this week. the u.s. senate is -- the u.s. house is gaveling in for a series of votes. live coverage here on c-span. further consideration of h.r. 1335 will the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis kindly take the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1335, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend magnuson-stevens act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and flexibility for fishermen and for other purposes. the chair: amendment number 8 printed in house report 114-128 offered by the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, votes will be taken on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by mrs. dingell of michigan, amendment number 4, by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-128 by the gentlewoman from michigan, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the knows prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 114-128 offered by mrs. dingell of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 155, the nays are 223, the amendment is not adopted.

the house will be in order. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will be in order. please remove your conversations from the floor. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous

consent to speak on the floor for one minute. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. please suspend. the committee will be in order. all members are asked to remove their conversations from the aisles. the committee will be in order. the committee is still not in order. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: recently the congressional sportsmen caucus, shootout and sporting clays skeets and trap.

we get together and interest in the sporting sports and outdoor there and great privilege to be there with other members. members from both sides of the aisle. we are blessed that the team republican will retain the shootout trophy with a winning of 235-227 and the co-chair of the congressional sportsman foundation. i have representative dunch and and tim walz. so with that, mr. speaker, or mr. chairman i would like to yield to the co-chair of our caucus, representative tim walz from the great state of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walz: congratulations to you -- >> mr. chairman, the house is

not in order. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. mr. walz: congratulations to mr. duncan who is the republican top gun. congratulations to them. but as the gentleman said, this is the largest bipartisan caucus in the congress and the congressional sportsmen foings protecting our heritage, thank you to all of them and the sponsors who made it possible. great day for a great cause and shows there are many things that bind us together. i congratulate the gentleman and i look forward to next year. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report

114-128 by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 114-128 offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 149, the nays are 227. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute,

as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises.

the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee what had under consideration the bill h.r. 1335 and pursuant to house resolution 274, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the magnuson steveness fishery and conservation management act, to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. peters of california moves to recommit the bill, hrment r. -- h.r. 1335, to the committee on natural resources with instructions to the report same back to the house with the following amendment. add at the end the following, protecting fishing communities from toxic pollution. in the aftermath of an oil or hazardous material spill, none of the amendments -- mr. peters: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the clerk will suspend. before the gentleman is recognized, the house will be in order. without objection, the reading is dispensed. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. peters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. this is not the final -- this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to

committee, if adopted the bill will proceed immediately to final passage as amended. mr. speaker preserving our beaches and bays and our coastal community for future generations has to be a bipartisan endeavor. congress passed landmark fisheries legislation in 1976, re-authorized it in 1996 and 2006 with broad support from both parties. unfortunately today the bill's a pressing one that would undermine our four-decade history of responsible management. it creates loopholes and lessens transparency and accountability which can only harm our coastal communities. my amendment today is simple. give communities and regional experts input and increase the availability of local agencies to hold polluters more accountable after a spill. just a few weeks ago, on the california coast, north of santa barbara, a pipeline ruptured beneath a coastal cliff, spilling 105000 gallons of crude oil onto the beach and tidelands and into the pacific

ocean. despite rapid cleanup efforts from environmental officials and volunteers from across the state, the leak killed abundant marine life, including lobsters, seals and local fish populations. it also forced the closure of local state beaches during the memorial day weekend, depriving local businesses of revenue from visitors coming to enjoy the scenic california coast. now, the short-term harm has been evident. but the long term damage to marine life, coastal ecosystems and biodiversity, including fisheries and food stocks that are part of the region's economy -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman will resume. mr. peters: the fisheries and food stocks that are part of the region's economy, that damage won't be known for some time. what's clear is that coastal communities deal with the harm from a spill long after the initial cleanup ends and they deserve greater oversight over those who cause the damage. my amendment addresses this issue in three ways.

first, it directs the regional fishery management council to conduct a full environmental assessment of the spill. second it requires the responsible party to pay for any pollution cleanup and restoration of the harm and to provide compensation for economic and job losses due to this spill. third, it protects public safety and food quality by requiring that polluters pay for testing of toxins in fish and in local waters to help fishermen determine the safest areas for fishing. these provisions are necessary because as we've seen from past cleanups the long-term direct and indirect environmental damage is not always immediately apparent. particularly on fish and wildlife populations and marine biodiversity. this is our experience, for example, despite mass cleanup efforts following the infamous oil spill in 1989, a 2007 study conducted by noaa found that 26000 gallons of oil from that spill were still trapped in the

sand along the shore line of alaska. those thousands of gallons of oil that remain decades later continue to damage fragile marine ecosystems and wildlife habitats and breeding grounds. that 1989 spill caused more than $300 million in economic harm to more than 32,000 alaskans whose livelihood depended on commercial fishing in that region. in santa barbara, la where last month's spill occurred, tourism both onand offshore central to the regional economy and will undoultedly by harmed by this pollution. i represent san diego, california, where the marine industry, the maritime industry and our large natural harbor are key to the region's tourism economy, which supports 158,000 local jobs and $18.3 billion in economic impact. a spill like this could devastate our local economy and irreparably harm our delicate ecosystem.

it's imperative that congress hold responsible parties accountable in case of a destructive oil spill and we should all agree that supporting cosal communities and the businesses that depend on rivers, bays, locals, -- lakes, beaches and oceans deserve support and shouldn't be forced to pay for the mistakes of polluters. so join me in supporting our local economies protecting our coastal environments, ensuring public safety for consumers and setting a higher standard for accountability. i urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit. thank you mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: on the policy level, fish stuff is already discover covered in the oil pollution stuff. if you were really serious about doing this, lines 8 and 9 would be changed to noaa as they are in the current statute. they have the expertise and the

money to actually accomplish it. but if i could say to all of you with apologies to those who have been sending emails and can dear colleagues already here, this amendment, you should simply throw it back, it is not a keeper. this is simply a fish story that is based on a big whopper. this amendment would actually take the bill, it would gut it clean it and flay it. so please do not fall for this hook, line and sinker. and i'm not -- i am not fishing for compliments here. but we have been -- they have been floundering to find a solution for a long time and that's why the underlying bill has a boat load of support for it. look, those -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house is not in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i realize this is as good as it gets. i'm ok.

look those involved in the fishing community recognize that the status quo is not working as it was intended to work and needs to be fixed in some particular way. that's why on the underlying bill the commercial industry, the fishing industry and the recreationists already are in support and have publicly said that. that's the first time all three groups have got together on this particular bill. they realize there needs to be change in the status quo. they realize there needs to be transparency, which the underlying bill gives, and is not there in the status quo. they realize that the science that has been used under the status quo is crappy. and that this mandates multiple sources, better sources being used to make these final decisions. so just for the halibut, and i had one for bass but i've already censored it myself, vote no on the amendment, support the underlying bill. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not adopted. mr. peters: mr. speaker, i won't take the bait. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 155, the nays are 223. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed -- >> on that i would like a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a 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.]

7:45 the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 225 and the nays are 152. the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of h.r. 1335 the clerk correct and make technical and could be forming changes to reflect the action of the house page 35 beginning on-line 10 striking the management act and inserting

the act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection. so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: i send a privileged report for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 287, resolution for consideration of the bill h.r. 2577 making appropriations for transportation and housing urban development for the fiscal year 2016 and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2578, making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged

from further consideration of house concurrent resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 48 emancipation hall for a ceremony to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the concurrent resolution? without objection the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that congressman brooks from alabama be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2336.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, charity will postpone further proceedings today on additional 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. any recorded votes on post phoned -- on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, senate 802. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 802 an act to authorize the secretary of state and the administrator of the united states agency for international development to provide assistance to support women and girls in developing countries and for other purposes. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: thank you. madam speaker i rise today in support of senate bill 802, the girls count act of 2015. it is identical to h.r. 2100, the house version of the bill which my staff has worked on for three years now, and i thank senator rubio and his staff for moving this bill through the senate so we can soon get this important piece of legislation to the president's desk. madam speaker, the girls count act of 2015 is an important measure because what many people don't realize is that approximately 51 million children 51 million children around the world are not

registered at their births. that's 1/3 of all children under the age of 5 worldwide. what does this mean? it means that these children lack a birth certificate, preventing them oftentimes from having access to fundamental rights, which we here in the united states take for granted. it means they have no proof of their age, parentage or citizenship even. they're essentially nonpeople, oftentimes in the eyes of the laws. for girls in particular lack of a birth registration certificate increases their vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation. these girls grow up facing high barriers to work, education and political participation. tragically too often these girls are treated in their own countries as if they really don't exist. that they really don't count at all. all of this is happening in places where we need women and girls to actively shape their

country's future. because women serve as the backbone of stable healthy societies all around the world. they are bread winners and caregivers and peace makers and the educators of the next generation. for these reasons, i introduced and authorized the girls count act to direct the department of state and the u.s. agency for international development to support efforts aimed at improving birth registry birth certificate programs in developing countries and others. this step, which actually seems quite simple, will ensure that every child gets access to voting rights, land tenure rights, health service and an education. and critically girls count authorizes the state department and usaid to support programs to protect girls' legal rights, particularly economic and property rights, and to the build legal and policy frameworks to prevent discrimination against women

and girls. your support of the girls count act of 2015 will not only help prevent human and sex trafficking and -- in developing countries and those that have supported this legislation by aiding and identifying displaced persons in international adoption cases, but it will give girls and women around the world access to fundamental rights they so rightly deserve. i want to thank congresswoman mccollum, smith, sherman for their support in introducing this legislation in the house and the 44 other bipartisan this is a republican and democratic bill, bipartisan members who have given their support. i also want to thank my colleagues in the senate, especially senator marco rubio, for backing this legislation. and 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: thank you madam speaker. i rise in strong support of s. 802 the girls count act of 2015. and i yield myself as much time

as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you. i want to thank representatives chabot and mccollum for introducing the house companion to this bill. around the world over 1/3 of children under the age of 5 have no registration of their birth. most of these children are girls. i remember my grandmother, my mother's mother, who came to this country before world war i from eastern europe. didn't have a certificate, didn't really know for sure what year she was born or what time she was born. she knew it was december, she thought it was december, but didn't have it. i remember here we are now, many, many years later, and we have the same problem in many areas around the world. not existing on pape consider shatter a person's life -- paper can shatter a person's life. with official documentation comes certain protections and without those protections, a person becomes an easy target for child labor human trafficking and child marriage. down the line many of these children will be unable to inherit land or money, start a

business or even open a bank account. this sort of marginalization often hits women the hardest. unregistered women are mock likely to be confined to their homes and invisible to the outside world. they enjoy only limited choices and opportunities and their marginalization drags down the prosperity of their communities. birth registration has most recently become an acute problem in syria. the ongoing civil war has caused countless internally displaced and refugee children to go unregistered. as a result these children face high risk of entering into early or illegal marriages, being trafficked, sex trafficked, or forced into child labor. or being recruited by terrorist groups. s 802 will ramp up efforts to get more children registered around the world. it authorizes the state department and usaid to work with local governments to ensure equal access to registration programs that uses existing funding to more effectively address this increasingly serious problem.

this bill would compliment the work of organizations around the world and engage in the important work of protecting vulnerable children and would put pressure on other governments to act. while improving birth registration systems helps the most vulnerable populations it has positive ripple effects across a society. governments with better records can provide better services, tailor more effective policies and bring more people into full participation in their economies. this basic practice can help make entire countries stronger. getting children registered at birth helps get them off to a good start and this bill will help make that happen. so, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. chabot: madam speaker, i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, madam speaker. it's now my great pleasure to

defer to congresswoman mccollum of minnesota, one of the co-authors of this bill and someone who has worked endlessly to make sure that this bill passes, ms. mccollum, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you madam speaker. today i rise to support the girls count act and i want to thank mr. chabot and his staff for working alongside my office on this important bill. i want to thank mr. royce and of course mr. engel for their support in moving this bill forward. we can all agree that every child deserves to have their birth, name and identity recognized by their government. every child deserves access to education and health services. without a recognized identity, that's just not possible. unfortunately unicef underestimates -- estimates that 230 million children under the age of 5 and that's mostly

girls do not have birth certificates. without this piece of paper, they're effectively invisible to their government, invisible to the world. these invisible girls are likely not to be able to attend school or to access the needed health services. it would be difficult if not impossible for her to inherit, vote or simply be a full and active member of their community. this girl would be at high risk of being confined to her home being forced into early marriage or sold into human trafficking. without a birth certificate she will likely face a bleak future. none of us would want this for her. the girls count act does exactly what the title says. it helps ensure that all girls and boys are counted by their government. the bill helps support the efforts of the secretary of state and the administrator of usaid to work with international organizations and

n.g.o.'s to improve birth registrations for all children. every child deserves to have their birth recognized and it deserves to be recognized by their government. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time back to mr. engel. thank you, madam speaker thank you, mr. chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. chabot: madam speaker i'll continue to reserve and reserve my time -- right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you madam speaker. i'll close now and let me once again say, getting children registered at birth gets them off to a good start. this bill encourages governments to enact laws and policies that give all children, including girls, a chance at being full participants in society. i strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well. and i want to again compliment ms. mccollum and mr. chabot for their hard work on this very

important piece of legislation. this should be a unanimous yes. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. chabot: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would like to thank congresswoman mccollum and also the ranking member, mr. engel, for their leadership on this issue, both of them have been very important parts of seeing this through the house and it went through the other body recently as well and so it's working its way to the president's desk and we're very encouraged by that. many of us are deeply concerned about the appalling acts of injustice that are committed against women and girls around the world on a daily basis. the headlines are oftentimes hard to believe. as i had attacks in iran -- acid attacks in iran the kidnapping of school girls in nigeria. but the disenfranchisement of

women and girls around the world is not just a humanitarian issue, it's a development issue. and it's a security issue as well. how can a nation thrive when half its citizens are oftentimes denied their most basic human rights? the girls count act, this act, the one that we're talking about this evening, recognizes the suffering and aims to empower those who have been cast into the shadows of their society. birth registration is one of the first steps in the fight to preserve an individual's basic rights under the law in that particular country. it's also a critical means to ensuring the full participation of women and girls in their communities, whether it's voting or owning property or employment or health care or a whole range of things. let's help girls count. i again want to thank the house for supporting passage of this measure. this will be the second year now two years in a row that

this house i believe, will support it and i encourage all my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 802. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. chabot: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1493 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1493, a bill to protect and preserve international cultural property act -- at risk due to political instability armed conflict or natural or other disasters, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot and the gentleman from

new york, mr. engel eep will -- each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you madam speaker. i would ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this resolution and i ask unanimous consent to put into the record letters between the committees of jurisdiction. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chabot: thank you madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. chabchab thank you, madam speaker. the hift -- mr. chabot: thank you, madam speaker. the history of civilization is under attack. the islamic state, also known as isis, continues to wreak havoc throughout iraq and syria, laying a path of death and destruction in order to establish its caliphate. no offense is more appalling than the terrorists' complete disregard for human life. isis has unleashed a campaign of sickening violence against shi'a muslims and fellow sunnis

who do not share their radical beliefs. as well as against vulnerable religious and ethnic minorities. this includes public beheadings and executions and the selling of women and girls into sexual slavery. besides the human toll of isis' deplorable acts, we also mourn the loss of society's cultural heritage as the extremists a lot and destroy their way through ancient sites in the territories they conquer. . we've seen heartbreaking footage of isis breaking artifacts in mosul and bulldozing their way through the 3000-year-oldcy of nimrod. they claim the destruction