and oxy con tin. -- oxycontin. and the schedule 3 drugs, we're finding that there are audits taking place by d.e.a. doctors who complete the eight-hour certification process have been approached by d.e.a. agents in my community before they even write a single prescription. they report hostile and intimidating behavior from agents who demand inspections of their prescription records at random unscheduled intervals. and these are doctors who can simply write a prescription for powerful narcotics without having to worry about random d.e.a. inspections. we need to allow doctors to treat their patients with compassion and with the care they deem appropriate. they shouldn't have to worry about d.e.a. agents having a super overlay of attention. we need to encourage

opportunities to make sure that doctors can treat patients to be table withdraw them from this substance and i respectfully suggest that the d.e.a. should focus their efforts on chasing criminals, the pill mills, the drug dealers not doctors who have worked hard to be part of the solution. . no funds are available to d.e.a. to enforce spppingses of the if physicians who prescribe medicines and allow them to proceed with the treatment of patients without fear getting into trouble with the federal government with helping at-risk patients who want to beat their addictions. the powerful addictive drugs don't have as much interference

and jore sight, the opportunity to have drugs that can be used to treat it as much more difficult and intrusive for medical professionals. that's not right and i respectfully suggest we adopt this amendment to correct this situation and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i wish to claim time in opposition and would like to yield to the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. glalt mr. goodlatte: i thank you madam chairman. and i rise to join him in opposition to this amendment. this amendment would undermine diversion control and increase

drug abuse by creating a significant loophole in the system of controls established by the control substances act. this would exempt d.e.a. registrants from being subject to oversight under the c.s.a. the only scheduled 3-5 controlled substance has been approved by the d.e.a. and also true that the amendment would not include the d.e.a. for object tanging a warrant obtaining a criminal search warrant must be predicated to establish criminal cause that the recommendation straight has

caused a criminal act. congress provided under the c.s.a. 45 years ago was to have oversight that would prevent regulatory violations and even more so before criminal violations occurred. congress recognized that controlled substances would have abuses and and of the controlled substances act and this trug is highly subject to diversion as it is a far cannotic drug that is sought after for many people who seek to abuse them for nonmedical purposes. the dispensing of this drug to a

drug-addicted population warrants more scrutiny than with many other controlled substances. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i yield back. mr. culberson: i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment on many grounds and this is an issue that should be dealt with the authorizing committees and i would yield to my good friend to dr. fleming. and he can speak to this. mr. fleming: i thank my good friend. madam chairman, years ago, one of the positions i served as was a director for drug and alcoholism. one of my duties was a methadone

doctor. this drug is a new form of methadone. it can be employed in treatment of heroin addiction but it is highly addictive and a scheduled drug and it is abused and aserves the safeguards and protections and oversights as any other drugs. if my friends to see this as an effective tool and not a dangerous dug and perhaps even sold on the black market, i suggest that we oppose this amendment and let's continue the good strong oversight we have. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from oregon has one half minute remaining.

mr. blumenauer: i would urge my colleagues to talk to treatment professionals in their communities. my concern is that we don't have as much vigorous oversight for things that are much more highly addictive. we see them more abused and that this extra overlay for something that is something less dangerous and can be useful for treatment i think is an area that deserves oversight. i respect my friends in terms of their opinions, but i would urge them to have the conversations i have had with the people who are getting that wrapped around the d.e.a. mr. culberson: i would urge all members to oppose the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. would the gentleman from texas specify. >> amendment number one. the clerk will report amendment number one. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. carter from texas. none of the funds made available may be used to propose or issue a rule that would change the chief law enforcement officer certificate as the proposed rule published on september 9 2013, 786, federal register 550154.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i rise with an amendment, the second amendment intent is clear. shall not be infringed. however, the a.t.f. has proposed a rule requiring an additional layer of approval to purchase firearms regulated by the national firearms act. this rule broadly expands existing requirements and burs law enforcement officers who are overworked and understaffed. the a.t.f. there are cities and

jurisdictions that refuse to give approval for political reasons. they are wrong. expressors dampen the sound of a firearm but do not make guns silent. they are a form of hearing protection for a shooter and human beings and hunter dogs. surpriseors increase safety while shooting allow people to hear and range safety instructions and to other expertsmen. my amendment ensures americans' rights are protected and do not eliminate background checks. it will help the suppliers and annual revenue and thousands of jobs nationwide and the second amendment right of the

law-abiding gun owner. i urge support of this common-sense provision and reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise in opposition. my friend from texas amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: if the gentleman would yield for a quick colloquy. join me in a quick colloquy, this is the amendment relative to trust and gun trust and back grouped chks? mr. carter: an amendment that requires an additional approval i by a law enforcement officer for purchases of either weapons or expressors. mr. fattah: in this 2006, there were 4,600 of these applications

and 40,000 in 2012 and 72,000 in 2013 and 90,000 in 201. those numbers relatively accurate. mr. carter: those numbers could be accurate. i cannot contest. but it has made that supressors make less damage on the shooter and animals. to be safe with their. mr. fattah: i would reclaim my time. i rise in opposition, it's clear that we won't be one of the successful vote count on this but i want to make the point that the second amendment as it was ruled on by the supreme court says there can be

reasonable regulation and we come into this we are supposed to be the reasonable regulators and supposed to decide where and when and under what circumstances there should be some speed bump and the question here is for these types of circumstances where someone is going to have a weapon in which has been fired, less able to do it rather that is someone to have a smaller speed bump. it doesn't seem like there is a major hurdle, seems like a ,600 to 90,000 in 2014. crn. unless we are going to have a universal access and doesn't seem to be a major impediment. mr. carter: because an application was made doesn't

mean that the law enforcement people dealt with it and approved the application. if you are telling me these are 90,000 approved blakes, i understand your argument. one of the issues seems to be finding a law enforcement agency in the modern society we live in has some knowledge of the individuals making the request and willing to process it. mr. fattah: judge, i will say this, that everybody even those who are not involved in law enforcement understand the challenge of having a firearm in which the silence is suppressed and we had an incident where someone tried to bring a weapon in. we know you can't bring them in the united states capitol. and we think that's a great thing to do. the majority will have its way

on this. i stand in opposition and i thank you and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognize. mr. carter: i want to commend them for a great bill. the gentleman has asked for time and time he may consume. mr. culberson: i press my strong support for the gentleman's amendment ap additional protection for american's second amendment rights and this is the right place for the bill. this is the right place. he has drafted it narrowly and carefully and i urge members to join us in supporting this second amendment right for the house. mr. carter: i'm honored to serve on this subcommittee. they made a great work product

here and glad we are all to work together. and i yield back. . . for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon seek neck -- recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number nine offered by ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentlewoman from oregon and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from oregon. ms. bonamici: i rise to offer a bipartisan amendment with mr. massie to restore power to the states to regulate the cultivation of industrial hemp within their own borders. the house adopted this amendment

last year with strong support from both sides of the aisle. this amendment is very simple. it would move our country in line with industrialized countries around the world that long ago recognized the importance of industrial hemp as a natural resource and agricultural commodity and the versatile component that is now found in more than 25,000 commercial products. in fact, not only does this amendment bring america in line with much of the rest of the industrialized world, it brings america back in line with our country's history. george washington and thomas jefferson grew it, the first drafts of our constitution and first laws were written on paper made from it, drug world -- during world war ii, the usda encouraged patriotic american farmers to raise it for the war effort. they even produced a slick promotional film entitled "hemp for victory." and now at least 23 states have passed laws allowing farmers to

grow it too. unfortunately, the federal government stands in the way of family farmers who won't twoont grow hemp. the classification of hemp as a schedule one drug contributes nothing to public safety but robs our farmers of a potentially multibillion dollar crop that is used to make everything from rope to soap. it would allow farmers to grow hemp in accordance with their own state laws. it divests the department of justice and d.e.a. of their ability to treat hemp like marijuana because hemp is not marijuana. so far, 23 states have passed laws to allow farmers to -- farmers to grow hemp. right now farmers in california colorado delaware, hawaii, illinois indiana, kentucky maine, maryland, michigan, missouri montana nebraska, new york, north dakota oregon, south carolina tennessee, utah vermont, virginia, washington, and west virginia are waiting

for the federal government to get out of the way. but because the department of justice refuses to acknowledge what washington and jefferson knew, that hemp is an agricultural commodity and not marijuana, these state laws take a back seat to federal overreach. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment and i now yield one minute to my co-sponsor, mr. massie of kentucky. mr. massie: thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. mr. massie: thank you, madam chair. i'm excited to report that thanks to the farm bill amendment that allowed for pilot programs we grew many -- many pilot programs in kentucky last summer and this summer there will be about 1,800 achers of hemp grown in kentucky in pilot programs. we have venture capital coming to kentucky. i met with two companies in kentucky that are investing in hemp but the problem is right now they can only do the pilot programs. yet they're still going to grow

1,800 ache evers of it in kentucky alone thafle grow 100,000 acres in canada. it's time to let our farmers have this opportunity. we need to take away the restraint that it's just a pilot program and we've addressed a lot of concerns people had last year that people had with the program. law enforcement are ok with hemp they have seen it's not its cousin. with that, i urbling passage and urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. i yield back to the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bone mee he: thank you, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i'd like to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from five minutes. -- for five minutes. mr. fleming: the cultivation of cannabis is regulated by the controlled substances act and pursuant to laws in the united

states code. hemp is very closely related to cannabis. and the d.e.a. agents tell us it's very difficult to detect and determine and distinguish between hemp and marijuana. so it only makes their job more difficult. however, the agricultural act of 2014, and mr. massie referred to this, permits institutions of higher learning and state departments of agriculture to grow or cultivate industrial hemp as defined in the statute for purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research. in short, we are studying it. we are analyzing it. we are evaluating it. but we don't have the results yet. of those studies. and i think it would be premature especially considering the problem with the rapid expansion of the marijuana industry and the problems which i'll speak about later this

evening, with marijuana and bay abuse of marijuana and the damage to brains of our children and so forth last thing i think that we want to do now is to create more problems for enforcement for the d.e.a. if we're going to study it, let's study it, but i do not believe it's time that we remove these restraints on industrial hemp. i reserve the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana reserves. the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: can i please inquire as to the amount of time remaining? the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon has one and a half minutes remaining. ms. bonamici: at this time i yield one minute to my colleague from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentlelady courtesy and her leadership on this issue. as a practical matter, industrial hemp is not marijuana. with less than .03% t.h.c. it is

not a drug. as a practical matter, it is not hard to distinguish it and in fact there -- it's sort of a myth that somehow people will use industrial hemp to disguise the cultivation of marijuana, they don't want that. it cross contaminates. it doesn't allow -- it makes it a less effective product. we have a situation where the rest of the world deals with industrial hemp, where there are countless products available to purchase today it's just that kentucky farmers or oregon farmers can't produce it. last year, the house overwhelmingly passed this amendment, we're starting down a path toward rationalization, 23 states have removed the barriers to production of industrial hemp, the federal government should get out of the way congress should adopt this amendment and allow it to proceed. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: ma tam chair, who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from louisiana has the right to close. mr. fleming: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon has the right to close. since the gentleman from louisiana is not on the committee. mr. fleming: madam chair ill just say in conclusion that d.e.a. tells us otherwise, that it is difficult to distinguish, it is a problem for them. they are the ones that have to enforce this. also, there isn't any product that you can get from hemp, hemp production, industrial hemp, that is not abundant in many other ways whether it's paper or rope or what have you. with that, it's not necessary, it is not some vital resource that we can't do without.

and it does create and complicate problems when it comes to the enforcement of schedule one drugs such as marijuana. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. ms. ben meche: thank you, madam -- ms. bonamici: thank you, madam chair. it makes no sense that industrial hemp is legal to have legal to use in manufacturing but can't be grown by our own farmers. right now the companies manufacturing with hemp have to import it from places like canada or china. they should be able to grow it in our own country. please support this bipartisan amendment. industrial hemp is grown differently from marijuana, it looks different, the enforcement. -- enforcers can tell it apart. let's let our farmers grow industrial hemp. support this amendment. i yield back. k40eu7 the gentlewoman yields back. the -- the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from

oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the -- mr. fleming: i request a recorded vote. the chair: in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from oregon will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. mr. poe: number 40. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poe of texas. at the end of the bill, before

the short title, insert the following, section none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the d.n.a. analysis and capacity enhancement program and for other local, state and federal forensic activities which funds are made available under this act as part of the $125 billion for d.n.a. related and forensic programs and activities unless such funds are used in accordance with paragraphs three and four of section -c of the d.n.a. analysis back log elimination act of 2000, public law 106-546, public law u.s.c. 121-45. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson, seek recognition? mr. culberson: madam chairman, while i agree with the gentleman, i must reserve a point of order on the amendment at this time. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, and a member opposed

each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: madam chair i recognize -- yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, congress in the last several sessions has done i think, an admirable job of dealing with this crime of sexual assault in the united states. several pieces of legislation have passed the house under several administrations going all the way back to the violence against women act. and more recently, under the debbie smith act, safer legislation, here's what's taken place. we now know because of d.n.a. that old rape kits can be analyzed to determine who the suspect was that committed that sexual assault. generally against females. and that is a good development.

so because of that legislation -- because of that, the debbie smith act was passed and the safer act says that debbie smith which grants funds to do rape kit backlogs, that 75% of that money of those grants will go to actually analyze backlog rape kits. if those backlogs analyze go after the bad guys, find out who committed these crimes and bring those 400,000 rape kits up to date by getting them analyzed. all sounds good. the problem is the justice department doesn't follow the law. they're not analyzing these cases. they're still backlog. they're spending the money but they're spending it on other things like research rather than what the law says, analyze those cases. 75% of those money is to go to analyze that backlog of rape

cases. my amendment just tells the justice department to follow previous law analyze those cases, use 75% of the money vast -- that's available to analyze those cases. that's what the amendment does. i understand that there's a point of order but i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserve -- mr. poe reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: i strongly agree with the gentleman's amendment and intend to work with him to address this problem in a way that he suggests and make sure that the law is complied with. i miss assert -- the amendment may be withdrawn. if i could, address the merits of your amendment. we plused-up funding for rape kits and make sure that backlog

is take fer taken care of. and we share your concern and the backlog is cleared up and these criminals are taken of. we want to make sure that the backlog is complied with. and that the department is enforcing the law as win by congress. mr. fattah: i concur with your point of view and i hope the amendment is withdrawn. but i think the proponent is correct that we need to move in this correction. we want to make sure that the backlog is and don't want innocent people are incarcerated. we want to make sure that this specific direction.

mr. culberson: we will work closely with you judge poe and no penalty severe enough that can be imposed swiftly enough on someone who will imposed on a women or child and the amendment will be withdrawn. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i thank the ranking member and what the amendment does and will work what the amendment does. in one word, it finds out justice. we free the innocent and we convict the guilty, but can't do it unless the rape kits are namized and have the justice department do what they are supposed to do. i withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection. amendment is withdrawn. who seeks recognition?

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk? the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of justice in violation of one, 4.1 -- mr. ellison: i move that the amendment be considered read. the chair: without objection. the reading is suspended. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. pursuant to house resolution 287. the gentleman from minnesota and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. ellison: i offer this amendment with the support of

the chair persons of the congressional black caucus and congressional asian-pacific caucus and and this amendment would prevent law enforcement agencies that engage in discriminatory based on ginder and religion and national origin and issued by the department of justice. discriminatory profiling is wrong and reeighths fear. and against the dollars. i commend the work of the attorney general holder to revise profiling guidance and must do more to close the loopholes. we shouldn't be able to profile at the border or map people

without cause and not use national security as a excuse and we need legislation to end racial profiling act introduced by john conyers. we should at least prevent federal funds from being used to discriminate against citizens and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i would like to seek time in opposition although i'm not in opposition. we should be in for of tech next and our aspect of law enforcement tell us that it doesn't work.

i agree with the gentleman. and i support his amendment and i reserve the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minimum r minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i will close and just say that racial profiling has no place and urge ay vote. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of mr. minnesota. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract with a dis closure with section 13 unions code and the ned awarding performance and integrity system . the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 the gentleman from minnesota, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: this is a very simple amendment which says that the monies appropriated by the u.s. congress should go to contractors who deal fairly with workers and do not violate the

fair labor standards act. this amendment is not an allege. it only applies to contractors who have been found in violation who have been forced to disclose those violations based on the violations of the fair labors standards act and using funds in this bill who hire contractors. now we live in a time when it's so hard for workers all across this nation to make a living. people go to bed at night calculating whether they will meet their monthly expenses. and if the work that they do can't even be fully paid, i think the federal government should not be doing business with that employer.

the fact of the matter is that in this appropriation, we should reserve federal money for the millions of contractors who do an honest contract and provide the federal contract with honest work. and greater than the cost of burglaries and other sorts of problems. sfed contractors are among america's -- federal americao are among us to discharge good service. but that should be within the law and honoring the work that work rs do and federal contractors, certainly some of them have had a problem this this area. the national law project found that one in three fund reported

stolen wiges. the committee revealed that 5% of the penalties for wage theft were levied against felled contractors. there are many excellent federal contractors and should not compete with those who kir circumvent. they had to repay employees in back wage for violation between 2007 and 2012. many of these same companies received federal contracts in 012. the fact of the matter that wage theft is wrong and the people who engage in it shouldn't receive federal funds.

i hope that a dollar earned is a dollar must be paid and the oons of united states of america wants to do contracts with those who obey the law. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. culberson: i rise in off situation to the amendment. i think his amendment is going to have an amendment far beyond wra he intended. boeing for example if they ever failed to pay somebody overtime the way his amendment is drafted this would bar boeing and lockheed which is responsible for building orion. it is inevitable.

none of us are perfect and we are going to make a mistake and the way the gentleman's amendment is drafted, the federal government could not hire any company that was ever dealt with in a proceeding that included the term fair labor standards act. it plaque balls any contract. this is not the right place for it. you are going to do a great damage to companies that had minor one hifere time violations. the language he has drafted is very broad and implications far beyond what he has laid out tonight and the bill as written would wind up with a very good companies and i would ask members to oppose the ealtap reserve. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. the gentleman from minnesota has 1.50 minutes remaining. mr. ellison: the companies that the gentleman has identified as i had sfide the sfarewlabe standards act. federal contracts are lucrative. they make people rich and at the very least and those individuals out to make sure that the workers get paid properly. this is an appropriation from this year and doesn't bar them. and if they have cleaned up their act act, we could clean up their act. if we do not pass this act, we

would be telling the contractors, you don't need to pay the law. i mean companies that could note and gain a competitive advantage and i don't think that's anything that any of us would like to see happen. i would urge a yes vote on this and say no to wage theft. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: the way the gentleman's amendment is drafted, it would bar them fl doing business with the federal government if they ever made a mistake and the amendment is far too broad and sweeping and i urge members to oop owes the member and i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from texas time has expired. the chair: the question is on the amendment offed by the gentleman from minnesota. 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. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. black of tennessee. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to require pursuant to section 478.124 of title 27

or section 25.7 of title 28 code of federal regulations or the office of management and budget statistical policy directive number 15 raise standards for federal statist -- race and ethnic standards that any person disclose race or ethnicity of the person in connection with the transfer of a firearm to a person. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman -- the gentlewoman from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. black: madam chairman, our founding fathers did not mince words when they authored the second amendment to our constitution. they spoke plainly and with conviction writing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. unfortunately, this administration hasn't always seen it that way.

recently president obama's bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives enacted a quiet change to its form 4473. a mandatory document for most gun transactions that requires americans to disclose their race and ethnicity in order to complete the sale. what's more, failure to collect this information is considered an a.t.f. violation that could result in government penalties for the gun dealer. by placing an extra burden of complexity between the law-abiding citizen and the right to own a firearm thible intrusive reporting requirement sets up a direct challenge to the second amendment rights enshrined in our constitution, not to mention the right to privacy. madam speaker, we all want to see weapons kept out of the hands of criminals but an individual's race and ethnicity has nothing to do with their ability to safely own and

operate a firearm. perhaps that's why even traditionally left-leaning groups like the aclu have spoken in on stoigs this requirement. the fact is, the government should be color blind on all of our rights, whether it's the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, or the freedom to keep and bear arms. that is why my amendment states that the government cannot require gun buyers to disclose their race and ethnicity at the point of sale. it's really that simple. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this commonsense amendment so that we can reverse this latest regulatory overreach and ensure the fairness and private -- ensure that fairness and privacy are upheld in our nation's gun laws. now i yield the remainder of my time to my lead co-sponsor and ardent defender of the second amendment the gentleman from texas, judge poe. the chair: the gentleman, mr.

poe, is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the chair for recognizing me and i would like to thank congresswoman black for this amendment and bringing it to the attention of the house tonight. this issue came to my attention a couple of years ago when i was with constituents in my district. they were gun dealers, they were complaining and telling me how the administration quietly began requiring the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms and explosive, we call it the a. tmplet f., record firearm purchasers' race and ethnicity. this, madam chair is not law. it is not congressional action. we did not do this. but the a.t.f., through administration rules requires the race of the gun purchaser and the seller selling the gun

has got to check the box and write the race of the gun purchaser. if they do not do that, or they do it wrong, the a.t.f. can come back later, look at the records and say you left a blank, you left it blank on the race of the individual and shut the business down. now, there are several problems with this new rule by the a.t.f. in order to avoid breaking this federal regulation the dealers then have to ask the customers their reas and when people are offended and they get offended, they take it out on the dealers themselves. sometimes refuse to give their race. and then what is the gun purchaser or gun seller to do? why is the government why is our government racial profiling people who exercise the second amendment? why are they doing that? second, it's none of the government's business the race of a gun owner. the second amendment does not

just apply to certain races. it applies to everybody. it doesn't exclude races and only include certain races. and as the gentlelady from tennessee has said, the federal government ought to be color blind across the board on every issue. especially when it comes to rights. the second amendment applies to everybody. regardless of their race. just reich the first amendment. applies to everybody. regardless of their race. so this amendment would simply tell the federal government, it's none of your business, the race of a gun purchaser in the united states. stay out of that issue. and just as equally important, you can't shut some business down if they don't put the right race or they leave the blank -- leave the race block blank. that's none of the federal government's business and i would hope that members of congress would support this amendment and keep the federal government from requiring racial profiling in the purchase of

guns under the second amendment. i yield the balance of my time back to the gentlelady from tennessee. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: before we get finished with this you'll be able to have a weapon, you'll be able to suppress the sound on it and you won't have to identify yourself by these characteristics that are attacked in this amendment. but i want to set the facts straight. first of all, this information has been required since 1968. i know people are excited about it tonight. i know there's a lot of enthusiasm about ridding the nation of having this information. but since the gun control act of

1968 firearm purchasers have been required to record their race. sometimes, you know, we hear in law enforcement people trying to be politically correct and say, well, we don't want you to be descriptive of a suspect in a crime, identifying them by race or something, but you know, the reason why we have this information has nothing to to with prohibiting people's second amendment rights. this is about how to to track down someone who has done something wrong. who is the original purchaser of the gun that was used in a crime? the information is not held by the federal government, notwithstanding the excitement on the house floor tonight. it's held by the dealer. it is not centralized in any way but it is a law enforcement data point. sometimes we need data. we need information. and so that if something has

been done with a gun that is unlawful somebody can figure out who purchased it and you can also clarify who these people are if they have similar names, similar backgrounds or whatever -- or whatever may be the case. it's just basic information that any law enforcement person would want to have, right. the race and ethnic background of the owner of the weapon. right? that was used in a neighborhood near you to harm one of the people who you have been elected to represent. and to decide tonight that what we want to do is strip this information away under some pretension, we just -- what we just heard was an argument that somehow, someone was trying to say that the second amendment discriminated against somebody on a racial basis. of course, anyone can win that straw argument because it's

nonsensical. no one is arguing that. we're talking about basic information that's needed for law enforcement purposes that the majority tonight wants to deny from the a.t.f. all right. and that is something that i would hope the majority wouldn't do but they obviously have the votes to do as they please. i will be against it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> madam speaker i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. richmond of louisiana. at the end of the bill, before the short title -- mr. richmond: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the clerk: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: which amendment is the gentleman offering? mr. richmond: i only have one amendment, the amendment to move $155 million from bureau of prisons over to the criminal justice. the chair: the clerk will continue to read the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, the amounts otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the aggregate amounts made available for the federal prison system, salaries and systems, and increasing the amounts made available for juvenile justice program for youth mentoring grants by $155,900,000. mr. culberson: madam chairman. the chair: for what purpose does

the gentleman seek recognition? mr. culberson: i reserve a point of order against the amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 287 the gentleman from louisiana and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. richmond: i rise today to talk about something that i would hope is important to both sides of the aisle. that's our youth. here in congress, we talk about how important a lot of things are, education public safety, strong communities, freedom, and prosperity. if we have a goal of keeping our children in school and on the path to success, cutting juvenile justice programs is the wrong way to go in order to reach it. we know that supporting programs that keep our children out of jail is one of the best investments we can make and it gives us one of our highest returns on our invest. on any given day in this country, there are over 70,000 juveniles in jail around the country.

this incarceration is not cheap. we spend about $6 billion a year on juveniles in prison. interactions with the criminal justice system at a young age has a ripple effect that makes it harder for children to achieve success later. students who are arrested early in high school are six to eight times more likely to drop out of school. what's more, children who are incarcerated are almost 40% less likely to graduate from high school and 40% more likely to be imprisoned -- to be in prison at the age of 25. finally if someone with an arrest record as juvenile does graduate high school they're still only half as likely tone roll in a four-year college. in short, keeping our children out of jail has benefits to the children, their families, our communities, and to the nation as a whole. this president realized all of this when he made his budget request. that's why he requested more than $300 million for a variety

of authorized programs aimed at improving public safety and keeping children on the path to college and careers instead of the path to prison. unfortunately, the bill in front of us calls for devastating cuts to these vital programs. the funding level in the bill is more than $155 million below the president's request and even $68 million below last year's funding level. my amendment today would simply bring the funding for juvenile justice back in line with the president's request by funding one of the only programs left available in the bill and that's mentoring. by increasing the role and capacity for mentoring programs across the nation, we can have a true impact on children in every community. with that, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i assert a point of order against the amendment, depending on what

the gentleman intends to do. does the gentleman intend to withdraw the amendment? mr. richmond: i would like to know what the point of order is. i'm shifting money from one thing that's in the budget to something else in the budget. mr. culberson: the amendment is subject to a point of order on the basis that it proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by law, mr. chairman, and therefore is in violation of clause 2-a of rule 21. although the original account funding for the office of juvenile justice contains a number of programs that are unauthorized it was permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to provisions of the rule that proided -- provided for consideration of this bill. when an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain an amendment merely changing the amount is in order but the rules of the house apply a quote merely perfecting standards to the item permitted to remain and do not allow the insertion of a new paragraph that was not part of the

original text permitted to arraign -- to remain to increase a figure that was permitted to remain this amendment proposes to add funding as a reach back to an unauthorized program and the amendment therefore cannot be construed as merely pering and therefore, mr. chairman, i ask that the chair rule the amendment out of order. mr. fattah: i would like to be heard on the point ever order. i understand the spirit of the chairman's statement. we have worked to and we have over the number of years doubled the amount of must be. we agree it is a much more worthy investment than try to repair a broken adult. we continue to build this part

of the appropriations bill and notwithstanding the complicated set of rules and we continue to work with you as we go forward on this matter. the chair: mr. culberson: i need to assert the point of order. >> i'll ask unanimous consent to withdraw. mr. culberson: the gentleman withdraws the point of order. the chair: the point ever order has been withdrawn -- closed and point of order is currently

pending. mr. culberson: i reserve my point of order .once the gentleman needs to withdraw, we will work with mr. fato to keep young -- fato ha -- fattah. mr. culberson: i reserve the point of order and i reserve it peppeding the gentleman's conclusion and withdraw the amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. mr. fattah: thank you, mr. chairman, and i would say as a lifetime and started cotching little league at 16 and i continue to do that and also to mentor i would say that as we

look at the budget and bring the budget back into balance. mopped monday this is going to give us and we are allowing us to cut down the deficit and in the spirit of birpement if you appropriate it, they will spend it and if they build it they will fill it. and we put our yuelingt on a better beth. so with that i would remind all of our members to continue to work together and we should be careful here and the life you samb may be your oun. and i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection.

the gentleman from texas. point of order. mr. culberson: we will work with the gentleman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek reck nick? the clerk: amendment offered by mr. meadows of north carolina, the end of the bill, insert the following, section ks none of the funds may be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement that limits a green bay house gas emotions. it should not apply of the a tax or tariff. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina and a member opposed shall each control five minutes. mr. meadows: my amendment would prohibit the administration from using my funds from bill to

advocate or support a trade negotiation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions in the united states. the amendment would prohibit the obama administration from trying to address climate age change. we have seen the administration work around congress to implement its own agenda. the hour is late. there are vesm amendments that are needing to be heard and i reserve. the chair: the chair: the gentleman from texas rise. mr. fattah: i rise in opposition. mr. fattah: this isn't the right place to be imposing on trade

agreements. we would be opposed to this.

mr. culberson: similarry let's shut down any attempt to impose gas limits on the trade agreement. and i support the gentleman's amendment and i vote yes. mr. meadows: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. meadows: i urge support. the chair: the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the defbling. desk. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. grayson of florida at the end of the bill before the short title, section, none of the funds made available by this act -- mr. grayson: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be waived. the chair: without objection. mr. grayson: this amendment is identical to other amendments that have been inserted. my amendment expand the serious misconduct on the part of the contractors. the list would include contractors who have been convicted or a conviction for fraud or antitrust laws, bribery, and other items

outlined and code of federal regular layings. any business must disclose and the contractor would be free to ignore these and i commend the and i believe we can improve on bill by prohibiting these and it's my hope that any bill will be noncontroversial and be passed you nan mousely by the house. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. any member rise in seek time in opposition? mr. fattah: i'm not opposed and we would concur with the

amendment. i'm not opposed and prepared to accept the amendment and support it and thank the why h gentleman for offering it. and i speak for the chairman and ready to rock and roll. we accept. i yield back. mr. grayson: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, those opposed, no. those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is agreed to. the clerk: millimeter times four

mill meter and ammunition for chapter 44, title 18, united states code. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 a member proposed and a member opposed. >> i voice my strong op situation to the second amendment rights. i stand up against these rights and our lives and our freedoms and hands off our guns. that's why i'm offering an amendment to stop the ban. as you recall, the a.t.f. tried to ban ammunitions that has been used by americans for americans.

and more than 80,000 public comments and the direct intervention and the administration stalled their proposed ban but as the clock ticks down, the administration is considering future ammo bans. this to restrict our fundamental rights and our first freedom has nothing to do with safety or security and everything to do with government control. this is a stand alone bill by patrick mchenry would put an end by enshurring the popular ammunition remains available. like many of my constituents i like to stand outdoors. i will not stand idly by and

allow them to threaten our rights. the second amendment is not about hunting or shooting sports it ensures our ability to protect our rights. this must be defended and protected and i encourage our colleagues and this time, i would yield the balance of my time. >> i'm proud to stand with my colleague from north carolina in support of this amendment. the right to bear arms is as fundamental. the second amendment bear arms from enemies both foreign and domestic. our second amendment rights have been threatened and the buyero

has doubled down on attempting to ban project tiles as they claim the armor is piercing. . they attempted to limit the manufacture of ammunition. buzz of complaints from gun owners across the country, ample t.f. decided to table their proposal at least for now. our constitutional rights should not be left up to the whims of federal bureaucrats in the washington this amendment simply ensures that federal funds not be used to ban certain types of commonly used ammunition and i encourage my colleagues to support it. i yield back my time. the chair: does the gentleman from north carolina reserve? >> i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania

rise? mr. fattah: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: they must have some special kind of deer in north carolina. thear running around in the woods with bulletproof vests on. the idea that a sportsman needs an armor piercing bullet to go after deer, i mean, i don't buy it but if you're willing if the majority is willing to buy it at this hour of the night it's fine with me. on a serious note, for those who are in law enforcement, who are out in dark alleys and who have to confront circumstances that they don't know the exact dangers that they're going to face the fact that we want to have weapons that suppress the sound, now we want to have bullets that can pierce armor

and that we want to make sure that under the guise of the second amendment that you can have all manner of armament, you know, without any type of reasonable speed bumps that might protect the american public is not something that i'm sure that the majority would want to take such an enthusiastic effort around but obviously they do and they decided that this bill is the bill for it. that this bill is the place where they want to do this activity. i think it's unfortunate, but as for me and for my side we'll be in opposition. we'll let the majority work its will. i yield.

the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> may i inquire how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from pennsylvania has three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate my colleague's questions, rhetorical questions and mr. chairman i would just say that the point is a 556 bullet is not an armor-piercing bullet. the only reason it's been called that is because of a loophole. that's my point. we have an administration who just put out a whole list of regulations that say they want to restrict the rights of people because they may or may not have a mental illness, they want a whole range of regulations that they'd like to roll out in the final days of this administration to limit, to infringe upon, our second amendment rights. and what i'm saying is, we're not going to stand for that. so the bullet, the round that i'm talking about is not an armor piercing round. it's never been defined as an

armor piercing round but because of a loophole this administration tried to ban it as such. having said that, i yield to the chairman. mr. cull behr soon: i want to express my strong support of the gentleman's amendment. it's necessary because the a.t.f. did come out with a broad framework in which they were trying to come out with whole categories of ammunition, and that's not what the statute was intened to prevent. the statute was intended to prevent specific types of armor piercing bullets from being used in pistols. the a.t.f. was taking that far beyond the statute. it was necessary as new subcommittee chairman i was able to step in and persuade the a.t.f. to drop their ammo ban. mr. hudson's amendment is necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again in the future. i urge members to support his amendment in the strongest possible terms to defend our second amendment rights. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i would just hope that none of my good friends on

the other side decide to test this theory about whether or not it can pierce armor. all right. you don't take the rhetoric to an extreme here, right. it is a fact that there's some concern about what this means for law enforcement. i know that the majority would want to be seen and i think truly is in support of law enforcement. why we would want to put this type of ammunition in guns we want to suppress the sound on in which we want less information about the purchase -- purchaser from i don't understand. but there's obviously some thread that runs through the or -- the other team over here and the american public has to make

whatever judgment they're going to make about that. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. collins of georgia. at the end of the bill before the short title -- mr. collins: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection. reading is dispensed with. mr. culberson: i need to reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution

287, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed will each control phi minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. culberson: which amendment is before the house. mr. collins: it's the only one from collins of georgia. the clerk: clerk will re-- the chair: clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide assistance to a state or political subdivision of the law that has any law or provision in contravention of the immigration laws of the immigration and nationality act 8 u.s.c. 1101-a-17.

mr. culberson: i support the gentleman's amendment and withdraw the point of order. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i would like to make a point of order against this amendment. because it proposes to change existing law. the chair: does the gentleman wish to reserve a point of order. mr. fattah: i'd like to reserve a point of order. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: i rise today with a commonsense amendment to h.r. 25 . i appreciate the hard work chairman culberson and ranking member fattah and other members have put into this bill. this bill contain miss important provisions to protect americans and public lick -- public safety. but i want to make it clear that no funds in this bill are used to support states and localities whose laws are in direct violation of immigration law. it ensures we don't reward state and local governments with funds

when they violate law. states and local communities are making laws. we've even seen local sheriffs who have chosen to follow federal law are slapped with lawsuits for following the law. i know we're late, i know there's some discussion about this but really this is simple. hardworking taxpayers should not be have sit idly by and watch their tax dollars go to locality that choose to encourage immigration through their nonenforcement policy. my amendment sends a clear policy that if it implements policies they will not be able to receive funds under this act. specifically federal reimbursements under the state criminal ail general assistance program. this is a -- an amendment that was offered an accepted last year. we're offering it again. and would ask favorable consideration. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.

does the gentleman from pennsylvania continue to reserve? mr. fattah: i'd like to at this point unless there's more comment to assert the point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: i make a point of order against the amendment because it pr poses to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the point of order? >> this amendment is not in -- mr. collins: this amendment is not contravention of current law. it doesn't allow funds to be used to circumvent current law. all this says is that state and localities who receive money will support and -- support current law. i'm not sure what the point of order is exactly trying to make. this was put in last year, it was approved.

i mean, i understand, i appreciate the gentleman's concern but basically we're saying if you enforce the law, as it is written, which is all we're asking, there's nothing there if you choose not to enforce federal plaw that's money that will be withheld. the chair: does the gentleman wish to withdraw his amendment? mr. collins: not at this point. mr. fattah: we'll respect the rule og they have chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard? mr. culberson: i agree with the gentleman from georgia, this does in the change existing law it states if you expect to receive federal money, you need to be in compliance with federal law. pretty straight up. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the chair funeds finds that this amendment requires a new determination as to the status of local law. it therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk grayson number three. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the clerk: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: eafment offered by mr. grayson of florida. section; none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a trade agreement whose negotiating texts are confidential. the limitation described in this section shall not apply in the case of the administration of a tax or tariff. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed shall each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: this amendment is akin to an amendment considered

a few moments ago offered by mr. meadows. it's meant to address a problem that's arisen with trade agreements that's become visible to all of us as members of the august body. what's happened is that the trade representative for no apparent legal reason with no apparent legal authority has taken it upon himself to negotiate trade agreements like the transpacific partnership in secret. not entirely in secret, just in secret from us and from members of the american public. the corresponding provision, the t-tip provision, has been posted by the european union, which is our negotiating partner in this, on the interin the. the transpacific partnership itself has been negotiated in secret but that's been posted by wiki leaks to the embarrassment of our government in an unnecessary manner. what we've seen over the past several years is that the trade representatives turned a deaf ear to our concerns as members of congress who must perform our

oversight functions whenever we ask for information about what the trade representative is doing on behalf of the american people. three years ago we had the strange circumstance come up that over 100 members of congress00 members of this body, wrote a letter to the trade representative saying we hear you are negotiating something called the transpacific partnership. would you please give us a copy and the answer came back, no. we're not going to give you a copy. for the past five years, the transpacific partnership has been negotiated in secret. only in the last few months members of congress have been able to see it under the most eblings dream conditions imaginable. i was actually the first person to be able to see it and the trade representative came to my office with his staff and offered to show it to me but i couldn't take any notes.

i couldn't discuss it with my own staff. i couldn't even discuss it with other members of this body. and of course i couldn't make copies or otherwise help myself to record what i had seen, much less speak to my constituents about it, much less speak to the media about it, much less speak to the public about it. . secret laws are union-american laws. there is no such thing recognized under our constitution as a secrete statute or treaty. we have been experiencing it without any legal authority whatsoever. we aren't asking them to stop the negotiating. we list the vale of secrecy that has been dropped over these goisheses and the american

people can't see them but foreign governments can see them. why is it we have confidentiality and we have a system and not seeing this information but to keep foreigners to see the information. and we have a situation where foreigners see it but the highest members of our government, our senators and government, we don't get to set it. it its un-america can. the only way to come up with agreements is through an open, fair and transparent process. it says none of the funds made available by this act may be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement. it is time for a little sunloit.

it is time for the members of this body to take control of our constitutional responsibilities not to let the trade representative or any member to stop us. wouldn't it be a better system what we think what our constituents think what the american members think. this is a commonsense member. and i say the time is up ap we should insist that these agreements for the next 20 0 years or negotiated in public. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. culberson: i claim the time

in opposition . . mr. chairman, the the gentleman from florida has worked in the past as a an attorney and settled cases before and those negotiations when you were designing those agreements were not something you wanted to disclose and wanted to negotiate those with your clients. that would have damaged your clients to negotiate a fair settlement. with the countries with what the representatives negotiating japan, i doubt they want the australians to see what they are agreeing to. i doubt that the koreans want to see what the japanese are

attempting to agree to. perfectly that the agreeable and members can see the agreement but the korean-american trade agreement is going to be settled because they don't want to what see what dwsh the agreement you were attempting to see it. sunshine is a good time. but it it's common sense. you don't want the other countries to see what kind of a deal you are fixic to work out. and the agreement itself must be available to the public 90 days before the agreement and the

congress will have this debate. i understand this agreement that is under agreement would give hem an agreement. and we could veto a particular trade agreement. the only part of the deal that is so far that is confidential is the ongoing negotiation, which is exactly the way you handled and protected your interests as an attorney. i'm quite confident as an attorney you handedled the litigation that is professional and and i imagined you never disclosed an agreement.

mr. grayson did you have ever release an agreement? mr. grayson: is the gentleman answering to me? mr. culberson: were you negotiating? mr. grayson: the gentleman from from florida. mr. culberson: i defended businesses in civil litigation and any litigation i was working on confidential. were you negotiating on behalf of your client. i'm not yielding the balance of my time. he kept those negotiations kept

secret. and members could read the text of the trade agreement this is being negotiated. that is a good time to raise it. and that is going to be a violation of federal law or cause it. you have the opportunity to have your words heard during the course of the negotiation. i open of oppose mr. grace op on amendment. the chair: the gentleman from florida has 158g second remaining. mr. grayson: i would take another minute. beyond my the chair: the gentleman from has florida has 15 seconds.

mr. grayson: when i was a an attorney, i represented freist interests and i represented the american public. and it needs to be public. no secret negotiations. no secret agreements of agreements. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: his answer confirms he did not disclose a seltment before it was finaled. the trade agreement needs to be kept confidential. and we could object and as it is being negotiated and the text must be made available for the public and avoid the agreement

and we are going to have this agreement and i urge -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is not agreed so 689 mr. grayson: pursuant to clause 6 of rile 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be pofepoped . mr. rohrabacher: i have an amendment at the defbling. the clerk: insert the following section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used with respect to the states of alabama, alaska arizona connecticut, california, zpwea

-- mr. rohrabacher: i ask unanimous consent -- choirment pursuant to rule 287, the -- and a member -- pursuant to mouse resolution 287, the gentleman from california and a member opposed will control -- mr. rohrabacher: i yield myself two minutes. i ask my col ease to make a vote. my amendment would be used to superseed law that would. let's be clear. the inten ever this intent is to make it illegal for enforce legal law for mel use of

distribution of law where the medical marijuana. the vote is based on the realizization that at a time for for resources it makes sense to target terrorists, rather than use federal law enforcement resources to prevent sick people for using a weed that may or may not alleviate their suffering. and suffering suffering. trying to prevent this use of marijuana, once it has been out liesed is a travesty and a waste of our resource is. as for the principle we republicans claim to base on

freedom, states' rights and the doctor-patient relationship. don't use those principles on other issues if you voit for the government to vote for the rights when it comes to marijuana. some of stop this waste of resources and shop the use of a federal -- stop the use of federal bureaucracy from busting down doors to prevent people from using a substance that doctors might aleffyate his or her pain. the chair: jarks. >> i ride rise to speak in

opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: this was seated in 2005, a -3 victory? favor of the government. so that's been settled. we can claim this over and over gean and bring it backs to the court. how does this affect us in it is legal ngcog and nebraska and cog is suing colorado because of the problems that are developing across the state boardes. interstate commerce. let's stalk about the muge problem that marijuana represents. it has no accepted no medical

use. there is marijuana aquiments that are useful. and yes, indeed. but the drug itself is smokeable and not safe. here's the thing. it's known to vm brain development alterations, other forms of illnesses and increased risks of streck. and severe brain abnormalities and poth smoking leads to loss of memory andor things and i reserve. the chair: gentleman reserves.

mr. farr: it's time we represent them in the united states congress to allow mel marijuana laws to to allow 39 states 41 total, the mascrort of the america can population to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my two minutes. the chair:. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from louisiana i l is rick niesed. rsh recognized. mr. fleming: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia,

mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. the supporters of this amendment claim that this is a states' right issue. however, it's not that simple, not hardly. drug manufacture and use is inherently an interstate problem. for example, we need look no further than one of the two states where marijuana has been legalized. the colorado department of revenue reports that 45% of marijuana sales in the state were to out of state i.d. holder. governor hickenlooper said, if i could have wave a wand the day after the election and said, this was a bad idea, i would have. colorado is being sued by nebraska and oklahoma who claim colorado has created a dangerous gap in control of marijuana and that marijuana is flowing to neighboring states. of far greater concern to me is

the increase of marijuana to children which will inevitably result from a loosening of restrictions on this dangerous drug. though my colleagues may not like it, marijuana remains a schedule 1 narcotic because it is -- it has a high potential for abuse and no legitimate medical use. in fact, mr. speaker statistics show that 7 -- that 78% of the 2.4 million people who began using marijuana last year were age 12 to 20. there's little doubt that this drug poses a significant danger to our children. i urge a no vote on this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman from louisiana reserve? mr. fleming: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: i yield to ms. lee. ms. lee: i rise in support of this bipartisan amendment. in states with medical marijuana

laws, patients face uncertainty regarding their treatment and small business own whoferse invested millions creating jobs and revenue have no assurances for the future. it's way pastime for the justice department to stop this unwarranted persecution of medical marijuana and put its resources where they're truly needed. there's no way members of congress should tell the public, tell people who live in states where these laws have been passed that what their doctor prescribes for them that could prevent pain should not be allowed. the chair: does the gentleman yields more time? the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i appreciate all the work that mr. rohrabacher and mr. farr have done. justice bran dice said states are the laboratories of democracy. some of the arguments you have heard are "reefer madness" 2015. it's over. one of the gentlemen said children are doing marijuana at

age 12678 that will show you how good the laws are right now. if we had more money fwing into heroin and not marijuana we could stop people from dying and that's what we should be doing. tell montel williams with m.s. marijuana doesn't work. tell cancer patients it doesn't help them with nausea. it works. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: this amendment, the way it's being talked about, it does not legalize marijuana. it assures that the federal government doesn't waste its limited resources prosecuting men and women who are acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. that's all it does. it's very reasonable that states have enforcement priorities in this area and we want our federal resources geared toward crime we view as more important. have them go after the meth lab have them go after the heroin ring. colorado has had legal medical mearn for nearly a decade.

some in our state are for it, some are against it, but it's our right as a state to determine that. that's why i support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from nevada. ms. titus: thank you. this amendment is about standing up for states' rights and protecting businesses, doctors and patients who are acting legally under the medical marijuana laws of some 41 states and territories including nevada. congress needs to catch up with state legislatures and the federal government needs to stop wasting money busting good citizens who are trying to do the right thing. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana. in fleming: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman louisiana continues to reserve. mr. farr: who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from california has the right to close. the chair: the gentleman from

louisiana. mr. fleming: how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from louisiana has two minutes, the gentleman from california has 15 seconds. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. farr: let -- mr. fleming: let me say the idea of medical marijuana is a joke. it's an end run around the laws. there are more pot shops in california than there are starbucks or mcdonald's. ok. now, is it really a medical treatment? well the a.m.a. says no. the american society of addiction medicine says no. even the american glaucoma society which is of course in charge of glaucoma treatment, says this is not a medical treatment for glaucoma. so there is no single approved use of marijuana for medical diseases. the whole idea of medical marijuana is to get around the laws on legalization or illegalization of marijuana. but make no mistake about it.

the most common addiction diagnosis for young people admitted to drug treatment centers is addiction to marijuana. the rate is 9% addiction rates in users of adult, it's 17% in young people. we all know studies show very clearly that the states that are more permissive have higher addiction and abuse rates than any others. we also know that it's a developmental disease. what does that mean? it means a more a child, the young aerochild is exposed to it, the more likely they'll later become an addict to something else like methamphetamine, prescription drugs or heroin. if you support this, which is really the legalization of marijuana, then you're really supporting allowing our children to be harmed and addicted. to this terrible drug. new i'm all in favor of research and we're in discussions with d.e.a. about allowing it in some

way, whether we go to a 1-a category to allow such research. some suggest it may have some benefit for seizures, that's yet to be seen. some suggest it may be beneficial to those who have spastic muscle disease. but there's absolutely no proof of that so with that i urge everyone to oppose this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california has 15 seconds. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: thank you. not withstanding the doctor's remarks, the truth is that almost no research has been put into marijuana in terms of its medical efficacy. you have epilepsy and a whole host of -- no. i'll yield for a minute yes.

mr. fleming: i don't want to dominate your time. this has been under study for over 40 years. university of mississippi has been legally growing pot for over 40 years and studying it. it has been studied. mr. fattah: reclaiming my time. i know a little bit about this. in terms of its medical viability as epilepsy and a lot of other issues there's some need for real study of this, not just about the way that we proceeded so far. i think that this amendment and what is happening in the states should be allowed to go forward. so i want to yield to my colleague from california, mr. rohrabacher for an opportunity to close on this subject a minute and a half and at that point then i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not yield blocks of time and must remain on his feet. mr. fattah: i yield a minute and

a half to mr. rohrabacher. the chair: the gentleman may not yield blocks of time. mr. fattah: i yield to the gentleman from california. mr. rohrabacher: i appreciate that from my colleague. look, our founding fathers didn't want criminal justice to be handled by the federal government. i don't know what government you want to have in our country but most of us here don't believe that the federal government, neither did our founding fathers, is an all wise system. the federal government is the only government that has wisdom to make the decisions for the families. no i will not. i will not. this is absolutely absurd to think that the federal government is going to mandate all of these things even though the people of the state have made an -- and other doctors, many other doctors, would like to have the right to prescribe to their patients what they think is going to alleviate their suffering. we should not get in the way and

as i said in the first debate it is sinful for us to get in the way between a doctor and his patient say, oh no, the federal government knows better. we -- this is a states' right issue. this is the issue of what our founding fathers had in mind for this country where the decisions would be made like this. they didn't want the federal government to have a police force that can bust in people's doors. no. they wanted to have individual freedom. personal choice. they want people, parents, to take care of their kids. they didn't want an all-controlling nanny state to control our lives. that's what this country was supposed to be all about. i thought that's what republicans were supposed to be all about. i hope my republican colleagues will start re-examining whether or not they believe in the fundamental principles of limited government and individual freedom that we've always talked about. so i ask my colleagues to join me reaffirm what our founding fathers had in mind which is freedom, states' rights, limited

government and people making choices about their own lives and being responsible for their families and not shoving that off on the federal government. thank you very much. mr. fattah: reclaiming the balance of my time. i think i hear that echo again about the right to be left alone. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california continues to have 15 seconds do you choose to yield back. mr. rohrabacher: let me just say this. the chair: the gentleman from california california. mr. rohrabacher: i wish you would have talked to the very doctors and people i know that have been suffering and they've gone to their doctor and asked for help and the doctors have said yes, medical marijuana will help you to believe that the federal government can stop and i have met people who -- whose suffering has been alleviated. some veterans i know have gone through seizures after seizures and they were only helped by medical marijuana. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. rohrabacher: if we have a heart, if we have our beliefs, let's make sure we stand for freedom in that vote. the chair: 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 ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. fleming: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a roll call vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from mr. grayson: this is grayson amendment number 2- a. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title add the section, may be mused to

compel a person to testify about information or forces that the person states in a motion to quash a soup or reporter or he roord as confidential. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. grayson: this eement was passed last year by a vote of this body of 225 hufe 28 . it passed by a majority. and the federal shield law in 49 states and not at the level of the federal government. 49 states have a federal shield

law that the federal government does not. the right of news reports to refuse to testify against the information. in short should not be forced to reveal their sources. these issues have come up at the supreme court level beginning with the 197 case. in that case, a reporter wished to inform his heeders and the only way was too go and fine the drug . after he published his rot, he provideded his