ouse will be gaveling at noon. s just a couple seconds from now. -- it's just a couple seconds from now. work on a couple appropriations bills expected when legislative business gets under way this afternoon. for the second day in a row the commerce, justice and science bill will be considered with unlimited amendments allowed and eventually vote on final passage set for later today. with -- we could see members on the transportation, housing and urban development bill. very quickly, the senate's in today. senate lawmakers have been debating defense departments programs and policies. you can see the senate live on our companion network, c-span2. now live to the house floor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, rev rands william rice, cavalry baptist church, clear water, florida. the chaplain: father, we praise you as the author of life and we affirm with our founders

that you are the giver of our liberty. we ask that you would direct these who gather as members of congress to help govern our land, grant them wisdom beyond themselves, grant them humility to remember whom they serve and to whom they must give an ultimate account. grant them a deep burden for righteousness and a burning passion for justice. forgive us, lord, as a people, for walking in pride and imagining that we can long stand without your blessing. awaken us to a reverence for who you are as the living god and for your eternal truths. you, o lord, are a great and mighty god. yet you are also compassionate and gracious. be gracious to us still and grant us a spiritual awakening that will renew our nation from within. in jesus' name we pray this, amen. the speaker: 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 today will be led by the gentleman from georgia mr. graves. mr. graves: 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: without objection, the gentleman from florida, mr. jolly, is recognized for one minute. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to introduce my colleagues, our guest chaplain for the u.s. house of representatives today pastor willie rice of clearwater florida calvary baptist church. pastor willie is a florida native, returning to the church years later in 2004 to become the church pastor. pastor willie is joined in ministry by his wife cheryl and together they have three children. mr. speaker, calvary baptist church is a church that is

indeed alive. pastor willie and the family pastor each day through calvary christian school, by serving those in need through calvary cares and supporting foster care and adoption services, providing grief counseling and ministry and ministries to the deaf community. in each of thighs ministries, they remain focused on sharing the saving grace and the love of the christ whom we put our faith. living out this faith each day with a spirit of evangelism, a humble compassion and a heart of christian ministry. i ask my colleagues to welcome pastor willie and his wife cheryl. may god bless the rice family and the church family at clearwater's calvary baptist church. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded. the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: mr. speaker today i rise because i'd like to congratulate some very talented individuals in my district the allen american hockey team. i'm proud to represent the city of allen in washington, d.c. and everyone in colin county is lucky because we're able to call the allen americans our home team. they've had a stellar season. they're now on their way of winning their third straight championship. today the allen americans will play the south carolina stingrays in a game three of the kelly cup playoffs. i would like to say to the allen americans congratulations for making it this far. good luck tonight. your hometown believes in you and we can't wait to see you bring home your third championship. you've worked hard so go show them why you don't mess with

texas. go get the stingrays. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. higgins: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, 71 yoors ago this week, 160,000 allied troops landed on the beaches of northern france. 9,000 were killed or wounded on d day. their bravery and sacrifice made possible the liberation of a continent in the defeat of an evil ideological. the american heroes who fought at normandy are examples what we want our country to be -- courageous, generous, undeterred by a commitment to freedom but we owe veteran from d day to today more. we should remove the expiration dates in the g.i. bill so that veterans have access to education and training at any point in their career. we should pass an infrastructure plan with a preference in hiring veterans in the building and construction trades. we should help veterans keep

medical appointments by providing childcare at v.a. clinics and we should make sure that our veterans hospitals are state-of-the-art facilities. mr. speaker, this weekend i will join all americans to remember our soldiers who fought on d-day. my our country always be worthy of their sacrifice. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, it's with sincere gratitude i have the opportunity to recognize the legislator director of south carolina's second congressional district. i'd appreciate him. a native of south carolina and formerly of the award-winning u.s.c. golf team, baker has faithfully served on the staff for six years in various roles, including legislative director, legislative assistant and special assistant. his expertise on nuclear energy, trade and foreign affairs, combined with his

ability to connect with constituents and assist them has made a difference. especially promoting the missions of the savannah river site. it's with mixed feelings and great happiness that i bid baker farewell. he's moving on next week to serve as the director of the nuclear energy institute, n.e.i. this is a tremendous vote of confidence in his capability, his confidence, dedication and integrity. congratulations to his parents mike and debbie, along with his grandparents, sam and jenna and harriette for raising such a talented staff member. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. god speed, baker elmore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> 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. ashford: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to express my support and admiration for the ability one program.

this country's single largest provider of employment for people who are blind or have significant disabilities. ability one currently works with approximately 4,600 blind individuals and other -- over 44,000 disabled people. 3,000 of whom are military veterans or wounded warriors. helping them gain greater independence and a higher quality of life. this is accomplished by providing them both with the skills and training necessary to find valued jobs with good wages and benefits. congress first recognized the need for this type of program in 1938 and expanded upon it in 1971. today ability one delivers more than $2 billion in quality products and services to the federal government at fair market prices. it also provides critical support to the u.s. armed services for both military humanitarian operations. with the national network of nearly 600 community-based nonprofit agencies, ability one contracts projects in all 50 states, the district of

columbia, puerto rico and guam. with the participation of more citizens in the workplace, every community benefits from greater cultural disversity and awareness. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate 26 states, including my home state of texas, for stopping imperial white house dead in its tracks. far too long this president has forced his will on the american people with his pen and his phone. well, the fifth circuit of appeals has said enough is enough. last week the court of appeals upheld an injunction to stop the president's unilateral action that would have granted five million illegal aliens work permits and eroded the foundation of our system of government. i am not anti-immigration.

the constitution of the united states is clear. immigration and naturalizations are issues for congress and the american people to decide, not a self-declaring king sitting in the white house. lawlessness breeds lawlessness. last week texas and the fifth circuit secured the rule of law and i thank them for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker i rise today to share that the nation is desperate for a long-term 21st century transportation and infrastructure system that provides sustainable solutions to our nation's infrastructure crises. we can't kick the can down the road anymore. patching our roads and our budgets will not reverse the

serious decline in our infrastructure. in april of this year, i joined elected officials and community leaders in my district at the central ohio transit authority's new spring street terminal to stand up for transportation and call for a long-term funding bill. short-term patches like the one that was rushed through congress last month fails to meet the challenge of our nation's crumbling roads and bridges. even as other nations advance their infrastructure by leaps and bounds. mr. speaker, without meaningful long-term transportation bills that provide forward-thinking and predictable investments for our infrastructure, we are slamming the brakes on the economy and jobs. it is time to act. the clock is ticking. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate rome high school which was ranked as one of the best high schools in america by u.s. news and world report for the fourth year in a row. it also earned a silver ranking meaning rome high is one -- is one of the top 10% of schools nationwide. this is -- this shows the dedication, hard work put forward by rome high students the faculty and the staff. and in fact when the rome news tribune asked by the rankings, principal evans noted and, quote, we are striving for a gold rank of course. this commitment to hard work and doing the best you can embodies the values that make northwest georgia a great place to live, to work and to raise a family. congratulations to all those involved in the rome high school community, enjoy your summer break. you have earned it.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, boko haram with the help of isis has made a dangerous comeback. just yesterday boko haram attacked again, using a suicide bomber to kill 22 people. in his inauguration speech last friday, the president defound to -- vowed to defeat boko haram. i hope he remains committed to this vow because we here in congress will certainly remain committed to holding him accountable. we will continue to wear red in

solidarity with the thousands affected by the evils of boko haram. we will continue to tweet tweet, tweet #bringbackourgirls. listen to these headlines. kidnapped nigerian girls likely being used by boko haram as suicide bombers. u.s. signals willingness to widen the role in fighting boko haram, cheers. boko haram and isis are the worst sexual abusers. how boko haram is turning children into weapons. with isis, boko haram makes a deadly comeback. girls may be healed in underground bunkers. boko haram militants raped hundreds of female captives in nigeria. nigeria's boko haram -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. wilson: continue to tweet tweet, tweet

#bringbackourgirls. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> well mr. speaker, i rise to remember and celebrate a wonderful public servant from bloomington, minnesota arlene bush. mr. paulsen: she served on the bloomington school board for 33 years and volunteered for many year, but the longevity of arlene's service is just part of the story. arlene was known for the kindness she showed to everyone that she interacted with. superintendent of bloomington schools remember how arlene always approached decisions that the school board faced by asking what is best for the children. . she was a fixture at school events and the on a all art competition. she often took the time to tag along with myself when i visited schools. arlene's positive, kind and supportive spirit was contagious to those around her. her legacy will be remembered

far beyond the bloomington school board meeting room and the minnesota school board association award that bears her name. my condolences go out to arlene's family, to the bloomington public schools and to the entire bloomington community who mourn the loss of arlene but who celebrate a wonderful public servant. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today to ask my colleagues to support an important initiative. we celebrate and show honor to our veterans, fallen service members and those in the armed forces during memorial day and veterans day and then some respects we go about our business. those veterans and the men and women in the national guard and ready reserve need our continued support. we do that through health care educational initiatives, and other ways. we must do it as well to support them economically with

jobs. too many american service members remain unemployed. although the overall veteran unemployment rate has dropped in recent years, the rate of unemployed among our post-9/11 veterans is 7.2%. as our economy continues to improve, we must be sure that those who fight to defend this country are not left behind. the men and women who serve in the national guard and reserves are highly trained, well qualified individuals who add tremendous value to our employers' work force. let's make it easier for those employers and even incentivize them to bring the men and women who continue to serve and the national guard and reserve on their payrolls. through the hire hero act h.r. 2457 employers who receive a tax incentive to hire a national guard and reserveist -- reservist this would support small businesses providing them with highly skilled workers and assist our great men and women. please join me in supporting hire hero act. thank you, i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guinta: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. guinta: mr. speaker, i rise on behalf of the 5.3 million americans living with alzheimer's disease as we observe alzheimer's awareness month. families affected by this illness know firsthand, alzheimer's takes more than just memories it. takes the lives of love -- memories. it takes the lives of loves ones. alzheimer's is the only disease in the top 10 causes of death that cannot be slowed, stopped or prevented. the time to take action is now. it is our duty as members to work on behalf of the families who lose their loved ones to this devastating disease. on behalf of those individuals who slowly lose those pieces of themselves that made up who they once were, no one should have to go through such an

emotionally tolling process. as members -- as a member of the congressional alzheimer's caucus, i am devoted to raising awareness and devising solutions to once and for all end alzheimer's. together we can and must fight this important fight. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: thank you. this week marks the second anniversary of the blue lightning initiative, a d.h.s. and d.o.t. program to equip airline personnel with the tools to identify and save victims of human trafficking. i represent las vegas which attracts more than 42 million visitors every year. as a premier global destination we are sadly all too familiar with the impact of this heinous crime. clearly we must engage in an all hands on deck approach to identify and apprehend traffickers. which includes our airline personnel who are on the front

lines. that's why i'm introducing legislation to ensure all our airlines take on this challenge and close off the skies to those engaged in this modern day slavery. human trafficking is not the only issue that's facing our aviation industry, so i'll be hosting an industry leaders from across the country at an aviation symposium in my district next week to discuss how we can work together to strengthen our nation's aviation, create new job opportunities and foster economic growth. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, the cash valley transit district in logan, utah has received an excellence in motion award by the national community transportation association, as named as the urban community

transportation system of the year. among other criteria this award is given to a transportation system that demonstrates creative and innovative services that are response to have community needs and serves an urban area of more than 50,000 people. the cash valley transit district has a 19-year legacy of fair, free riding, a precedent for the nation. they have cultivated close relationships in the community through traditional and nontraditional partnerships, such as support for community art program, a new medical voucher program and buses which provide curbside service for the elderly and disabled. for these and other reasons, they certainly merit the excellence in motion award. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman voiced for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, right before the memorial day holiday congressman tim ryan

of ohio and i introduced h.r. 2555, the veterans wellness act, a bipartisan bill that will improve veterans' service organizations' ability to promote good health among our nation's veterans. this is critical at a time when an average of 22 veterans take their lives by suicide each and every day. mr. speaker veterans across the country turn to these organizations to participate in a wide variety of programs to build and cultivate a community of support among fellow veterans. these facilities are a place of comfort, of familiarity, for thousands of men and women and their families. the veterans wellness act will expand upon what these organizations are currently doing and create a greater number of opportunities for veterans to access wellness programs and therapies. mr. speaker, it is our responsibility to be there for our nation's heroes as they begin transitioning back to civilian life. i ask my colleagues to join me and congressman ryan in supporting this bipartisan bill. we owe these brave men and women no less.

thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yoder: mr. speaker, yesterday the president signed into law the u.s. freedom act. it's a bill i oppose because i believe it continues to allow unwarranted intrusions into the innocent lives of americans in contradiction to the vision of our founders and our constitution. but what's most important to remember about this debate is that even with the reforms in the u.s.a. freedom act, a provision of law in the electronic communications privacy act on the book since 1986 still allows government investigators to read the emails texts and information stored in the cloud or on any server of all americans at any time without a warrant without probable cause and without any due process. our federal law gives digital communication little to no protections under the forth amendment, regardless of the reforms signed into law

yesterday. a lot has changed in email communication since 1986 and that is why you must pass the email privacy act, a broad bipartisan bill with over 270 co-sponsors which would give email, digital communication, the same fourth amendment protections as paper mail or letters on our desks. mr. speaker let's pass this legislation, let's pass h.r. 699, and let's assure the american people that government has moved into the 21st century and not forgotten the constitution along the way. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in remembrance of whatdya pendleton, a young woman from my home state of illinois who was shot tragically in chicago when she was only 15. hadia would have been 18 years old yesterday. in her memory her friends asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing

orange. yesterday i joined with my colleagues in the house to honor her memory in the united states house of representatives. mr. dold: mr. speaker, every single day in the united states nearly 300 people are victims of handgun violence. yesterday gun owners, sportsmen, lawmakers faith leaders, teachers, students and more wore orange to bring attention to the issue of handgun violence. it is my home that this nonpartisan unifying action will show that victims of gun violence like hadia are not forgotten. mr. speaker, we must set aside our partisan differences so that we may honor the victims of this tragic and unnecessary violence and come together to make our homes, our businesses and schools and communities safer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 288 and ask for its

immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 37, house resolution 288, resolved that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2289, to authorize the commodity futures trading commission to better protect futures customers, to provide end users with market certainty, to make basic reforms to ensure transparency and accountability at the commission, to help farmers, ranchers and end users manage risks to help keep consumer costs low and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five minute d rule. in lieu of the amendment -- five minute d rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five minute d rule -- five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-18. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a subs constitute shall be in order -- substitute shall be in order except those printed. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, the committee on appropriations may at any time before 5:00 p.m. on friday,

june 5, 2015, file a privilege -- file privileged reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. mr. speaker, on tuesday the rules committee met and reported a rule, house resolution 288, providing for the consideration of a very important piece of legislation, house resolution 2289, the commodity end user relief act. the rule provides for

consideration of h.r. 2289 under a structured rule and makes five amendments in order. mr. newhouse: two democrat and two republican, as well as one bipartisan amendment. allowing for a balanced debate on these important issues. . h.r. 2289 is essential to the smooth functioning of the economy and is long overdufort enactment into law. this important legislation will re-authorize the commodity futures trading commission, also known as the cftc, which had its statutory authority lapse in september of 2013. the house passed with strong bipartisan support a very similar version of this legislation on june 24 of last year. unfortunately, the senate failed to take up the house-passed bill despite its strong bipartisan support in the house leading us to reconsider this legislation again today.

after the financial crisis of 2008 almost everyone agreed that changes needed to be made to our financial services sector in order to protect our economy and prevent another crisis in the future. like many of my colleagues, i have concerns with some of the reforms that were instituted in response to this financial calamity. because they have put overly burdensome restrictions on our business communities. however, it is important to note that this legislation keeps intact the overarching reforms made in title 7 of the dodd-frank act. every witness that appeared in front of the agriculture committee was supportive of the clearing, margining and execution requirements that are the heart of title 7 but, like every major comprehensive law -- and this was very

compressive -- there are always unintended consequences that need to be addressed and h.r. 2289 does just that. for example, the authors of dodd-frank would likely argue the law's main purpose is to reduce systemic risk to the economy. however, i don't think anyone would argue that farmers, who are simply trying to lock in a good price for their corn or their wheat, are a systemic risk to our economy. just as restaurant chains looking to make sure they have enough beef or pork or potatoes to sell to their patrons, also do not pose a systemic risk. utility companies seeking to ensure that they have enough power to meet the needs and demands of their customers did not cause the financial crisis. unfortunately, though, the current law imposes rules that treat all of these entities as major risks to our economy and

imposes overly burdensome capital and paperwork requirements on them. mr. speaker critics may claim this bill undermines consumer protections. however, this could not be further from the truth. title 1 of h.r. 2289 puts in place greater consumer protections like requiring brokerage firms to notify investors before moving funds from one account to another in order to prevent abuses like those that occurred at m.f. global prior to its bankruptcy. it would also require firms that become undercapitalized to immediately report to regulators and work with them to restore adequate capital and financial security. these title 1 provisions are commonsense reforms that will protect consumers. title 2 would make reforms to the cftc itself such as strengthening the cost-benefit

analysis the cftc must perform when considering the impacts of its rules and appointing a chief economist to assist with compiling and analyzing financial data. critics may claim that requiring cost benefit analyses will open up the cftc to lawsuits which would be costly. however, such critics also ignore the endless cycle of proposal and reproposals of rules that are rushed, poorly conceived and unworkable. this work requires the cftc to waste staff time and commission funds to redraft rules or to provide work-arounds for impacted parties. this requirement merely gives the cftc a standard for writing good rules the first time that will benefit our economy and the users. title 2 would also require the cftc to take steps to invest in i.t. to protect sensitive market data against

cyberattacks. a very real issue given the recent reaches we've seen at the i.r.s. and various national retailers. most importantly this section re-authorizes the cftc until 2019, which has been operating without our authorization to spend money for a year and a half. title 3 now gets to the heart of what i mentioned earlier, providing relief to the end users or the farmers, the restaurants, the manufacturers the utilities and other entities who rely on a steady supply of commodities but have been caught up in the unintended consequences of dodd-frank's reforms. these users have a genuine need to use markets to hedge against bad weather, natural disasters inflation, price shocks and other unforeseen circumstances that could jeopardize their ability to serve their customers. these entities inherently want to avoid risk and thus

shouldn't be subject to the same requirements as financial and investment entities. mr. speaker, title 3 of h.r. 2289 makes significant reforms to aid these end users such as preventing utility companies from being inappropriately classified as financial entities and being treated like banks under the law. it exempts end users who are not otherwise regulated by the cftc from having to keep records of every email, phone call, fax letter with regard to every trade, a huge record keeping burden. it would prevent nonbank swap dealers from having to hold more capital than banks do, which would put them at an unfair disadvantage in the market. additionally, this section would allow end users operating in rarely traded markets not to have to disclose trade data which can be a serious disadvantage if they must publicly show all of their trading partners what they are

buying and selling. title 3 would also require the cftc to determine if foreign swaps -- the rules for foreign swaps with equivalent to u.s. rules and create a workable system of substituted compliance for market participants whose activity across multiple jurisdictions. this would ensure that businesses which trade internationally do not have to comply with two sets of divergent rules. mr. speaker, the most important thing to remember about h.r. 2289 is that the farmer who grows the food that you eat for dinner did not cause the financial crisis. neither did the people you buy your electricity from or the people who provided the wood for your desk or the metal used in your car. i do not know of any reason why we should continue to treat them as if they did, which is what the current law does and which is what h.r. 2289 is

seeking to correct. mr. speaker this is a good, straightforward rule allowing for consideration of important legislation that will help grow our economy and i support its adoption. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you. i thank the gentleman from washington mr. newlaos, for the customary 30 minutes -- mr. newhouse, for the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend and i i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation. since my friends on the other side of the aisle assumed the majority, they have made it their mission to undermine the dodd-frank act and hamstring the ability of our regulators to put in place strong rules to prevent another financial crisis. and this legislation is no

exception. h.r. 2289 re-authorizes the commodity futures trading commission through 2019 while making substantial changes to the cftc's internal operations and rolling back key dodd-frank provisions intended to strengthen our financial regulatory framework. i have specific concerns with the new cost benefit requirements imposed in title 2 of the legislation. the cftc already conducts cost-benefit analyses on their rule makings and this could slow down the rulemaking process while also creating openings that will put the cftc at the risk of increased litigation. title 2 of h.r. 2289 also proposes several unnecessary changes to the commission's internal operations that can make it more difficult to manage the agency. according to the cftc chairman, title 2 could pique weaken the

commission to respond in a timely and effective manner. for example, if these measures were currently in place, it would have made it more difficult for the agency to positively respond over the past 10 months to concerns raised by market participants. also included in this bill is substantial changes to rule makings taking place at the commission under the dodd-frank act. i'm particularly concerned by the cross-border language contained in the bill which will undercut the efforts already under way by the commission to negotiate on international -- to negotiate on an international system of safe and robust derivative rules that are necessary to apply to the global derivatives market. h.r. 2289 requires the cftc to create a rule that will automatically allow u.s. banks and foreign banks conducting business in the u.s. to do so under the rules imposed by foreign jurisdictions, all of which are currently more lenient than our own. we've seen this kind of race to

the bottom before and we all know how it ends. worse yet, mr. speaker, is that this legislation hamstrings an agency that is already woefully underfunded. the congressional budget office estimates that the cftc will need 30 additional personnel annually to handle the increased workload imposed by both the new cost-benefit analysis requirements and the mandated cross-border rule contained in this legislation. will my friends on the other side of the aisle provide the necessary funding increases to the cftc to carry out these requirements? i doubt it. dodd-frank significantly expanded the cftc's role in overseeing our financial markets and they have already completed over 80% of the required rulemakings, the best of any financial regulator. they have done so despite the fact that congress has not done its part to provide the agency with the resources it needs to police these incredibly complex markets, populated by highly

sophisticated and extremely powerful entities. remember a.i.g., the insurer brought down by derivatives trades that the cftc is now policing? if that memory is fuzzy, i'm sure you remember the funds we provided to bail a.i.g. out that came to a total of $67.8 billion. that would be enough to fund the cftc at the level requested in the president's budget for over 200 years. the commission needs a re-authorization but it certainly doesn't need one saddled with changes that will hamstring its internal operations through an inflexible cost-benefit analysis requirement that opens it to litigation risk and force it to allow a race to the bottom on international rules governing the global market. so i ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington

is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i see my colleague, the chairman of the committee, has come. before i yield to the floor to him, i'd like to make one comment in response to my colleague from massachusetts considering underfunded the cftc. you know, in the last five years through the reductions of federal spending, the efforts have been going on, i think anyone would be hard pressed to find another agency that received an almost 50% increase in their budget over that period of time. just to point out that certainly they have received a lot of new responsibilities under dodd-frank but also a large increase in their available resources. mr. speaker, i'd like at this point to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the house agriculture committee mr. conaway. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to rise in support of h.r. 2289, the commodity end-user relief act. i want to start by thanking chairman sessions and the

entire rules committee for their work. yesterday's hearing was spirited but fair and they produced a rule that reflects the tremendous work the ag committee has put on this issue. over the past few years the ag committee has heard from dozens of witnesses at over 10 hearings. these witnesses, many of which are market participants, struggling to comply with the needly burdensome rules and rules of the underlying statute has been consistent if their call to action. to address their concerns, h.r. 2289 makes targeted reforms. customer protection, commission reforms and end user relief. title 1 of the bill protects customers and margin funds they deposit by codifying critical changes made in the wake of the collapse of the bankruptcy of m.f. global and paragon falcon. and title 2 improves the agency's deliberative process. in doing so it also requires the commission to conduct more probust cost-benefit analysis to help get future rulemakings right the first time and

reproposing and not delaying workable rules. while they consider cost and benefits it proposes, this bill tries to legit maze -- legitimize that practice, the practice that was called into question by the own inspector general who views the process as more of a legal one than an economic one. title 3 of the bill fixes real problems by end users who rely on on derivatives markets. it discourages them from the -- it discourages the exact kind of prudent risk management activities congress intended to protect with the end user exemption in dodd-frank. according to the bill provides relief to agriculture and commercial market participants struggling to comply with the overreaching and costly record keeping requirements. it allows utility companies to continue using contracts that allow a change -- offer a change at the volume of the commodity delivered without the worry of needlessly complied

swaps regulations. h.r. 2289 will preserve end-user ability by providing a more workable definition of bonified hedging. the bill also addresses the serious concerns regarding the lack of harmony and clarity by requiring the cftc to publish a rule addressing how the u.s. swaps requirements apply to transactions occurring outside the united states and with non-u.s. persons. to be clear, 2289 makes these meaningful improvements for market participants without undermining the basic goals of title 7 of dodd-frank, the holy grail to bring clear reporting and electronic execution requirements to swaps transactions. in closing i'd like to thank the members of the ag committee including mr. newhouse to support this legislation. and mr. lucas who worked on re-authorization last year which was our starting point for this year as well as our -- some of our newest members. i'd also particularly thank to mr. austin scott and mr. david scott, the chairman and ranking

member of the subcommittee respectfully that oversees the cftc. both of these gentlemen have joined me as original sponsors and have held a series of hearings on re-authorization. . mr. newhouse: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. conaway: helping a new subcommittee focus on these issues and i look forward to their diligent oversight work throughout the rest of the congress. similar to the cftc re-authorization bill, the commodity end user relief act is comprised of narrowly targeted changes to the c.e.a., the committee is has again put together a bill that earned the bipartisan support of our members because we brought the right relief to the right people. with that, mr. speaker, i urge the adoption of the rule and support for the underlying act. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i just want to point out to my colleague from washington state, with regard to the funding of the cfpb, that the agency -- cftc, that it has

never received the funding it has requested. that's just a fact. and here we are imposing new requirements, new mandates c.b.o. as i mentioned in my opening estimates that the cftc will need an additional 30 personnel annually to handle the increased work load imposed by the new cost-benefit analysis requirements of the mandated cross-border rule contained in the provisions in this bill. and so we're asking an agency that has never been properly funded to even do more and not provide it with the proper funding. i don't think that's a smart way to move forward when it comes to, you know, an issue so important. i also want to point out to my colleagues that they should have received a letter from the consumer federation of america strongly opposing this bill. let me just read you the first paragraph. it says, we're writing on behalf of the consumer fed ravings america to ask you to

oppose -- federation of america to ask you to oppose the bill which the house is expected to vote on this month. this legislation would ham string the commodity futures trading commission from effectively overseeing and regulating commodities and drisktives markets leaving consumers -- derivatives markets, leaving consumers open to fraud, manipulation and abusive practices and putting the safety and stability of the u.s. financial system at risk. the language in this bill largely mirrors the language offered in last year's cftc re-altogetheration bill which the obama administration strongly owe -- re-authorization bill which the obama strongly opposed which offer nod solution to address the inadequacy of the agency's funledsing. we urge you to resist this relentless attack on the cftc by voting against this misguided and harmful legislation and, mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert this in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i would urge my colleagues who are observing this debate each one of them received the copy of this letter, strongly opposing this bill. at this point mr. speaker, i'd

like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia the ranking member of the agriculture subcommittee on commodity exchanges, energy and credit mr. scofment the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you very much mr. speaker. first of all, let me say that as the gentleman does mention, i do serve as the chairman of the jurisdictional committee on commodities and futures in trading that the cftc comes under. i say that only to say that i've been in the vineyards on this issue and have been struggling with it and working on it over many, many years. the whole derivatives and the commodities and futures markets has changed dramatically. we've had a downfall in our economy because of a lot of activity that was wrong going on wall street and our financial community. out of which we are now emerging. but mr. speaker, what is urgent here is the fact that we

cannot delay any longer. it's very important for people to understand that no legislation is perfect. i'm the first one to say that. this is a glass that looks to be half empty or may be half full. i look at it as half full. and i look at it as an urgent, urgent issue. we have got to get end user relief. that is the major component of this re-authorization for the cftc. because it is the end users, our manufacturers, our farmers, those who produce the products, those who had nothing to do with the downfall of wall street, why should they be consistently held to the same intrinsic regulations and rules that our financial institutions have?

we've got to have those fg institutions under strong regulation, but it's important that we move and it's the important meat of this bill that we give end user relief. now i share mr. mcgovern's concerns about the financial situation. but let me just assure everyone this is a re-authorization piece of legislation. it is not a funding mechanism. that's in the boss am, in the hands of the -- bosom in the hands of the appropriations committee. and nobody, absolutely nobody has been a stronger champion, more consistent of getting the cftc the funding they need. i bring it up all the time. and i will still be a champion. but this isn't the bill of which to address that. the other point is this, mr. chairman. once we get the funding out of the way. we talked about the cost-benefit analysis in this. we worked on it. this bill received bipartisan support in the last session. mr. mcgovern brings up a very

good point about possible litigation. we addressed that by adding a democratic amendment by ms. dell bennie that addresses that issue -- den -- by ms. delbene that addresses that issue, to make sure there's no litigation. as far as the cost-benefit analysis is concerned mr. speaker, it is important that we put the same sort of cost-benefit analysis into this agency that the obama administration has in every one of their executive agencies. and furthermore, it's not mandate, it is an assessment. it is saying to assess the efficiencies. make sure we do it. and it does not put a requirement that any decision on the cost-benefit analysis outweighs one another as a requirement for them to make a decision. finally mr. speaker we must pass this bill and we need to

do it quickly. because in section 300 of this bill i think it's section 323, we address a crucial issue. the european union is eating our lunch. all across the world we're losing our stature as the leading financial industry and system in the world. that affects every ounce of our security. we are number one in the world. and it's about time we stand up and assure that. by making sure that we address this economic -- the european union's harsh discrimination against our financial institutions abroad. this is particularly true when it comes to our clearing houses . the standards that they're using. and now, mr. speaker, yes, we are dealing with eight foreign

countries, but they must have similar regimes. what we call equivalency. why is that important, mr. speaker? it's important because it is the cftc that must determine if another nation one of the eight top foreign nations -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: has an equivalency that -- mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you. to make sure that if that nation has an equivalency of a strong regulatory regime as the united states certainly we can do business under their regime. but as long as we don't pass this legislation the cftc doesn't have that. and finally on all the cross-border situations, we need a definition of what a u.s. person is.

and we need to give some backbone to our cftc commission to say look, why should the united states have to treat a foreign entity in a manner and with the respect that that foreign nation does not treat our industry? mr. speaker, this country, the united states is losing a tremendous amount of our prestige and our leadership on the world stage. and nowhere is that being pronounced more than in our financial system. because for three years we have had this late on the table. so i urge -- laid on the table. so i urge a positive vote for this rule and i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding me the time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: thank you mr. speaker. i'd just like to say, thank the

gentleman from georgia for his many years of hard work on this very complicated issue. as you can see, he understands it well and understands the importance of passing this re-authorization legislation and i just want to thank him for his comments and hard work. next i would like to yield three minutes to the esteemed gentleman from oklahoma, former chairman of the ag committee, mr. frank lucas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: thank you mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the underlying bill. h.r. 229 the commodity and users relief act. this bipartisan bill is a result of a series of hearings that the agriculture committee heard from stake holds that are do business with the cftc as well as every cftc commissioner. as chairman of the committee last year, i began the process of cftc re-authorization which resulted in the house-passed bipartisan bill. and i laud our committee chairman conaway, for his

efforts in tackling this same subject and coming to the full house with another bipartisan cftc re-authorization that passed the committee by a voice vote. a chief selling point of this bill is its commitment to good governance reforms at the cftc. to increase transparency and efficiency. first the bill closely follows an executive order by president obama to improve the cost-benefit analysis performed by the commission prior to promulgating rules. in addition the bill would improve this oversight of commissioners over activities which are outside the normal rulemaking process that still impact many futures market participants. many of these activities such as policy statements guidance and interpretation rules, released by cftc, would also be subject to public comment under the provisions of the bill. when they have the force of law. furthermore, h.r. 2289

establishes an office of chief economist at the cftc to provide objective economic data and analysis. the committee also heard from end users during this process and included several provisions to provide relief to those end users. such as a more workable definition of bona fide hedging and relief from burdensome record keeping rules for many businesses. the cftc has gone unauthorized since 2013 and it's time many cftc activities were reformed by congress. this rule will make possible the underlying bill that will improve the cftc in many important ways. i urge all of my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. newhouse: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is

recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to be clear on one thing. yes, this is an authorization bill. it is not an appropriations bill. but the issue for funding for the cftc is relevant in the discussion of this authorization bill because we are essentially proposing that we give additional responsibilities or require additional actions from the cftc with no guarantee that we are going to provide the resources for them to do their job. we haven't provided them the adequate resources to do what they have been expected to do from the very beginning. i also want to say that most end user relief in this bill is not objectionable, but the cftc is already addressing them through rule making. a better way to address these concerns than statute would be more flexibility for them to do rule making which can be adjusted. in addition to end user provisions this bill also contained all the problems already identified with regard to cost benefit and cross

border. there are some significant issues here. the delbene amendment was mentioned earlier. i want to make it clear that does not prevent litigation. it just restates the standard of review from an administrative procedure act abuse of correction. i would also point out to my colleagues that the cost benefit analysis is mandated. it is mandated by section 202. so again, i would feel better about all this if we addressed the funding shortfall in the cftc. we are not doing that. and i don't expect that this majority is going to work with us on that. i also want to ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to insert in the record a letter that was sent to all members of the house from the americans for financial reform strongly opposing h.r. 2289. let me read you the opening paragraph.

on behalf of americans for financial reform, we are writing to express our opposition to h.r. 2289. this legislation would have a severe negative impact on the commodity futures trading commission and it's ability to police commodity and derivative markets. the new restriction it is places on the cftc would require additional years of bureaucratic red tape prior to agency action. it would enable numerous industry lawsuits against the agency, and would create inappropriate statutory restrictions on the agency's ability to properly oversee markets crucial to the financial system. i urge all my colleagues to look in their mail for the letter for the americans for financial reform strongly opposed to this. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> mr. speaker i'd like to yield three minutes to the good gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today in support of this

resolution the underlying legislation house resolution 2289 the commodity end user relief act. as chairman of the agriculture subcommittee on commodity exchanges, energy, and credit i want to thank our chairman mr. conaway, for his strong leadership and making this re-authorization process a productive one through the full ag committee. i also want to thank my colleague from georgia and the ranking member of the commodities exchanges and energy credit subcommittee, mr. david scott. he's been a tremendous partner throughout this effort. and certainly continue to work well together. i thank you for that. derivatives markets exist to meet the risk management needs of farmers ranchers utilities manufacturers, and other end users. to be clear, these hedging activities directly benefit the american citizen by helping consumer costs load and reducing the risk of manufacturing in the united states. the ability producers and end

users to use the derivatives markets to hedge risk has a direct impact on the cost of living in my district. georgia's 8th congressional district. than any other district around the country. it's essential we have strong markets that our farmers, wranchers, and end users can utilize to meet their needs effectively. earlier this year, our subcommittee held three very productive hearings that built upon the work done in the past two congresses. when this re-authorization effort. in many hours of testimony, we hrd the perspectives from end users, market participants, and regulators that were instrumental in drafting this legislation. their testimony included outlooks or the unintentional impacts that the market reforms in the crisis were having on the end user commute. despite attempts to exempt users from the costly mandates, end users continue to face unnecessary regulatory burdens and uncertainty. with this legislation we have

the opportunity to erase that. house resolution 228 the the commodity end user leaf act seeks to clarify congressional intent and most importantly preserve the ability for these necessary risk management markets to serve those who need them. i believe we met these objectives of of ensuring our regulatory framework protects the integrity of our markets while not limiting the ability of end users to access these tools to conduct their business. i'm proud to support this resolution and the underlying legislation, mr. speaker, and i urge my colleagues to join me in so doing. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: can i inquire of the gentleman from washington how many additional speakers he has on his side? mr. new house: no additional speakers. mr. mcgovern: i'll close for our side. mr. speaker, i want to call to the attention of my colleagues the statement of administration

policy on h.r. 2289. and just read a little bit of it so that my colleagues understand how strongly the administration is opposed to this. the administration strongly opposes the passage of h.r. 2289 because it undermines the efficient functioning of the commodity futures trading commission by imposing a number of organizational and procedural changes that would undercut efforts taken by the cftc over the last year to address end user concerns. h.r. 2289 also offers no solution to address the percentcies tent inadequatecy of the agency's funding. the cftc is one of only two federal financial regulators funded through annual discretionary appropriations. and the funding the congress has provided for it over the past five years has failed to keep pace with the increasing complexity of the nation's financial markets. the changes proposed in h.r. 2289 would hinder the ability of the cftc to operate effectively

thereby threatening the financial security of the middle class by encouraging the same kind of risky irresponsible behavior that led to the great recession. the statement concludes, mr. speaker by saying, if the president were presented with h.r. 2289, his seniors advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. i think that basically says it all. while i respect the intentions of my colleagues who drafted this bill, i think it is a deeply flawed bill and it creates hurdles for the cftc that will not be fully funded. and will cause all kinds of problems. and i think we ought to be -- we ought to make sure that the cftc can do its job. i don't want a repeat of the financial crisis that resulted in the great recession. i think the american people don't want a repeat of that. and i get very wary when i see

this congress chipping away at dodd-frank, the provisions of dodd-frank that get us back to what got us into this mess to begin with. i think we can do a lot better. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and vote no on the underlying bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. new house: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. newhouse: thank you mr. speaker. i appreciate that. i appreciate the good discussion here today over the past hour people on both sides of the aisle making good comments and points. as relates to the last comment from mr. mcgovern that talked about chipping away at dodd-frank. everything we do around here is fine-tuning it's improving what has been passed in past congresses. has been legislation, laws on the books that need improvement. i see that as what we are doing here today. i appreciate very much the comments. although we may have some differences, i believe that this

rule and the underlying bill are very strong measures that are important to the future of our country. this rule provides for ample debate on the floor. the opportunity to debate and vote on the bill and numerous amendments which i would note are divided evanly between democrat and republican members of this chamber. -- evenly between democrat and republicans of this chame letter. -- chamber. this rule will provide for a smooth and deliberative process for sending this bill over to the senate for their consideration. h.r. 2289 is a solid and substantial measure that will address several critical issues that the cftc and end users are facing. mr. speaker, no one wants to see the come pleat deregulation of our financial services industry, and our commodities and derivative markets. i appreciate the comments from the gentleman from massachusetts. however, it's critical that the regulations put in place are

appropriate for our economy and as well as for the users. these rules have to provide safeguards and prevent systemic risk, but cannot catch our entire economy in a one-size-fits-all regulation. as we have discussed here today, the current rules place enormous paperwork and financial burdens on small businesses. and that cannot go unstated. our small businesses, our ranchers, utilityities, and manufacturers all face these financial burdens. they take these small risks -- risk adverse entities and place them under the same regulatory scheme as large financial institutions and hedge funds. h.r. 2289 will differentiate and exempt the end users who are not a cause of systemic risk and should not have been lumped into these rules in the first place. the underlying bill would also make much needed reforms in the

cftc to strengthen their rule making process and add commonsense consumer protections. overall, this is a strong rule that provides for consideration of this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 288 and the underlying bill. with that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 182. the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to house resolution 287 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2578. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk, kindly take the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2578, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill 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 chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. austin scott, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 98, line 20. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following

order. amendment by mr. pittenger of north carolina. an amendment by mr. nadler of new york. an amendment by mr. farr of california. an amendment number one by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. an amendment by mr. foster of illinois. amendment number 9 by ms. bonamici of oregon. an amendment by mr. ellison of minnesota. first amendment by mr. grayson of florida. an amendment by mr. rohrabacher of california. second amendment by mr. grayson of florida. an amendment by mr. mcclintock of california. an amendment by mr. perfecty of pennsylvania. an amendment by mr. garrett of new jersey. the amendment will reduce to a two-minute time for any electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by mr. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger, on which further proceedings were postponed and the yeas reveiled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. pittenger of north carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for 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 163, the nays are 263. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr.

nadler, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 170rk the nays are 256. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. farr, on which further

proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redisnat the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. farr of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 153 the nays are 273, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 168. the nays are 257.

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the cleric will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. foster of oil now. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and remain standing. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. 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 195. the nays are 232. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. bonamici of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and remain staining. 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 -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 282. the nays are 146. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 184. the nays are 244. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: first amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the requested vote will rise and be counted. 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 27. the nays are 399, one voting present. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california mr. rohrabacher, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. cleag. the clerk: --

the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the chair: an amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher of colorado. the chair: a request for a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 242. the nays are 186. the amendment is adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: a recorded vote's been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 2 45. the nays are 182. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 206. the nays 222. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. perry on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: a vorded vote has been -- recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 297. the nays are 130. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the

amendment by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which further proceedings were postponed on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: a across-the-boarded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. 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 232. the nays are 196. the amendment is adopted.

the chair: the committee will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, seek recognition? mr. massie: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify which amendment. mr. massie: this is an amendment dealing with limitation on the d.o.j. in implementing enforcement of hemp. industrial hemp.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. massie of kentucky. 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 in contravention of section 7606 legitimacy of industrial hemp research or the agricultural act of 2014 public law 113-79 by the department of justice or the drug enforcement administration. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from kentucky and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: thank you mr. chairman. i rise today with four of my colleagues to offer a bipartisan amendment simply requires the d.e.a. to comply with federal law.

the passage of our amendment to the 2014 farm bill legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp for research purposes and has allowed for the establishment of industrial hemp pilot programs in states across the country. in fact, in my home state of kentucky alone, nearly 1,800 acres of hemp are projected to be grown this summer in these pilot programs however, despite the clear language of our farm bill amendment, the specifically states that state agriculture agencies and universities will be growing the industrial hemp for research, the d.e.a. has continuously ignored the plain text of the federal statute. the d.e.a. continues to waste valuable time and taxpayer dollars by holding up nonpsycho active hemp seeds destined for legitimate hemp pilot programs. last year, officials from the state of kentucky were forced to file a lawsuit in federal court to compel the d.e.a. to release industrial hemp seeds intended for university pilot programs.

. this year participants did not receive their seeds until just a few weeks before the start of the growing season. the language is clear, state authorities, not the d.e.a., shall register the sites where hemp will be grown. the d.e.a.'s deliberate refusal to acknowledge this simple fact has resulted in a broken process where the d.e.a. on fiss indicates and delays -- obficates and delays. the d.e.a. will delay shipment of hemp seeds before they deliver their destination. i urge a yes vote on our amendment to require the d.e.a. to follow federal law and i yield one minute to the gentleman from kentucky. >> the kentucky general assembly passed senate bill 50 which exempted hemp and mandate that kentucky follow all rules and regulations with respect to

industrial hemp. last year i was proud to support an amendment to the 2015 farm bill along with thomas massie which authorized state departments of agriculture in states where industrial hemp is legal to administrator industrial hemp pilot programs for the purpose of research and development. the department of kentucky agriculture in collaboration with my constituent, the university of kentucky college of agriculture, has since facilitated through farmers the cultivation of nearly 2,000 acres of hemp this year alone in kentucky. hemp holds a promise. henry clay was a large producer of industrial hemp. it can be used for food, horse beding, animal feed, textiles makeup, rope pharmaceuticals, etc. i met with a partnership of tobacco farmers botanist and even law enforcement officials who put up their own capital

into industrial hemp projects which they think will spark a profitable business. mr. barr: this is about jobs and i yield back to my friend from kentucky. mr. massie: mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania for what purpose does do you rise? mr. fattah: i rise to claim the time in opposition even though i'm not actually in opposition. the chair: is there objection to the gentleman claiming time? >> i object. i rise to claim time in opposition. mr. fattah: i yield. i yield to my good friend. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, you know, the job of the d.e.a. is not simple. mr. harris: the job of the d.e.a. is to stop drug abuse in the united states and sometimes the job isn't easy and when it comes to hemp the job isn't easy because, mr. chairman, hemp and marijuana are both

cannabis. and you can't tell the seeds from one another and it may be difficult for the d.e.a. to determine because they are supposed to determine that the seeds used for hemp are below a certain level of t.h.c., less than .23 and that doesn't -- you can't tell by look. you have to test, you have to make certain these seeds are in fact going to be used and qualify for the purposes of these pilot hemp programs. the fact of the matter there really is no evidence that d.e.a. does not comply with federal law. they're fully complying with federal law. the authors of the amendment said the seeds were there in time for planting. the fact of the matter is this is not an easy job. under section 7606 of the farm bill, industrial hemp and pilot projects were authorized. clearly d.e.a. licenses are not needed. if they are granted through the state departments of agriculture or academic institutions and the programs are proceeding. the fact of the matter is this amendment obfiscates the

distinction between marijuana and hemp. it partially ties the hands of d.e.a. to do what they need to do which is to function as controllers of drugs in this country and i yield a minute of time to the gentleman from louisiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman and i certainly agree with dr. harris. i rise also in opposition to this amendment. cultivation of cannabis for industrial purposes is governed by the controlled substance act and that includes hemp. mr. fleming: and it is pursuant to title 21 united states code. in addition, the agricultural act of 2014 permits, quote, institutions of higher learning and state departments of agriculture to grow or cultivate industrial hemp. but let's make one thing clear. the d.o.j. says they have no intention at all of interfering with what's being provided for in this department of

agriculture permit, but they still have control, they still have oversight and responsibility and as a result of that they should do that. now, if there's any delay along the way, certainly we should help with that, we should facilitate administratively but the potential for abuse here is very significant. the d.e.a. must retain control in law enforcement, in oversight to hemp, which is a cannabis, just like marijuana. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. chairman, may i inquire as to how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. massie: two minutes. i'd like to yield 45 seconds to my colleague from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barr: and to my good friend, dr. harris, in response. we are talking about state license programs where the law enforcement officials in kentucky can identify permitted land where this hemp is grown so that if it is in an

unpermitted place, whether it's legal industrial hemp -- otherwise legal industrial hemp or marijuana it will be illegal if it's not on a permitted piece of property. there's no conflict with law enforcement. but the fact of the matter is that last year the d.e.a. delayed the seeds and delayed the planting of this legitimate, lawful federally authorized industrial hemp project. this is about jobs. this is not about marijuana. in fact, as my voting record just demonstrates in the last series of votes, i voted against every single amendment that would have decriminalized or facilitated marijuana. this is not about marijuana. this about low t.h.c. industrial hemp and it's about jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to my colleague from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and i appreciate his leadership. focused like a laser on something where it is not like

marijuana. for general rations americans have used hemp. it's just been recently that it's been compromised so we have to import hemp from overseas to make perfectly legal hemp products you can buy in any american city. this is an important step forward to be able to allow kentucky farmers, oregon farmers to do something that they have done for generations. it's about economic development. it's about being rational and it's about being able to focus on things that are important. i deeply appreciate the gentleman's focus and patience, keeping us on message here to be able to make sure we're not having federal interference for something that is state supervised, where states around the country want to allow this for their farmers and their ranchers. i think it's an important step forward and i appreciate his leadership in permitting me to speak on it. i yield back. mr. massie: i certainly thank the gentleman from oregon and i would just say that these

hemp pilot programs have been tremendous in kentucky and have answered all of the questions. the questions that law enforcement had. they came and visited the fields. they said you're right there is no big deal here. it's ok. that's the important thing about these hemp programs and we need to keep them going and we need to take it to the next level and we can't afford delays. you can't afford a delay when the weather's not always cooperating with the you. a week, two weeks could ruin you, and so i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. it's just common sense. all we're asking is to follow the law. i mean, how hard is that? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. massie: thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. harris: may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. harris: thanks, mr. chairman. let's review the situation. last year it wasn't the d.e.a. that held up the seeds. it was getting an import license and then subsequent to that obviously the d.e.a. had to test those seeds. the u.s. congress has set out a

very clear plan for how we're going to increase the use of industrial hemp in this country and it involves first pilot programs in states where it's legal, like kentucky like oregon, but subject to the oversight of -- under the controlled substance act of the d.e.a. the d.e.a. has to be certain since all seeds are now imported, eventually under this plan they won't be. obviously at some point we'll progress to a point where our industrial hemp seeds are grown here in the united states but they're not now. importing seeds and testing them is not a quick process but it's a process that has to be done. the fact of the matter is hemp and marijuana are both cannabis. they are related. you can't tell the seeds apart. you have to test these seeds. our drug problem is serious. i'm glad i don't have to do the job the d.e.a. does. dealing with controlling drugs that destroy lives in this country. sure, is it a process that sometimes might take time? yes, but that time is well worth taking.

down the road we are going to get to the proper industrial hemp production. it's got to be done under the control process. the d.e.a. has these in place. the department of agriculture has these protocols in place. state departments do. this is a bill that is -- this amendment is just unnecessary, and worse than that, it obscures the fact that it could die d.e.a. hands from doing what it needs to do which is controlling dangerous substances. and i yield back the time. i urge the body to reject the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. massie: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. massie: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed.

mr. massie: -- the chair: does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. massie: yes mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman specify which amendment? mr. massie: this is an amendment dealing with ammunition. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. massie of kentucky. 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 treat ammunition as armor piercing for purposes of chapter 44 of title 18 united states code except for ammunition designed and intended for use in a handgun in accordance with 18 u.s.c. section 921-a-17. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from kentucky and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: thank you, mr. chairman. back in march the a.t.f. backed off on a controversial proposal to restrict the use of so-called green tip ammunition. some of the most popular ammunition in the country. in fact, it's used in the popular rifle, the ar-15. the batfe received over 80,000 comments, primarily from citizens who oppose the federal bureau's attempt to restrict their second amendment rights and so the a.t.f. rescinded its proposal. in my opinion, the proposed restriction was based on a flawed application of chapter 18 of united states code. if you go back and look at the debate that was -- occurred in congress, you'll see the legislation that was written was clearly meant to cover handgun ammunition. it was never meant to cover rifle ammunition. in fact, there was a debate at the time whether there should

be -- whether they should limit so-called armor piercing ammunition by its functionality. in other words, its efficacy, or whether they should limit it by its design. and they chose to limit it by its design because if you limit it by its functionality what you find out is darn near all rifle ammunition will -- will penetrate a vest. and so -- the common vest. in fact, most lethal are deer rifles. and so a deer rifle is more lethal in terms of penetrating a vest than would be, say, for instance, an assault rifle so-called assault rifle that shoots a much smaller caliber. in any case, what happened is one pistol was made and came on the market or a few pistols were made, handguns were made that could be chambered with this round but the round was designed and intended for use in a rifle, not in a handgun. so the clear text of the statute, in my opinion

excludes rifle rounds. but what's happened is recently the a.t.f. -- now this is only one example. that i have recently, they proposed to ban the green tip ammunition. otherwise known as s.s.-1809. also known at 556 ammunition, where there is a lot of public backlash so they backed off of that. what a lot of people don't know is they already did ban some ammunition with this flawed interpretation. they banned the 7-n-6 which is a 5.45 by 39 round. so it was a mistake that happened and we need to correct this mistake. we need to prevent future mistakes and the best way to do is to -- flawed interpretations. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. .

mr. fattah: we are at a different point of view. but i note the majority that is enthusiasm for gun amendments on this appropriations bill. and it is making it almost impossible for us to deal with the challenges for the subcommittee around spending when we keep getting meyered down in this -- these gun policy rights. so i would just say that if the majority's view that this somehow is an appropriate vehicle to express your love for guns of all types, ammunition of all types -- and my view would be is we should make it permissible for any gun that you bring into the capitol, bring it into schools or colleges or any ammunition you bring into the

capitol that might be the way to proceed, but the majority doesn't have any enthusiasm for the second amendment when it comes to people coming into the united states capitol because we know that guns can be dangerous. we know that people can be harmed. we know in fact, that there were members when the attack happened right here on this floor. that's why we have on the back of these chairs certain protections. so we know the dangers of guns and ammunition and it's unfortunate we would use an appropriation vehicle to move these policy matters which are controversial. but you want them to attach to a must-pass appropriation bill one that is about our economy and about innovation, an appropriations bill that is dealing with a whole set of issues and you make it challenging for members who have a different point of view on

some of these controversial policy issues like guns, and the access to them. and some might interpret the second amendment is that you want a bazooka or mx missile that you have the right to have it. there are others think that reasonable regulation might be the better course of action, like we have at the whol which is like you can't bring a gun into this facility, unless you have a lawful reason to do so and we regulate that very strictly. i'm in opposition to this amendment. i take nothing against my colleague, who i enjoy working with on a whole range of issues. and i agree with him on health and disagree with him on guns and hope we can move this bill forward as we have been trying to do since the chairman's mark in the subcommittee and not get

it mired down in unnecessary controversial items that are not attached to how much money we are going to spend for these various accounts, to move these agencies of our government forward. and i yield back. -- i'm sorry, i yield to the chairman. mr. culberson: -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. does the gentleman from pennsylvania yield back his time? mr. fattah: as the chair has ruled, i yield back i would be glad to yield any amount of my time to my good friend chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: thank you very much. i support this amendment because it's become necessary to put restrictions like this on the

bill because the a.t.f. under president obama has -- did attempt to prohibit 223 ammunition that is used in one of the most popular and widely available sporting rifles in the united states. the new director of the a.t.f., i thank him and professional law enforcement officers at the a.t.f. that came in to see me when i was the brand new subcommittee chairman. we had a good visit and looked at the statute and the director and his chief counsel understood that the guidelines that they had created went beyond the statute and recognized they were going to have a difficult budget year if they persisted to interfere with american second amendment rights. and i was very grateful that director chose to drop their attempted prohibition on 223 ammunition after our meeting and in response to the 80,000

letters and requests from members of congress so the a.t.f. did drop their attempt to ban ammunition. but mr. massie's amendment is necessary because i think it's important to make it clear that we don't want the obama administration coming back and attempting to ban ammunition again. i remember as a student of american history that the general in boston didn't go after the weapons first but the ammunition. mr. fattah: maybe you can inform me but i believe the restrictions of armor piercing bullets predate the administration. mr. culberson: a.t.f. was -- the statute says that you cannot use an armor piercing ammunition that includes depleted uranium and has very specific things that congress restricted -- was

focused on the content of the bullet rather than what type of weapon it could be used in. and the a.t.f.'s -- they created a legal framework for analysis, which is fairly standard for this administration. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: how much time is left? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. massie: i yield a minute to the chairman. mr. culberson: it is important to have this language in the bill because the a.t.f. just as in the e.p.a.'s attempt to regulate every square inch of the united states include any piece of ground. the e.p.a., a.t.f. and obama administration requires a legal framework for analysis to expand their executive authority far beyond what congress intended. and in this attempt, i was successful in persuading the

director and the a.t.f. to drop their ban on .223 ammunition. which be be monitoring over the a.t.f. to ensure they don't do it again. i welcome the amendment to help drive home the point that the second amendment of the united states constitution is written in plain english and guarantees the right of americans to keep and bear arms. i welcome your amendment, mr. massie, and i encourage members to support it. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i appreciate the effort that the chairman put in to make sure that our 556223 ammunition did not get banned. and i appreciate my colleague from pennsylvania's comments as well. i'm sympathetic to the a.t.f.'s job. it has gray areas. and what i'm trying to do is clear up a gray area for them so

when they go to the work and wonder should this apply or not. even with the chairman's great efforts, the reason why this is necessary is because the same rationale they were going to use to ban 556, they used a year ago to ban 5.45 which is a similar round in composition, size and capacity. so that's why this amendment is necessary. my colleague from pennsylvania is right. i do love guns. i have an enthusiasm, but the reason i'm doing this is my respect for the constitution and i understand you have constitution for the -- have respect for the constitution. this isn't a bazooka amendment but an ammunition amendment and making sure that this caliber are still able to be bought and appreciate the efforts that

everybody puts in to making sure these laws are enforced and want to clear up this law. so i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i yield to the gentleman from new york. i want to say something, the point i made was that this restriction on armor piercing bullets did not come from this administration, even though some suggest that this is president obama's effort. this dates back to a different period of time when we had a republican president. and it was put into place to protect law enforcement because, you know, the children who have been unfortunate victims of gunshots in their schools or in movie theaters and where we have mass shootings, they haven't been wearing

bulletproof vests. they are used by our law enforcement officials. and there was a concern to make sure they could be protected while they were out protecting us right? so i just want to be clear as we go forward what we're doing here so that everybody who takes an action on this and however they may vote understands that they're voting to provide a circumstance in which there won't be any restriction on the piercing power of the project aisle, right? and -- projectile right? and when it's pointed at a human being, it can be deadly. i want to yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, and i yield him two minutes on this matter. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania may yield but not for a specific time.

mr. fattah: i yield him time and i will keep track that he doesn't go over two minutes. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me and i must rise and oppose this amendment. earlier this year, a.t.f. recognized the threat posed by armor piercing handguns and tried to limit the sale of the 556 round, which is the military armor piercing round. this have made sense. when they tried to make that change, they shouted down this proposal. i supported the a.t.f.'s proposal then and i believe this and other regulations on armor piercing handguns are needed. i introduced an act to enact the proposed change into law because we have the responsibility to protect our police and communities from these unreasonably dangerous weapons. a hunter doesn't need an pistol

that can fire these armor piercing rounds. they serve one purpose, to kill human beings. they need to monitor and regulate firearms and ammunition. when technology advances like it did with the green tip. a.t.f. has to protect our neighborhoods and law enforcement. this amendment would strip a.t.f.'s authority to regulate dangerous armor piercing bullets and put cops, kids and our communities at risk. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania. and i yield back. mr. fattah: the gentleman only used a minute and 30 seconds. text is most helpful when put in context. it is true that the constitution says that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. but it says that as part of a

well regulated militia. so when we want to focus in on the second amendment, it may be helpful for us to have a framework in which the right is connected to responsible and regulated activity on behalf of our communities. so i thank you. and mr. chairman, would you like me to yield you some time? mr. culberson: i would like to strike the last word to clarify a point that mr. engel is making. mr. fattah: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. you have to use your five minutes. mr. fattah: then i quit. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas move to strike the last word? my colleague, mr. engel may not have the exact amendment in front of him because all mr. massie is attempting to do is enforce existing law and make it clear that the a.t.f. has to enforce the law as written and

armor piercing ammunition cannot be used in a handgun. the round is one that has uses depleted uranium or other materials and is used in a handgun and that's all his amendment says. by accepting this amendment we are enforcing existing law which is to prevent the use of armor piercing ammunition in a handgun. it's important that everyone understands that all this amendment is attempting to do and i will make certain that the a.t.f. does not interfere with americans' second amendment rights and the a.t.f. is enforcing the law, which is what mr. massie is doing and i urge members to support his amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. 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 kentucky seek recognition? >> 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 kentucky will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk regarding the national institutes of standards and technology. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. massie of kentucky. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section 543 none of

the funds made available by this act may be used by the national institute of standards and technology to consult with the national security agency or central intelligence agency to alter topic or computer standards except to improve information security in accordance with section 20-c-1-a, 15 u.s.c.. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from kentucky and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: thank you, madam chair. in december of 2013, news broke, and this was in a reuters article, that as a key part of a, quote, campaign to imbed encryption software that it could crack into widely used computer products, the u.s.

national security agency arranged a secret $10 million contract with a private company . in fact, one of the most influential firms in the computer security industry. it was further disclosed that an algorithm was on the road to approval by the national institutes of standards and technology as one of four acceptable methods for generating random numbers. the company adopted this algorithm knowing that it would be used as a standard and it was as expected approved by the national institute of standards and technologies. but within a year, major questions were raised about dual elliptical curve. cryptology author wrote that the weakness in the formula, quote, can only be described as a back door. this is just one example of the n.s.a. exploiting its relationship with nist to

weaken encryption standards. look nist we would like to set the highest standards for our country particularly when it comes to encryption. weakened encryption standards allow the n.s.a. to snoop on americans without a warrant. so these back doors in encryption products are bad for privacy. it makes it just way too easy to violate our fourth amendment. but back doors in encryption software are also bad for security. think about this. don't you want the best security available that the minds in this country can create, produce to safeguard your health records maybe to safeguard your gun records maybe to safeguard your bank accounts and your credit cards? we are more safe when we have better security and better encryption. so it makes no sense for the

national institute of standards and technologies to work with the n.s.a. to weaken our encryption software. finally, putting back doors in products is bad for business. it's bad for privacy, it's bad for security and it's bad for business. why is it bad for business? why would somebody buy a product made in america if it's known that the standards in america are weaker than the standards elsewhere? you know, if there are back doors in products, it's not just the government that can use them. hackers will find them. in fact, once it was exposed, the weakness in this dual elliptical curve, it made it very easy for people to hack into that. and the company had to say quit using this software. we found a weakness in it. so i would urge people to vote for this amendment, what it does is it prevents the spending of money at the national institute of standards and technologies to work with

the n.s.a. to weaken our encryption. the amendment does nothing to keep them from making better encryption, but they cannot weaken it. they cannot compromise it. they can't spend your tax dollars making our american products and our government standards worse. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> yes i'd seek unanimous consent to oppose this amendment, but i support it. mr. culberson: i'd just like unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition although i

support it. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: we accept the amendment, agree with the reasoning that mr. massie's laid forth and i believe the amendment is acceptable to the minority as well. so the amendment is agreed to unanimously. the chair: does the gentleman from texas yield back his time? mr. culberson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: what is the balance of my time remaining, madam chair? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. massie: i'll just summarize why this is an important amendment. we trust the national institute of standards and technologies to perform their constitutional mandated responsibilityies. that's one of the great things about -- responsibilities. that's one of the great things about nist. its authorization is in the constitution, to set the standards of weights and measures. and so i appreciate the job they do, but we put a lot of trust into them when they set these standards. and a lot of people make

business decisions. it's kind of like the "good housekeeping" seal of approval, if i may use that analogy. and so when we stamp something as government approved standard, we want to know it's the best in the world. that the united states has the best encryption in their products, the best encryption. we want the products that our government buys to be safe. so it would be wrong for nist to spend money working to put back doors in our products. and so that's why i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: yes, i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend and colleague from houston, texas, judge ted poe. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: i thank the chairman for yielding time to me. madam speaker i would like to try to interpreter what has been said -- interpret what has

been said in a simpler way. assume that the builders in the united states get together and they are giving a new -- given a new requirement that when they build a new house the federal government wants the option to have a master key to a back door, not only a back door but a secret back door. so that at some time down the road, maybe the federal government would like to enter that secret back door for some purpose. and that's what this amendment is preventing. just like we wouldn't let the federal government have a key to our back door or require builders to put a master key in all of the new homes that they build in the country and give the key to the government, we would never allow that. that was certainly in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution.

and all this amendment does is prevent technology, when technology is growing at a rapid rate, to prevent the federal government from requiring in a cell phone, for example that there be an ability of the federal government to go in there and look around even without the knowledge of the person who owns the cell phone. this is very similar to the bill that passed unanimously last night and so i would urge adoption to this amendment as well and i'll yield back to the chairman and thank him for allowing me to speak on mr. massie's amendment, since he ran out of time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. culberson: glad to do so. the amendment is agreed to unanimously. i strongly support the gentleman's amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. massie: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. 081. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. 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 carry out the bureau of alcohol, tobacco firearms and explosives special advisory entitled test, examination and classifications of 7-n-6-5.45 by 35 ammunition.

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 arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, madam chair. i rise today to stand with my colleague, mr. massie of kentucky and with sportsmen and law-abiding gun owners throughout the country. over the course of the last year we have seen numerous misguided attempts by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and explosives to misclassify ammunition as armor piercing and infringe on the second amendment rights of our citizens. at a forum i held at the end of march in arizona, a large number of my constituents expressed their outrage about a.t.f. reclassifying the imported 5.45 by .39 ammunition as armor piercing. thus preventing this ammo from being imported. this ammo is very affordable and has been used as target practice by sportsmen for

years. the administration, especially the a.t.f., as we have seen with operation fast and furious and recent attempts to ban the green tip ammo, has a pen jent for interpreting the law as it sees fit or as it is most convenient for them. fortunately we have at least temporarily beaten back the attempt to ban the .223 green tip ammo after 230 different members of this body, chairman culberson and myself encouraged the a.t.f. to drop this misguided attempt. but the ammunition ban is yet another example of federal overreach on the part of the administration. after years of having a sportsman exemption, seven and six was reclassified after a.t.f. found an extremely rare and obscure polish made pistol that could supposedly use and shoot the cart raj. i strongly owe -- cartridge. i strongly applaud the committee for the provisions in this bill that protect the second amendment. i ask that my colleagues support this additional

commonsense provision to protect the second amendment and allow seven and six asmow to be used for target practice and i -- ammo to be used for target practice and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i guess redundancy has some utility here because we've been around the rosie a number of times on this same issue. both late last night and now early this afternoon. one amendment after another amendment after another amendment trying to make sure that our fascination with armor piercing bullets doesn't escape this debate. so here we have another one. maybe there's something different about this one than the one before. but i'm not able to discern what it is. but i'm opposed to it.

i think that people have a right to weapons under our constitution. i think commonsense suggests people should have a right to weapons, long gun, rifles, for both sports activities and for their own protection. . i also think it's a responsible thing for those who are governing our country to put in place religion regulations and restrictions. just like the regulations and restrictions that we have here in the capitol campus. not only do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money for our own police force to protect us, we also say you can't bring up firearms into the buildings that we work in each and every day. now we do this even though we come to the floor and profess our undying love for the

unfettered notion of the second amendment as interpreted by some that you can have a gun anywhere in a bar in a park -- anywhere, in a bar in a park, in a daycare center, in a church, take your gun and, you know, ride off into the wind with it. but we won't allow it here. . i'm just waiting for a member of the and to say that people should be able to exercise their second amendment here when they visit the people's house, when they visit their elected representatives, that somehow we want to welcome them and their guns with their armor piercing bullets and then i would know that you truly love the second amendment and that you see it as an unfettered right anywhere any time under any circumstances. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is

recognized. mr. gosar: i yield a minute to the chairman of the committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: i strongly support the gentleman's amendment and necessary because the a.t.f. attempted to ban ammunition that could be used in a handgun that is otherwise commonly available for rifles and the statute the congress intended to prohibit the use of armor piercing ammunition for handguns. the gentleman's amendment is necessary. and i strongly support the amendment as again an additional protection for americans' constitutional second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. and i would point out that at the texas capitol concealed carry permit holders can get in a separate line because it is their best backup because they had a background check and i co-authored the legislation in

texas to allow the citizens of texas to get a concealed carry permit and prevented a lot of crimes and saved a lot of lives. and i don't think there has been a fist fight among concealed carry permit. they have been given special access to get into the capitol. and i support the gentleman's amendment and support its passage. mr. gosar: i yield to my friend from kentucky, mr. massie. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: how much time is remaining? the chair: two minutes. mr. massie: i thank the gentleman from's leadership and immense respect to chairman culberson for making sure that this interpretation that was applied to 5.45 ammunition was not applied to 5.56.

so but this travesty of justice applies to this other caliber using the same reasoning. i won't impugn the motives of the a.t.f. i won't do that. i think they are trying to enforce the law and there is a gray area here and i think this bill clears up that gray area for the benefit of law-abiding gun owners in this country and i thank representative gosar for leading. and i yield back. mr. gosar: i thank the gentleman. what i would like to highlight this is an obscure pistol that only could use this 7 n 6 ammunition. without going out of the way for a very popular round that is used for target practice all over this country. i ask support for my amendment and i thank the gentleman for helping me and 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 arizona. 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 california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. could the gentleman specify which amendment? mr. issa: one that ends in 303. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. issa of california, 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 operate or diss see him

nature a cell site simulator or misi catcher in the united states except pursuant to a court order that identifies an individual's account or personal device. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, member from california and member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. issa: i rise today to offer this amendment and it becomes necessary because selective spying by using these devices commonly called stingray or cell site simulateors or misi catchers has become a reality. these mobile devices in fact spoof or convince your phone that they are a valid cell tower and allow for the gathering of communications, including texan emails. distributing the federal dollars

may be used to capture americans' information without a warrant. the "wall street journal," "washington post" and the associated press and more have, in fact uncovered cases of nationwide use by the f.b.i. and other agencies working to cover up stingray use in instances in which they have among other things dropped criminal cases to avoid having to disclose their use of them. additionally, they have entered into nondisclosure agreement at times in order to not do so. just a few days ago -- a month ago and the senate passed overwhelmingly a new authorization of the patriot act. we did so with a careful balance between what our government can do to us and what protections we have and particularly the fourth amendment. this is a narrowly crafted amendment. it in no way stops the use of

these devices when a federal court has ordered and allowed the use either a fisa court or a commone warrant issued by a judge. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. fattah: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i'm not in opposition and i concur with the amendment. mr. issa: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. farenthold: thank you, madam chairman, i rise in support of our amendment that i'm working with mr. issa on. the associated press that they confirmed reports that the f.b.i. is flying surveillance cameras in aircraft over the

u.s. with these devices. they are operating sometimes through shell companies, use video and stingray technology to capture data on americans in bulk. this flies in the face of every concept of liberty and privacy that we cherish in this country. our founding fathers would be sickened if they found out how far we have slipped. as much as we are encouraged that both houses of congress ended bulk surveillance, reports like this show me we still have a long way to go. the program to hack into our cell phones seems far from appropriate and constitutional and it must be curtailed. this amendment would ensure that any usage of this program would only happen through a court order targeting a specific individual and never as a dragnet for bulk surveillance and i'm happy to hear there is very little opposition to this and look forward to working to continue to regain our liberty from unconstitutional

surveillance. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. issa: i have no further speakers. i urge passage and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania yield back? mr. fattah: yield back. 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores of texas at the end of the bill insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to further implementation of the coastal and marine facial planning and ecosystem based management components of the national oakic policy developed under executive

order 13547. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise to assert a point of order on this order. it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: this amendment does not change existing law, it just removes the funding for an

unconstitutional, unstatutory action by the president.

the chair: does the gentleman from texas wish to be heard further? the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: it seems like we've caused some excitement with the parliamentarian this afternoon. i'd ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and go to the second flores amendment. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will report the second amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores 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 to implement executive order 1354775 federal

register 43023 relating to the stewardship of oceans, coasts and the great lakes, including the national ocean policy development under such executive order. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: thank you, madam chair. i rise today to offer a simple amendment to address an ongoing -- an ongoing overreach by the executive brafpblg of our government. my amendment bans the use of federal funds for the implementation of executive order 13547. that executive order, which was signed in 2010 requires that 60-plus bureaucracies, as shown on this chart essentially zone the oceans and the sources thereof. this amendment addresses a critical executive branch encroachment into the powers of congress as set forth in our constitution. the activities being conducted by executive order 13547 have have not been authorized by

congress, nor have appropriations been made by congress to fund those activities. since 2010, this body has voted six times no support of this amendment -- in support of this amendment in a bipartisan manner. this language was also included in the base text of the fiscal year 2016 energy and water development appropriations bill. today i'm offering my amendment again because concerns have been raised that the effects of the national ocean policy extend well beyond restricting ocean activities and encroach into inland activities. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise to take time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i visited chicago a few years back for the coastal zone conference to talk about how important it was that this administration is finally -- has finally put forward and we support an ocean policy.

there have been, since 2012, over 15 different amendments seeking to undermine responsible ecosystem-based management of our oceans. we have -- it's luckily -- as appropriators we have not been willing to accept these efforts to undermine this. we understand that we have a responsibility as stewards. in fact, as a nation we have more responsibility for the world's oceans than any other nation in terms of territorialy in the world. so we have some challenging circumstances and it's good that we now have a policy going forward. i would ask that the house oppose this amendment. i want to yield to the gentleman from rhode island. i can't yield time, right? the chair: you may yield time. mr. fattah: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from rhode island, the former mayor and the great congressman from rhode island.

the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in strong opposition to the flores amendment which would prohibit the implementation of the national ocean policy which permits better coordination among federal agencies responsible for coastal planning. this amendment in particular would undermine noaa's participation in planning, it would hurt start states and communities, businesses and would impedestrian states like rhode island from managing their own resources in a way that best feeds -- fits their needs and priorities. this administration has made it clear that the national ocean policy does not create new regulations supersede current regulations or modify any agency's established mission, jurisdiction or authority. rather it helps coordinate the implementation of existing regulations by federal agencies to establish a more efficient and effective decision making process. in the northeast our regional ocean council has allowed our state to pool resources and businesses to have a voice in decision making and has coordinated with federal partners to ensure all

stakeholders have a voice in the process. it's astounding to me that since 2012 15 riders undermining ocean planning have been introduced to house bills, including riders on two previous c.j.s. appropriations bills. allowing federal agencies to coordinate implementation of over 100 ocean laws and giving states and local governments a voice in the ocean planning process is smart public policy. i urge my colleagues to reject this misguided amendment and to understand and accept our responsibility to be good stewards of our oceans. that's what the administration's policy does. this is allowing agencies to coordinate that work in a thoughtful, strategic and smart way. and with that i thank the gentleman again and yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves? mr. fattah: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. fattah: who has the right to close, madam speaker? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: who has the right to close?

the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has the right to close. mr. fattah: ok. so i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. flores: thank you, madam chair. first of all i think it's important to set the record straight. the issue here is not whether or not we want to take care of our oceans. all of us want to take care of our oceans. all of us believe in managing the ocean economy, the ocean ecology. we also believe in trying to make sure that we have a government that adheres to this constitution. under article 1 of that constitution, all legislative powers are reserved to this body to this congress, not to the president. and that's the issue at stake here. the president has overstepped his constitutional statutory bounds. now, in the year 2000 congress did pass something during that 106th congress to create an ocean commission. to review and make recommendations. and since then the 109th 108th, 109th, 110th and 111th

congresses each looked at those recommendations and decided to make it no legislative action. that's what caused the president to move forward with this executive order, to try to go around congress. there are no appropriations. we've asked the department for this function specifically. we've asked the department specifically to provide their statutory support for the president's actions. they have provided none. so the president has gone around congress by signing these executive orders. there are 67 groups that include fishing, agricultural, farming energy and other industries that are concerned about the impact of this federal overreach. and again i'd say an unconstitutional federal overreach. again, this is a simple amendment that just stands up for the constitutional rights of this congress to create the statutes under which this activity can be conducted. and to transparency -- transparently appropriate these funds for the activity should it so choose. we're not against ocean planning, as i said at the outset of this. what we are for, though, is for the constitution and to stand up for our congressional rights to enact the statutes related

to this activity and for the appropriators to be able to transparently appropriate the money. again, this amendment has been adopted with bipartisan support six times over the last 4 1/2 years and has already included in the base text of the fiscal year 2016 energy and water appropriations bill. i want to thank chairman culberson for considering this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. fattah: i'd like to yield two of those to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much. what selective memory you have. you say that the president's abusing his authority. you know who first asked for this? president bush. he's the one that created the commission. asked for those recommendations. and guess what? no, i won't yield. guess what? five republicans authored that bill. mr. farr: republican greenwood, bilbray, gilchrest, horn and

franks. that was in the -- in 2004 they introduced it. the bill went to committee and the committee never heard it. don't say congress never had a chance to enact this thing. congress refused. just like congress refuses to respond to the president's ask that we ought to decide whether we ought to go to war in the middle east. you're very selective. you say, don't let the president make these executive orders and then when he does, you want to sue him because it's about immigration or issues like that, you criticize this president because congress fails to take action. even after republicans and democrat presidents have asked congress to take action and because we refuse you take executive action therefore we ought to not allow it to be implemented. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: thank you.

i'm referring to the chair. look, the lead -- deleting this ability for the national ocean policy -- by the way, we haven't appropriated money, no money's being spent on it. but we are smart about getting 70 or 80 federal agencies together to get one stop to figure out how we can get all these permits. that's why the fishermen support it. i live in a coastal community. the author of this does not. we make our living off the ocean. and by god, we want all the agencies, regulatory, to be in sync. and one of the policies here is let's have a healthy ocean. what's wrong with that? i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: if the oceans die, it's impossible for us to live. the pew foundation in philadelphia spent hundreds of millions of dollars behind efforts around ocean science. my friend, jerry, has put a lot of his own fortune behind this effort. when i first got to the congress, i was chair of the friends of the caribbean caucus. we should do better by our oceans. i ask that we oppose this

amendment and 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 texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. fattah: i'd like to have a recorded vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? or south carolina. pardon me. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman has two amendments at the desk. would you designate? >> one of them's a substitute amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. duncan of south carolina. 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 prosecute or hold liable any person or corporation for a violation of section 2-a of the migratory bird treaty act. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you. the question we should ask ourselves is should green energy companies be held liable for incident deaths of birds of pray or -- prey or migratory birds when they fly into wind turbans or solar arrays? the migratory treaty act of 1918 and the bald and golden eagle protection act of 1940, while well intentioned are significantly outdated. under current law the accidental death of a protected bird is punishable as a misdemeanor. a second death can be charged

as a felony. this includes accident deaths caused by wind turbines and solar panels. the migratory bird treaty act covers only 1,000 different species of birds. the migratory bird treaty act and the bald and golden eagle protection act were written to target the intentional killing of migratory birds and birds of prey. i don't think anyone believes that accidental deaths as a result of solar panels or wind energy production warrants felony prosecution. every year cars, trucks, skyscrapers wind mills oil platforms, airplanes and houses with big windows cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of these protected birds. doing things that are otherwise well within the law but that make drivers, pilot, property owners and green energy companies potential felons under a strict interpretation of an outdated law. as you can imagine, the enforcement of this law is pretty spoddy -- spotty, with bureaucrats selectively enforcing these regulations, creating uncertainty in the

green energy marketplace. president obama's fish and wildlife service recently announced plans to study the possibility of creating a permitting regime under the mbta which would allow for incident and accidental take without criminal penalty and they have suspended prosecutions until this has worked out. and i agree with this approach. as consistent with a bill i introduced, my clean energy producer act, h.r. 49. my amendment will suspend further prosecutions for incident avian deaths under the migratory bird treaty act, until this new incident take permitting regime is implemented. i believe this is a right step as we move toward permanent reforms of the mbta and the bgbpa as the national all-of-the-above energy independence strategy and i would urge a yes vote on this important issue and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. farr: i rise in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: thank you very much. what's broken that needs fixing? this has been laws that have been in place for 100 years. in fact, they're laws that have been implemented because the united states has signed treaties with other countries that share our migratory fowl, countries like canada and mexico, japan russia. . these are treaties that require that we be responsible for the wildlife that flies over our air space and lands in our soil. migratory birds are integrated into a healthy natural system and in many ways they affect the predators, the prey, the seed dispensers, the pollinators. they're really actively appreciated by millions of people we have a society in america called the audubon society. i know we make an awful lot of money in my district off

watchable wildlife so why stop protecting that? it says none of the funds may be made available to prosecute those who have violated the law. you're dismantling the ability to enforce the law where people have violated it. so i think the public of this country do appreciate their watchable wildlife, whether they're hunting it or whether they're viewing it, and whether they -- a lot of people make money off it. oklahoma this amendment is at all constructive. you're upsetting 100 years law and international responsibility that we have as a country in this hemisphere. so i oppose the amendment. and ask people to vote against it. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. farr: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you, madam chairman. i'm an avid water fowler. i'm an avid hunter.

i've seen how the migratory bird treaty act has benefited the species from the heyday of market hunting and what we saw in the early 1900's. i believe that those, the migratory bird act and the golden and bald eagle protection act were designed to address the overkilling of migratory birds and birds of prey. even the obama administration recognizes that there's something wrong with how we prosecute these cases of incidental and accidental death. this takes what they're already doing and says, let's have a pause until we can work this out in permanent law. that's all my amendment does. madam chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr thank with all due respect, that's not what the law says. it says none of the funds may be used to prosecute or hold liable any person or corporation for a violation of the provision of

law found in section 703-a of title 16 united states code. there's no language in here about working anything out. there's no language about being responsible managers of the land or flyways. yes we have a lot of new equipment up in our energy business. our wind energy and our solar energy. those things obviously you're supposed to take into effect if your buildings are being built right in a flyway. we have condors in our area that we have spent a lot of money trying to revive. people spend money to come to expensive hotels to come see a condor. these are things you want to protect. to say none of the funds may be made available for people violating the law seems a reckless act to upset 100 years of wildlife management. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman.

you know if somebody is intentionally violated the law, absolutely they should be prosecute thsmed amendment is in order because we're dealing with justice and how this is prosecuted. we're saying the justice department can't expend money to prosecute these incidental deaths. there's no doubt in my mind we ought to revisit the mbta and the gold and bald eagle protection act and we will. i'm on the natural resources committee, i promise you this issue will come up. but i think this is appropriate to say we're going to hold off expending money prosecuting these accidental or incidental deaths. i think this is the right place and right time. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr: in closing, to say that the law says that those who are in violation of the -- violation of the law, how many golden eagles do you have to kill until -- and tell law enforcement you can't do

anything. this isn't about accidental death. you have to have an intent to do wrong. i hope we defeat this preckless amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired on this amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south 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 colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lamb born of colorado. at the -- mr. lamborn of colorado. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following section, nouven the funds made available by this act may be used to collect information about individuals

attending gun shows by means of an automatic license plate record or to retain any information so collected. the chair: does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. farr: i raise a point of order on this issue, reserve the right to. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the -- pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from colorado and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: thank you, mr. chairman. earlier this year, an email uncovered by the aclu revealed that the drug enforcement administration, d.e.a., and the bureau of alcohol, tobacco firearms and explosives, or a.t.f., collaborated on a plan to use automatic license plate readers to monitor and collect information about law-abiding citizens attending gun shows. under this program, mere attendance at a gun show would have been enough to have one's attendance recorded in a massive

d.e.a. database. as if that weren't bad enough, the primary purpose of this database is asset forfeiture a controversial practice of seizing motorists' possessions if police suspect they are criminal proceeds. in response to inquiries about the uncovered document the d.e.: a. said the proposal was rejecked by superiors and never implemented. keep in mind that this was taking place in phoenix in 2009 about the time of fast and furious, and there were, i believe, rogue projects going on in that part of the country at the time and we have litigated that as a house against the department of justice. they have not supplied documents that they were supposed to supply to congress. we also held former attorney general eric holder in contempt

for not providing those documents. so this is at a time when perhaps rogue projects were actually going on in phoenix. i believe that they were. i believe this is one of those. however, the d.e.a. never supplied any documents saying they rejected this project. they blamed it on an underling and said it was never implemented. while this is assurance is welcome, the fact that such a proposal was even considered raises very serious privacy concerns. my amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to collect or retain information about individuals attending gun shows by means of an automatic license plate reader. this amendment is supported by the n.r.a., the national rifle association the gun owners of america, and the aclu. automatic license plate readers should not be used to target law-abiding citizens engaged in their constitutionally protected

rights. without strong regulations and greater transparency this new technology would only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, rein in illegal surveillance of americans and to send a clear message to agencies like the d.e.a. and a.t.f. that automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information during constitutionally protected activities. this includes second amendment activities like attending gun shows. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from california seek time in opposition to the amendment? mr. farr: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. that rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriation bill should not be

in order if changing existing law. and one of the provisions is requires a new determination. i'm asking for a rule of the chair, please. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> let reme respond by saying -- mr. lamborn: let me respond by saying that "the wall street journal" published an article that quote what is the aclu discovered uncovered, through a freedom of information act request to the department of justice. and in pertinent part, this revelation that was obtained by the aclu says quote, d.e.a.-phoenix division office is working closely with the bureau of alcohol tobacco, firearms and explosives on attacking the guns going to blank that's redacted, and the

gun shows to include programs slash operations with license plate readers at the gun shows, unquote. so the d.e.a. believes, at least some agent or agents within the d.e.a. in the phoenix region believe that they have the authority to go to gun shows and use automatic license plate recognition technology to basically throw out a dragnet and bring in everyone's identity of who was attending a constitutionally protected activity. that's what this amendment attacks. the d.e.a. thought that it had at least some elements within the d.e.a. thought they had this authority. they thought they had this power. and so i don't think that this is creating any new legislation because it's going after a power they believe they already had,

and believe that they have the ability to exercise. so the -- the withdrawal of funding to something they thought they had the power to do is not creating a new oversight or provision or, i think the word the gentleman used was -- i forget the word he used but it's not legislating in the sense of giving them a power they didn't already have. they thought they had this power and this amendment would withdraw funding for that. so i would urge that the chair reject the point of order raised by the opposition. the chair: do any other members wish to be heard on this point of order? the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination by the relevant federal officials of whether an individual is

attending a gun show. the gentleman from colorado has not proven that this determination is required by existing law. the amendment constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sanford of south carolina. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section each amount made available by this act other than an amount required to be made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 2.48%. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman

from south carolina and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman, the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. sanford this is -- mr. sanford: this is a simple amendment as laid out. i think it's important to do this cut, i was in a meeting this morning and the new director of the congressional budget office came by, and in his testimony what he talked about was the way in which the american civilization and the budget was nearing a tipping point beyond which there would be a significant consequence to what we can budget here at the federal level, to the value of the dollar and ultimately to the american way of life. i think it's interesting, admiral mike mullin observed the same. when asked what was the biggest threat to the american way of

life and american security he, answered the american debt. you can look at a long list of different authors who have talked about this team in different ways. hine hart talked about it in the book "this time it's different." you look at economies that get around 90% debt to g.d.p. and the wheels start to come off. bad things begin to happen both to the economy and to the government's ability to perpetuate funding for programs that are important and -- you know, we've gone through a long list of well-discussed programs within this particular appropriations bill that are important. but for our, you but for our government's ability to sustain these programs, we need to look beyond 10 or 15 years out, we need to look at the long run and ultimately that's what this bill's about. i think it's interesting from a nonpartisan standpoint thaters

can boles and allan simpson said if you look at our financial picture it's the most predictable financial collapse or calamity in the history of man. i could go through a lot of other reasons numerically why it is important but the short answer is we are nearing that tipping point that was talked about in the budget hearing this morning. i see my colleague standing so i will reserve the balance of my time and come back to a few of those points in a moment. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina reserves the baffle his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the across-the-board cut. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: i respect the gentleman's presentation but i think we ought to put in full context. we do have across-the-board cut. it's a huge cut. it's called sequestration. anded a though admiral mullen did admonish the congress the fact that we were running a deficit and the threat to our national security, he also opposed sequestration.

across-the-board cuts. i think the problem is in this bill certainly, is across-the-board cut from what we used to spend. with the exception of protection of one program. but i oppose this. look we're on the appropriations committee. we try to go through these things with a fine-tooth comb to figure out how to adjust the spending of the united states of america. and the worst thing you can do is across-the-board cut because that harms good programs, and you don't necessarily not cutting enough to make a dent in the debt. frankly, the spending of america has come down quite draw mootcally and the economy has improved and our national debt is at an all-time -- in recent years -- all-time low. i think frankly -- and we in congress, we talk about this debt but don't sort of put it into context. i like to put it into context

when i talk to my constituents about, what we have in the national level just like you have at the local level, in your own life, you have two debts. you have the short-term debt is a credit card. you spend too much one month so you pay it slowly off in the next couple of months. that's the annual deficit. the long-term debt is that big mortgage that we have on our houses. we don't panic of a mortgage. we made an agreement over a period of time, 15, 30 years that we're going to pay off this mortgage and we know what those payments will be. wall street doesn't worry about a deficit when we have a plan to pay it off. wall street worries about when we take a meat ax approach to not running the government efficiently, not having enough people to process people to when they need permits and they need access to licenses and things like that. so i wish congress would get off this sort of let's just use a meat ax approach to solving

these problems because we won't spend the time to get into the weeds. and although i respect the gentleman and his approach, i just don't think this is a proper way to do it and i would oppose the across-the-board cut. mr. culberson: if the gentleman will yield? mr. farr: yes, i will yield. mr. culberson: i share the gentleman's concern about government spending. part of the problem is in social security and medicare and medicaid, obamacare, the national debt, the interest on the debt. that's what's drowning us. we in the appropriations process handle about a third of federal spending and we have cut spending here. in this bill we have limited resources, and we have -- as chairman of the subcommittee prioritized that money to go first and foremost to law enforcement. the gentleman's amendment would cut $683 million out of federal law enforcement which is something i just simply cannot support. the gentleman's amendment would cut $212 million out of the f.b.i. and just eviscerate

their ability to deal with cyberespionage and to deal with terrorism. the gentleman's amendment would cut $450 million from nasa essentially crippling our efforts to get americans back to space on an american-made rocket, simply -- something we simply have to do as quickly as possible. we have in our bill prioritized the limited very precious and scarce hard-earned tax dollars that our constituents have entrusted us with and made sure that federal law enforcement is taken care of scientific research is protected, nasa's protected but first and foremost we protected public safety with the way we prioritized our spending. so i have to urge members to oppose this amendment because we already followed the dave ramsey approach, spending money where it's most needed. we got to focus on 2/3 of the problem that's drowning us. the mandatory, automatic spending programs that medicare, social security medicaid that are drowning this

economy. that's where the deficit and the debt is coming from. while we continue to do our own on appropriations on the 1/3 we got control over, we're continuing to cut and prioritize, let's focus on the 2/3 that's actually hurting the american economy. and i would urge members to oppose this amendment and defeat it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from -- does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i do. can you tell us how much time is left on each side? the chair: the gentleman from california has 15 seconds remaining on his time. mr. fattah: and how much time do we have? the chair: 15 seconds. mr. fattah: then i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: and i rise -- good to see my good friend on the floor. i unfortunately can't support your amendment but i appreciate your work here in the congress and i have in the

past unlike those rhetorically who offer noigses of support for sensible -- notions of support for sensible approaches, i'm the only one that has offered to get rid of the income tax and pay our debts. i wanted to set up a consumption tax. which 150 other countries in the world use. and we got a consumption-based economy. might be a good notion to find our revenues where the action is, but -- so i'm not -- i don't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to fiscal responsibility. unless we have a global deal, it will be impossible for us to manage the accounts of what you agree are very important federal agencies that have very important issues. we are running the most

powerful country in the world. we can't do it on the cheap and be number one. china builds science only universities in five years. it would take us 20 years to have one. we don't have the same kind of decisionmaking process obviously and it takes us a while to formulate our decision package but even when we get there we have this debate about whether or not we're going to stand up and be the leading country in the world rather in space exploration, rather in space enterprise when we used to have a relative lead now only have a little lead. we are working in ways that are adverse to insisting on america being number one and those are people who want to tell the american public that we can continue to have the best military in the world and not pay for it. or the best education system and not pay for it. or you look at our national

laboratories, and i visited oak ridge, i visited lows alamos and -- los alamos and sandina. these were major investments. now, some may call it spending but it helped america win wars but also when the economic fight against our competitors by making these investments. so i just think that it's not a matter of what we can cut, it's where does our country want to end up. do we want to be something less than number one in the world? or is that the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren, or are we going to make the decision that others before us have made which is that we have to make tough decisions and we're going to have to carry on own bail of water -- pale of water up the hill. lincoln said, you may not get what you pay for but you will

pay for what you get but this notion that america can be number one on the cheap i'm not buying it. the world's not going to buy it. we're competing with countries that are a billion-plus population. they're making investments and they want to eat our lunch economically. and they -- there may be challenges for our country down the road and we have to be prepared as leaders to make some tough decisions and to tell the american public that in order to retain our position we might have to actually stand up to the bar and pay our fair share. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman may not reserve his time. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. fattah: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. sanford: in those 2 3/4 minutes i would say just a

couple of things. my colleagues are in good faith trying to protect a whole host of programs that i think we all recognize are of grave importance to the american people. churchill once observed that the beauty of the american political system is that it always did the right thing comma, after it exhausted every other possible remedy. and my fear in this is if if we wait late in the game -- and this is exactly what the budget director was talking about this morning -- if we wait the consequences to waiting in numerical terms become horrific. that we are dealing with a thing that compounds with time. einstein asked what's the most powerful force in the universe and his reply was compound interest. the numbers become i think absolutely compelling. so i would agree with my colleagues that across-the-board cuts are absolutely not the best way to go. when i was involved in state politics i worked earnestly

against across-the-board cuts. it is only out of desperation that i offer a proposal that entails across-the-board cuts because again, if we wait what the budget director this morning says was there will be real consequences. i'd make four additional points. one, if we're serious about addressing the entitlement problem, then we shouldn't be borrowing from entitlement spending to fund mandatory spending and that's exactly what this particular appropriation bill does to the tune of about $10 billion. so i think if we're really going to get earnest about entitlement spending this would be a place to start which is part of the reason as to why we focused on this particular appropriation bill. two, my colleague from california mentioned the national debt is at an all-time low. that's incorrect. in fact, we are at an all-time high if you look at you know, the numbers. roughly took us 200 years to get to $5 trillion in debt. over the bush administration we went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.

now during the obama administration it will go from $10 million to $20 trillion. it is at an all-time high. your discussion about mortgage. can you pay it off? if you look at the numbers, increasingly what rating agencies have suggested around the world is that when you get up around that 90% number there's less and less probability that you'll be able to perpetuate that spending which goes to the heart of can we perpetuate our ability to fund these worthwhile programs which is what this amendment is about. and lastly i'd say admiral mullen when he spoke against the subcommitteeser -- sequester he did so the sequester disproportionately impacted the military. for a host of reasons i'd ask support of the amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having now expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. sanford: on that i ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk designated king 78. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in the congressional record offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to rule -- to house resolution 287, the gentleman from iowa and a member opposed each will control five maine -- five maines -- five minutes, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is an amendment

in short form says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used with respect to the case state of texas et al vs. united states of america. i point out to the body that that's the case filed by then-attorney general of texas greg abbott now governor of texas, protect the interest of texans, it's been signed on by now 25 states i believe. this is in reference to the president's november 20 dapa policy, his executive amnesty policy and we have watched as this congress has three times voted to reject the president's initiative and the debate has been centered on constitutional grounds. the position of this congress has three times been that the president of the united states is the leader of the executive branch of this government and the legislative powers are all vested here in this united states congress, in the house and senate. that is article 1 of the

constitution. that is what the president taught through his 10 years as an adjunct professor, constitutional law professor at the university of chicago. that's what he also uttered at least 202 times as novet united states that he didn't have the -- at least 22 times as president of the united states that he didn't have the authority to announce an amnesty to waive the law for five million people. not only does this congress agree with the president's 22 statements that he's since changed his position on -- by the way, the president has a 33-page office of legal counsel opinion that is written i think, very loosely i've read every word of that, but the president's convictions i believe, are reflected prior to this political decision and so my amendment prohibits any of the funds from being used to further defend this unconstitutional executive amnesty position. and mr. chairman i point out not only has congress voted

three times but also the president's 22 statements, as i said, then it's backed up by federal judge hanen who ruled on the side of the constitution and the rule of law and the separation of powers and on the administration' -- administration's appeal, a three-judge panel and fifth circuit also ruled indi texas and the other co-plaintiffs were likely to prevail and granted standing to the state of texas and now we have an administration that appears to be willing to continue this debate on further and go on appeal to the circuit court again. they have the opportunity to go directly to the supreme court. so mr. chairman, i go through this long list of the things that have happened because a lot of money has been spent and wasted in an attempt to, let's say, the gracious way to say it would be to stretch the

constitution beyond any bounds that it had been stretched before. and this amendment simply directs that none of the funds made available shall be used to continue that endeavor. with that, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman -- does the gentleman from iowa yield time to the gentleman from pennsylvania? mr. king: i yield to the gentleman. mr. fattah: when you say congress acted three times, do you mean both houses of congress? are you -- or are you referring to one house? mr. king: i would have to go back and look at the record in the senate to give you an accurate count. it's an accurate count for the house. it may not be a full three times in the senate. mr. fattah: thank you. if we could continue for one second. i know you appreciate the construction of our government and the way the constitution framed it. it is not the law of the land if one house acts on something. we need the house to act, the senate to act, and then we need

a presidential signature. mr. king: reclaiming my time and thanking this -- thanking the gentleman from pennsylvania for his insight, i would state that the constitution is very clear. it was very clear to the president of the united states for 10 years while he taught it. it was very clear when he made his statements 22 times. so this is the congress reasserting itself. our founding fathers expected we would do that. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from pennsylvania -- mr. fattah: i rise in opposition and claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: i do appreciate the opportunity to communicate with my sleeg. i don't want anyone to misinterpret -- with my colleague. i don't want anyone to misinterpret the facts here. every single president has acted in this area, and these actions by this president are no different than the actions of previous presidents in this

trade space around providing amnesty and what the gentleman objects, and he strenuously and seriously objects to, is that this has benefited a large number of people who the president has a different view of in terms of their circumstances because they were brought here as younger people right. and young children. and the president says, look, they're here and they went to school here and this is the only country they know and they've abided by our laws he's granting them this ability to stay right. the gentleman objects. but i don't want anyone to think that the congress has taken some different view. because the congress is two houses. the house and the senate. and even if both houses were to act, the way our laws are structured, you need a presidential signature. so the fact that one house may have a difference of opinion, when ronald reagan was president, the democrats in the house of representatives had a difference of opinion, it didn't

change the law that we voted in some particular way. so i don't want anyone to be -- to misinterpret the comments of my colleague as he's articulated his sincere objections to these issues. then to get to the point of his amendment. what he's saying is it's wonderful, the judiciary is respond, they're interpreting the law the way he thinks it should be interpreted. but here what he wants to do is deny the executive branch appropriate resources to pursue its policy objective by saying that none of the funds here can be used by d.o.j. and further -- in furtherance of their position. so i think it's fair for the house to have a view. the house is even suing the president about his point of view on some things, right. but it is unfair for taos deny the executive branch an opportunity to put forth its arguments in court on any of these matters so that we can get a proper ruling from the third branch of our government and

even even -- and even though there have been rulings in the gentleman's favor he and i both know that this -- we're not at the final rendezvous here and the wheels of justice grind slowly but there will be a final decision probably by the highest court in the land but we should not deny the d.o.j. an opportunity to go into court and argue the administration's position. i think that would be unfair and therefore i oppose this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. fattah: i do indeed. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: move to strike the last word and speak in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: i strongly support mr. king's amendment because what the president has done is clearly illegal. the president doesn't have the ability to change the law by himself, as my food grend from philadelphia points out, one house of congress cannot change the law by itself. similarly the chief executive cannot change the law enacted by congress and signed by the president all by himself.

the law is very clear that people who are in the country illegally who have violated the immigration laws of the united states need to be deported and the president by this illegal executive action has attempted to override the federal law enacted by congress and signed by previous presidents that -- and the district court agreed that president obama's action is illegal and must be -- that an injunction lies against it in the district court suspended the president's executive order because it was illegal. the federal court of appeals in new orleans suspended the president's executive order because they are illegal. we expect the full fifth circuit court of appeals to suspend the president's executive order because they are illegal. we expect the supreme court to suspend the president's order because they are illegal because the constitution clearly says you, as chief executive, have an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of the united states,

you cannot make law all by yourself with a stroke of a pen and that's exactly what president obama has done and in addition placed an incredibly unaffordable financial burden on the people of texas and the people of tennessee the people of -- all the states of the union that are -- would have to deal with these folks that are here illegally. all that we ask is that the law be enforced, all that we ask is that the law be respected because as our founding fathers understood, the law is the foundation of all our liberty. without law enforcement, there can be no liberty because there is -- there's simply anarchy. look at northern mexico today. in a complete state of anarchy. mexico is essentially a failed state because they have no law enforcement. we cannot in the united states of america expect to preserve this great republic handed down to us by our founders without enforcing the law. the fundamental question that we in this lawsuit, texas vs. the

united states, are pursuing and are winning is respect for the rule of law. as the foundation for all our liberties. so i strongly support mr. king's amendment as an important tool in the effort, ongoing effort to overturn the president's illegal executive amnesty that we expect the supreme court will stand behind the state of texas and agree that the president's order must be suspended because it is illegal because without law enforcement, without respect for the law, there can be no liberty. that's the issue here. and i strongly support the gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from iowa has 30 seconds remaining. mr. king: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has the right to crose. mr. fattah: i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for the remaining 30 seconds. mr. king: i would just reiterate that the president of the united states has signed a document. it's the november 20 document that says that he's going to impose executive amnesty. this house disagrees. the senate, many in the senate also disagree. they have been chasing down an expensive rabbit trail to advance an operation of imposing an amnesty in the united states of america in contravention of our laws. this congress has reserved the right by constitution to write imgration law and we need -- our founding fathers imagined we would jealously guard that power. that's what this amendment is about. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania has two minutes remaining and is recognized to close debate. mr. fattah: thank you. i think we're at a point when it's difficult to reconcile what we're trying to do here. that is an appropriations bill. with these policy riders.

i heard my chairman claim that the president of the united states has done things that are illegal three or four times. i think that that kind of language is not useful in a debate nor is it factual that -- because i think that the president has been acting well in concert with the precedents of former presidents who have provided clemency and amnesty and i've heard members like mr. king criticize those other presidents who have provided amnesty, like ronald reagan and others and so on. so i know that -- i never heard anyone claim that president reagan acted illegally in those matters. so i find it unusual that we would be in this type of circumstance. and i heard the chairman run through a litany in which we also had the supreme court finally make this decision which they have obviously not done yet so i would like to try to get back on the tracks of moving an appropriations bill.

the point that we have to understand here right is that if we are co-equal branches of government, that is the president's co-equal to us, but we are one-half of the congress then the idea that what the house says goes is nonsensical. i will indeed. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would make the point that this congress passed an amnesty act in 1986 and ronald reagan signed that. it was an act of congress that brought amnesty in 1986. i think it was a mistake, but i believe it was constitutional. mr. fattah: i appreciate the gentleman's point. like i was saying it's nonsensical to assume that whatever the unfettered action of the house is that it number one represents the action of the congress. because it doesn't. we have two houses. we have a senate and a house. so -- and then we're co-equal

to the president but the president has certain rights provided to him under the constitution and if you find no exception in the actions of other presidents it's unusual that we would have such enthusiastic language in condemnation of this president's very similar actions. the chair: the gentleman from -- the time of the gentleman from pennsylvania has expire. all time having expyred, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. fattah: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a roll call vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk, designated king 77.

the chair: is the gentleman seeking -- there are two amendments designated as number 77. does the gentleman wish to present the amendment printed in the record or the one submitted at the desk? mr. king: i believe the one submitted at the desk that references the section 101-a-15 on line 4. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: an amendment by mr. king of iowa. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to negotiate or finalize a trade agreement that includes provisions relating to visas issued under section 101-a-15 of the immigration and nationality act 8 united states code a-101-15. this shall not apply in the case of the administration of a tax or tariff.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from iowa and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from iowa is now recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment addresses the circumstances around the trade promotion authority and later on perhaps the trans-pacific partnership but it addresses any trade negotiation that might take place that would be funded under this bill. and the rationale is this that there's been much concern about the negotiations with regard to trade promotion authority in particular, enabling the discussion about immigration visas as being part of the trade negotiations. it's a long-standing pattern and practice of this congress to assert our constitutional authority over immigration visas and when our u.s. trade

representative or other negotiators bring in negotiations that have to do with visas, it complicates our trade negotiations and makes us -- puts us in a place where when we see a trade agreement come before us, perhaps it's under a trade promotion authority that it would be negotiated and this house votes on it. then it may well have in it visas agreements that have been negotiated with multiple countries and taking out of the hands of congress the ability to directly establish although there's an indirect inference, but directly establish our immigration policy. a lot of the opposition to the trade negotiations that have been taking place in the trans-pacific partnership have been about concerns that news reports that have come from places like australia have pointed out that there are negotiations going on that have to do with visas. there was a circumstance several years ago under a previous administration where they had negotiated immigration provisions in a trade agreement and even though it was a

nonamendable trade agreement we went before the judiciary committee and had a full hearing. i offered two amendments that passed and ultimately there were changes made in that agreement. so there was a long history on this with me, and it has been an important issue to maintain the separation of immigration policy in the congress from the executive branch negotiations in trade. that's what this amendment does. it says no immigrant visas will be negotiated in trade agreements, and that means all of them, and, again, the constitution enumerates this power to the congress, not the executive branch. i urge adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from pennsylvania claim the time in opposition to the amendment? mr. fattah: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i think that the hopes of having some bipartisan support for this bill i think is waning and i think it's very unfortunate that we are now at

a time that we can try to intrude the president's prerogatives. he can negotiate all he wants. i may not support what he negotiates but to say you can't even discuss something in a negotiation i think is unfortunate. i'm in opposition and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: may i inquire as to how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman i reiterate this point that this congress and a lot of the american people lack confidence in the negotiations of our president and a lot of this angst is flowed forth from the iranian negotiations and their march towards a nuclear capability that has undermined

the credibility and made it significantly for difficult for a congress that is in favor of trade, especially on my side of the aisle. i'm a natural-born free trader. i always believe that i can compete with anybody in the world and i think america and american companies can compete with anyone in the world. i think that we need to have a level playing field and that we should -- but what is happening is that lack of confidence in the president's negotiations and the willingness to i believe give away some of the positions that would better enhance our national security with regard to iran, in particular, has made it far more difficult for those like me who are pro-free trade pro-smart trade. and because of that and the discussions about immigration visas being part of the negotiations and the indications from other countries that that's taking place the secrecy around these negotiations is another

component of it. when we have to go into a secure room and give up our iphone and leave our notes there and be able to -- in order to be able to see what the administration will present us as far as these negotiations are concerned it's hard to have confidence that we are getting all of the straight story. so this is a way to put some containment around the -- containment around the negotiations. if the administration says there are no visas being negotiated, there should be no reason to oppose this amendment and that's really the bottom line. if -- if the administration opposes my amendment, that's a strong indication that they're not giving us the full story, but we are getting more of the full stories from places like australia. i urge support of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: inquire of the time remaining, please? the chair: the gentleman from iowa has 45 seconds remaining.

mr. king: i thank the chairman and yield myself the balance of the time here and reiterate this amendment addresses a lack of trust that these trade negotiations are focused on the things that trades are supposed to be discussed about and i have -- i have a strong suspicion that they've included -- they've included immigration visas in their trade agreements and so this amendment is drafted consistent with the position of this congress that immigration should not be part of trade negotiations. if the administration says it is not part of trade negotiations, they should say, fine, i'm happy to support the king amendment and they'll be happy to prove it in that fashion. meanwhile, a lot of us will not go to a secure room to see if there's anything in there and we don't know what's presented to this congress until it's too late to resist. so mr. chairman, i urge adoption of my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from iowa has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania

has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. fattah: i thank the speaker, and let me assure the house i take -- i have no intention to take 4 1/2 minutes to make the comments i intend to make. i was at select u.s.a. which is a gathering of people that the administration brought together from around the world who are business people and about investments in america and i was there with a few members of the u.s. senate. i got a chance to sit next to a gentleman who's got businesses in the united states manufacturing businesses in south africa and in his overwhelm country in asia and a number of other places and he says when he travels to america, even though he has 3,000 employees here it's almost impossible for him to get the kind of visas and to get back and forth post-9/11 that can make it an efficient business trip for him. it requires such advanced

planning. i could imagine in a negotiation there could be some consideration when there's a person has got a multinational business and is employing americans in iowa or some other state about their entry and exit from our country. in fact, he indicated in these other countries he has such arrangements. just not in our own. so i think that america's got to think about, you know, where it is on these issues. this is not the appropriate bill for this. this is a bill that determines the appropriation levels that we're going to fund in certain accounts. we're well-off track and i hope that we vote this amendment down. i'm opposed to it and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. fattah: i seek a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman seeks a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk undesignated by number, it references section 642-a. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section. none of the funds made available by this act under the heading department of gentleman, office of justice programs, state and local law enforcement assistance, may be used in controvention of section 642-a of the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996. 8 united states code 1373-a.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from iowa and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment eliminates the funding that might be used in controvention of section 642-a that's designated in the amendment. but 64 -a is the section -- 642-a is the section in the immigration and responsibility act, the 1996 act that i know, that prohibits the political subdivisions in america from establishing sanctuary policies. we offer refer to as sanctuary cities. these are the political subdivisions that establish a policy that prohibit their law enforcement officers and their other agents from cooperating with federal immigration officials. and it seems -- it seems illogical to me that any local

government would want to prohibit their law enforcement officers from assisting in, cooperating with and transferring information to the federal law enforcement officers who are enforcing immigration law. but that section reads in part but with the thought being contained here, notwithstanding language -- it says -- the political subdivisions may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from i.n.s. at the time, that's i.c.e. today, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status lawful or unlawful, of any individual closed quote. mr. chairman, i grew up in a law enforcement family. i looked at the men around me as a little boy and i just thought that all adult men put on a uniform of one died or

another. i was steeped in the rule of law and when there was an issue that came forward, whether it was a bank robbery or some tragedy that took place, all levels of law enforcement cooperated with all other levels of law enforcement. no one that was a member of the city police said i'm not going to -- i'm not going to be serving papers here because that's the county's job and no county deputy decided that he wouldn't pull somebody over for speeding because that was the city speed limit on a city street. and no highway patrol officer decided that he wouldn't force -- enforce local law and no one that came in from the department of criminal investigation or the f.b.i. decided that it was their bally whack, that it was exclusively their law to enforce and no one should help them with that. law enforcement to be effective has to be a cooperation from all and of course the public has to respect the rule of law and they have to respect those who are there to protect and serve and to also enforce that

law. it is for me, i cannot understand how or why a city would establish these policies but they are doing so and in the process of that they are undermining the rule of law and eroding the respect for the rule of law and leaving their citizens vulnerable when we could be helping them with federal officers who need to get this information. and so this is an amendment that has been offered in multiple years. it's passed this house multiple times. the number that i saw last year with the identical language, passed the house by a vote of 214-94. we've been consistent in defending the rule of law law. this amendment says no funds shall go to these political subdivisions from this bill if they establish sanctuary city policies to put it in short sumation. i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from california seek the time in opposition?

mr. farr: yes. reserve the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. . >> the description of the amendment as we understand it prohibits the use of the funds that contraconvenient section 642 of the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996. the facts are is that the state and localities around the country that have adopted laws and policies to limit immigration enforcement by law enforcement are focused on protecting public safety. we have this in california and many border states. and there is a level of cooperation that does take place between local law enforcement agencies as well as our federal

enforcement officers. surely we don't believe it's good policy through the threat of sanctions, which is this amendment does or withholding police funding. frankly if you believe in federalism and if you believe in that relationship between local state and federal government, this is really top down. and i think runs contrary to the notion that law enforcement agencies at all levels collaborate and cooperate and holding this sort of sword of damacles over the head of local law enforcement agencies simply, i think is not good public policy. so in an op ed piece that was

published in "roll call," the police chief of dayton said not to check immigration status or to question their status in minor traffic stops and he says and i quote, these policies allow us to focus our resources on the primary mission, which is crime solving and community safety and we know local law enforcement agencies are clearly stretched very thin across the country. they also fear immigration consequences and notwithstanding the fact of their status, crimes are perpetrated upon these people as well. since states adopted these policies in addressing crime problems, our crime rates have significantly declined.

in the past three years, serious crime has declined nearly 22% while serious property crime has gone down 15%. it's simply perverse to punish communities because they know best what their challenges are within their communities to protect the public against crime and to enact community-based policing activities. and so to deny them this funding through this threat of the funds simply is we believe inappropriate. and timely, i think that this amendment focuses on a problem that doesn't exist. and with those statements, i would yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

california yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i seek to strike the last word to speak in support of the amendment. mr. chairman, the gentleman from california mr. costa's objection to this amendment is he does not believe current federal law is good public policy. as a member of congress, he has the privilege of filing amendments and filing legislation to change current federal law, but we cannot as lawmakers encourage law breaking. and all mr. king's amendment says is that if a local or state government expects to receive federal money, they should comply with federal law. it's really that simple. mr. king's amendment simply says if you expect to receive fund fringe the department of justice, you expect to receive funding under the state criminal alien assistance program and

housed in a state or local jail at local taxpayer expense, if you want to be compensated for that or apply for grant funding from the department of justice, all mr. king's amendment says is follow federal law. if you want federal money, follow federal law. and the federal law is very clear. the law mr. king is referencing here simply says that a state or local government may not prohibit or in any way restrict a government entity or official from sending or receiving any information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual to the immigration service. that's all this law says. and it's a very important piece of law because as mr. king correctly points out, we expect all our local, state and federal law enforcement officials to work together seamlessly because we are a nation of laws.

we understand that all our liberty depends on the enforcement of the law. equal protection and due process for everyone. all our liberties depend on local, state and federal law enforcement officers using their good hearts, their good sense and their ability as law enforcement officers to recognize when and where they need to cooperate and communicate with the state law enforcement officials, with federal law enforcement officials, to protect the life and liberty of the people of the united states. and that's what it is at stake. that's the concern and objection that we have in the state of texas to the uncontrolled flow of people and drugs and guns and illegal material that cross the border. our concern is not with the lawful free flow of people back and forth over the river, our

concern is with the illegal criminal conduct. we recognize in texas the importance of free trade with mexico and with canada, but you cannot have free trade and a strong economy without safe streets and cannot have safe streets until the law is enforced. so we in texas recognize that in order to have that good relationship with mexico, the law has got to be enforced. we need workers from mexico to come here lawfully. we need our laws to be respected so we can ensure the economy stays strong and our lint is protected. our liberty can only be safe if the law is enforced and his amendment says if you expect to receive federal money follow federal law. it's not complicated. under the law, it has been on the books since 1996, if a state or local unit of government expects -- a state or local unit of government cannot restrict in any way the ability of a

government official to either send information to immigration or receive information from federal immigration regarding the citizenship or unlawful status of any individual. if mr. costa, my colleague from california, object jeggets to that law, it's his privilege to file an amendment or file legislation to amend it or change it. but in the meantime our responsibility as lawmakers and my responsibility as chairman of the subcommittee is to ensure that the law is enforced and if agencies in the federal government or state or local governments expect to receive federal money if they expect to have the privilege of spending our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars they should expect to follow the law. if you want federal money, follow federal law. it's that simple. that's all mr. king's amendment does and i urge members to support it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i think everything that needs to be said has been said. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa has a minute and a half remaining. mr. king: i thank the chairman for recognizing me. and i would make the point and reiterate the positions taken by the gentleman from texas. we have political subdivisions, in sanctuary cities that are violating federal law and all we're saying is follow the law. the point hasn't been made here that the department of justice could enforce this law but they choose not to and empowers the political subdivisions, particularly the cities to follow these sanctuary policies and imagine being a police officer if you pick up people that you can't tell the i.n.s. that you have a jail full of

people that are unlawfully present in america that are required by law to be placed into amolve proceedings. that is just illogical. so i would point out that if you disagree with this section of the code, you are here in this congress bring a bill to try to change it. i'm for full funding. i think when we have people that are in the country and not enforcing immigration law we should make sure that local jails are funded when they are picking up that are in america. i want to get the grant to them but we cannot do that under provisions if the local subdivisions are violating the law. with regard to the statement that this is a problem that doesn't that exists. it is growing in city after city. we need to restore the respect for the rule of law and that's what this amendment does. and i urge its adoption and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired on this amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. king: mr. chairman i would request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman has requested a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lute meyer of missouri at the end of the bill snerd the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to carry out the program known as operation choke

point. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from missouri and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: question, how does the federal government get rid of an industry it doesn't like? answer, simple, it cuts off that industry from financial services. sounds impossible, doesn't it? however, that's what the department of justice is doing in conjunction with the f.d.i.c. right now and it is called operation choke point which is designed to force illegally operating businesses by choking them off. and what started with nondepository lenders has spread to pawn shops, tobacco retailers and firearms and ammunition industries to name just a few as well as the businesses that provide services and products to these industries. this amendment would ensure that operation choke point is ended and d.o.j. returns to their

proper job targeting companies based on fraudulent actions and not on political motive. an identical bill was offered and passed by a voice vote. this isn't a partisan issue but d.o.j. abusing its authorities. i urge support and with that, i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. williams: we will vote to end funding for a government program that is at best unethical and at worst illegal. the program forces banks to discriminate against legitimate legal businesses. today we know banks are closing their customers' accounts under a directive by the u.s. department of justice. there is no appeals process. the enforcer of the law of the land is backing this potentially unlawful program.

hard working business owners have had their livelihoods ripped out from under them by a law established by this administration and not by congress. operation choke point is another example of how the obama administration has gone around congress to create laws rather than do their jobs to enforce the laws we already have on the books. as a business owner myself operation choke point worries me greatly. operation choke point is un-american and deceiving and time for congress to bring in government overreach and restore government accountability. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to defund choke point and in god we trust, i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek time in opposition? mr. fattah: i do indeed. i think there may be some neutrality of interests of what the gentleman says is true about what is at stake here. however, this is not a process

under which we can discern all of that at this moment, right? this is an appropriations bill and this is where the congress should hold hearings, look into it and take some testimony and figure out what's going on before we would shut down what might be a very important program. maybe if what the gentleman describes that maybe the d.o.j. is moving in a way that makes little or no sense. but i think to come at the final point in the bill and seek to restrict d.o.j. in this way, i would be reluctant to support it and i stand in opposition to it and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. luetkemeyer: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman

from south carolina two minutes. . >> what we're talking about putting legal businesses out of businesses. that's what operation choke point is. mr. mulvaney: pawnshops, payday lenders ammunition manufacturers, legal businesses. with all due respect to my friend from pennsylvania, we had hearings on this. in fact, the d.o.j. has claimed they stopped this program. they've agreed with us that they shouldn't be doing this. now, we don't believe they're actually doing that. we have indications from what's happening back in our districts that even though the d.o.j. says they stopped operation choke point it's still going on. my question is, who supports the program? the d.o.j. says it's wrong. the d.o.j. says they're not doing it. who would get up and say, i think operation choke point is a great idea?

we should do means within the department of justice to drive legal business out of business. i don't know how you defend this position. i have a woman-owned business in my home county who cannot get money to expand her pawnshop. i have businesses elsewhere in south carolina that have little tiny piece of their large financial services business in payday lending. they've been cut off from their financial relationships over 25 years. they can't get banking services. that's why the d.o.j. said they were going to stop. we just don't happen to believe them. we should support this amendment because it is the appropriate thing to do to my good friend from pennsylvania, because that's how we work. we defund programs we don't like, and if the d.o.j. says they're not doing it anyway, what's the harm in voting for the amendment? i ask are again, who could possibly be against this amendment, who could be for operation choke point? and i hope we have broad support for mr. luetkemeyer's amendment this evening. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i'd yield some of my own time -- if we could join in a colloquy on this? since the republicans are in the majority, you held hearings on this, is there legislation that is coming forward to end these practices? i yield time to the gentleman. mr. luetkemeyer: there's been hearings in the financial services committee. there's been hearings in the oversight and government reform committee. in fact, they have a report, expensive report on both the d.o.j. and fdic activities that includes emails and internal memos from those agencies indicating these activities. they can't be denied. they admitted these. in discussions with the fdic in the follow-up hearing to the report they admit doing this. they put in place a number of provisions in a bill i'm offering -- mr. fattah: is there legislation coming forward? mr. luetkemeyer: that's what i was getting to. as a result of this report i have a bill coming up later on this month for hearing in committee.

the fdic has put in place many of the same provisions of the bill already as protocols for them on operations how they handle situations like this. and so i think we're making progress. the problem is that d.o.j. is -- has flipped the model of using a bank law that banks use to protect themselves against fraud to now use that bill -- that law against them. as a result we need to stop that. that's part of the bill as well. mr. fattah: let me reclaim my time. i appreciate you answering my question. so what i hear is you held some hearings, you have legislation that you're making progress and that administration curtailed some of these practices that you're concerned about. however, you would still like to proceed with this prohibition of funds which might be entirely appropriate. i don't have enough information standing here today to agree with you that that's the right thing to do. so i stand in opposition to the amendment even though i may not

be in spirit in opposition of what it is you're attempting to do. i just don't have enough information to join you in this effort as robustly as you are engaged in it. so i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from missouri has 130ekds remaining. mr. luetkemeyer: 30 seconds. i just want to reiterate that my two other spokespeople here with regards to this have expressed concern. there's businesses across this country that are being choked off from financial services and as a result they're doing a legal business but can't do that because of the actions of the fdic and d.o.j. which the o.g.r. reports indicates they're doing. they admit this wrongdoing in different hearings on campus here. i think what we're trying to do is protect legal business from doing -- to be able to do legal business.

with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. fattah: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. all time having now expired on this amendment the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. denham of california.

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 by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration to implement in the california central valley recovery domain any existing recovery plan for salmon and steelhead populations listed under the endangered species act 173, as threatened species or endangered species if that recovery plan does not address predation by nonnative species. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. denham: thank you. this amendment will help salmon and steelhead species in california. it will increase the effectiveness of species of salmon and steelhead listed under the endangered species

act of 1973 by ensuring an appropriate focus on predation control efforts. predation has long been recognized as a source of significant mortality for endangered and threatened species. in fact, according to noaa, none native species are cited as a cause of endangerment for 48% of the species listed under the endangered species act. this is true for marine species. along the pacific coast, salmon and seehead juveniles. protection of salmon and steelhead required significantly reducing the nonnative predatory fish. and that reducing the number of nonnative predatory fish was necessary to prevent extinction or prevent the species from declining irreversiblely. in my own state as far back of 5:00, the control board recommended in its water quality control plan for the bay delta that they pursue --

to determine the impacts of predation on salmon and steelhead. nothing has been done and there are currently no programs in california to remove these nonnative predatory fish. today in california species such as the nonnative striped bass introduced into california from new jersey consume up to 95% of the salmon and steelhead along the sacramento and san joaquin river system. these bass are not suppressed but rather managed by local state officials for abundance and sport fishing. mr. chairman predatory control efforts can and do work. currently control of predator fish is being successfully used in a number of locations in north america and the great lakes control efforts of sea lamprae have worked on rainbow trout and others. and the wood river system in

alaska, control over the arctic char. in the columbian snake meadow. in the cold tooth lake, salmon production increased after an eradication program focusing on pike minnow. recovery threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead populations has been a critical priority for congress for years. this amendment simply ensures that nonnative predators is a top priority for noaa and all other stakeholders in maintaining salmon and steelhealed populations and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. who claims the time in opposition to the amendment? mr. fattah: i claim the time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: even though my opposition is not as apparent as you might otherwise be. i want to yield to my great colleague here two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. costa: mr. chair, i move to strike the last word.

i'd like to thank the gentleman from california and from pennsylvania for allowing me this time. the gentleman from california for offering this important amendment. let me give a little perspective here. clearly everyone is aware of the disastrous drought that is having catastrophic impacts in california. not only in the san joaquin valley but throughout the state. and there are a number of factors that have caused the challenges that we face with a lack of water in california. obviously it hasn't rained for very much -- or snowed very much in the mountains for four years. but in addition to that we have a broken water system in the sense designed in the 1950's and 1960's both the federal and state water projects for a state of 20 million people. today we have 38 million people, and we have a lot of demands not only for the use of agriculture but for people in our cities and for the environment. and this amendment relates to our requirements under the law

to protect the environment. those endangered species. salmonoid and steelhead that are native to california. what happened is some hundred years ago before we had a better understanding and before california was much bigger state there was the introduction of striped bass from the east coast found from the gulf of st. lawrence seaway all the way down to alabama, these are native fish on the east coast but they were not native to california. they were introduced and -- at a small number but became very successful in propagations. so much so that in the early 1900's after 10 years of introduction over a million pounds a year was being harvested of these nonnative striped bass fish in the san francisco bay san joaquin

sacramento delta river systems. the chair: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. mr. costa: i'd like to ask the gentleman another two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i'll be glad to yield the gentleman another two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for an additional two minutes. mr. costa: thank you very much mr. chair. as i was saying, the fact is is that the state has changed a great deal since -- to present day. the current water system is unable to meet the demands under the current restrictions that are required under the endangered species act to maintain and to try to increase the population of salmonoid and steelhead. we have determined, as my colleague and friend from california stated, that these fish these predator fish are responsible for a large amount of the takings of both the native california salmon and steelhead.

and yet we have no program to balance this. what this would do, this amendment would simply require that a recovery plan be effective that must incorporate and address all factors involved in species recovery, those of particularly high concerned. some of the studies have indicated in the sacramento river over 95% of the juvenile salmon and steelhead are eaten by these predator striped bass, these nonnative fish and other invasive species. this amendment ensures that the recovery plan for salmon and steelhead take these factors into account. i urge the support for my -- for my colleague's from california this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, mr. denham, is recognized. mr. denham: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. denham has two minutes remaining. mr. denham: thank you, mr.

chairman. i'd just like to point out one thing. an irrigation district in my district was forced to do a federally ordered study which actually showed on 240,000 shnook were killed by nonnative fish. that nearly eliminated the entire population. this is a federally ordered study. with that i yield to the gentleman from california. the chair: mr. valadao is recognized for the remainder of the time. mr. valadao: thank you mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from california for offering this very important amendment. when you look what'sng on in the central valley, my hometown, and you hear stories and i see for myself because i was there this past week, cities, houses running out of water, wells going dry. there was just a news article a couple days ago about a city in my district named lamore that wells were going dry that supply homes in the south side of town and that's a frustrating situation.

we fought for the last couple years to bring legislation to the floor. we delivered to the senate a few times to help resolve this. what makes this more frustrating than anything is we've got a situation here where we could actually make a difference. there is studies here that prove that 95% of the fish that we're trying to protect are being eaten by species that we're doing nothing about. the tools are there. this is a simple amendment that actually helps deliver and force these agencies who should be looking out for the best interest of the people of the united states but it forces them to actually use every single tool in their toolbox to actually address the situation instead of wasting water. when i saw the article of water being released in these post flows to trick some of our species instead of doing something to make a difference, it's a waste of water that could have made a real difference to the people in our district. we're starting to see unemployment numbers again upwards of 50% in some of these communities. houses where they're actually delivering water by truck so they can bathe. in is a real dire situation.

this allows government agencies who are supposed to take the interest of the american people and use tools in their tool box. this is a good idea and makes a difference. thank you for this amendment. and i urge support. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. denham those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> recorded vote requested. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. denham, will be postponed.

>> seek unanimous consent request. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: amendment was passed and amendment -- we have an amendment number on this? king number 077 and passed by voice. i requested a recorded vote. i seek unanimous consent to withdraw from that request and allow the voice vote which it passed, to be the fact. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa.

the chair: is there objection? without objection so ordered. the amendment stands adopted by the earlier voice vote. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word and to arrive at our final moment on this bill that my colleague from new york, who is an extraordinary member, has a very important amendment to offer, and i yield whatever time he may consume in this manner. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jeffries: i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yield back so the gentleman from new york can offer his amendment? mr. fattah: yes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk does not have an amendment at this time. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. jeffries of new york at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available may be used for the monitoring or review of electronic communications between and inmate and attorney or attorneys' agents who are traditionally covered by attorney-client privilege except as provided in 28 c.f.r. 501

.3-d. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. jeffries: thank you, mr. speaker and let me thank the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member from pennsylvania for his leadership. this amendment would prohibit the use of funds in connection with the monitoring or review of electronic communications between an inmate, detainee and his or her attorney or attorney's agents who are traditionally covered by the attorney-client privilege except in circumstances where reasonable suspicion exists that a particular inmate's communications with attorneys or their agents may be designed to

further or facilitate acts of terrorism. this amendment is designed to protect the attorney-client privilege. it would protect the sixth amendment right to council of individuals who are using electronic communications to share privileged information with their designated court advocate. the attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest recognized privileges recognized in american jurisprudence and intended to encourage the full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote the broader public interest in the observance of the law and the administration of justice. it is anchored in the sixth amendment. currently, in-person attorney visitations in facilities that are run by the bureau of prisons can take place in attorney-client rooms, which

provide the privacy to share information jess for a lawyer to adequately defend his or her client in court. however, this is not the case for correspondence conducted through electronic means. waiver notice vary from facility to facility with some having notice which state that by using the trust fund limited inmate computer system otherwise known as true links, inmates are waiving their privilege rights. other facilities provide no indication on the level of privacy that a detained individual can expect when using electronic prison resources. the system also does not provide an option for detained individual who hasn't been convicted to contact his or her attorney without subbing

electronic communications to external review. the reading and collecting of privileged information in instances where clients are having electronic exchanges with their attorneys is a clear invasion of the traditional attorney-client privilege. in this great country there is a presumption of innocence. as john adams has eloquently set forth, it is a foundational principle of our democracy. seems unreasonable to require in the 21st century that protection of the attorney-client privilege at a detention center only occurs through in-person visitation. these correction alpha silts are often located in -- these correctional facilities are often located in rural areas and the technology is in these

facilities and our laws should adapt to the modern age. constitutional right to assistance of counsel i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. does the gentleman from texas seek the time in opposition to the amendment? mr. culberson: i seek unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition although i'm not in opposition and we have visit -- the gentleman from new york is prepared to withdraw the amendment. so i do claim the time in opposition. i think the gentleman has raised a valid concern and do not want to see any exception to the attorney-client privilege and can't be limited to just those circumstances where an attorney is present where the individual is interviewed at the facility. i think the gentleman has

identified a legitimate problem that we need to address. as i discussed with mr. jeffries earlier, we got the language late and i want to be certain we aren't creating an unanticipated problems and mr. jeffries wants to exclude the reasonable exception in current law. if a judge sees there is potential or reasonable cause for concern that there may be furtherance of a terrorist plot in the course of those communications between an attorney and client and the department of justice under a court order could listen to that. if i could, with my colleague's help, mr. jeffries, we appreciate as we discussed earlier, if you with draw this amendment, i'll work with my colleague ranking member fattah to help address the concern you've got when we move to

conference. it is a valid concern. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i would concur with his every utrans on this amendment that we will work together and help facilitate which is a righteous effort on behalf of congressman jeffries to protect the right of all americans to have privileged conversations with their attorneys so that their rights can be fully protected. i thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas still controls the time. mr. culberson: i yield to my colleague from new york for the purpose of completing -- mr. jeffries: i thank distinguished the gentleman from texas and willingness to work together in terms of the preservation of the

attorney-client privilege in the detainee context and look forward to working with two of them and members of this august body to resolve this issue and with that, i withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 rule 18, proceedings will now resume on these amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. first amendment by mr. massie of kentucky, second amendment by

mr. massie of kentucky, third amendment of mr. massie of kentucky, an amendment by mr. flores of texas, an amendment by mr. sanford of south carolina, amendment number 3 by mr. king of iowa an amendment by mr. king of iowa, an amendment by mr. denham of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. massie of kentucky. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

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 289, the nays are 132.

the amendment is not -- the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the house will be in order. the committee of the whole will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of an announcement. the chair: without objection. mr. mccarthy: members are advised that no more votes are expected in the house tonight. the house will begin debate on fiscal year 2016 transportation, housing and urban development appropriation bill immediately following this vote series.

debate will continue late tonight. so any member wishing to offer an amendment should be prepared to do so at the appropriate point in the bill. our next votes are expected at approximately 11:00 a.m. tomorrow and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection -- the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. without objection two-minute voting will continue. i repeat, two-minute voting. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment of the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: second amendment offered by mr. massie of kentucky.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 250, the nays are 171 and the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the third amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: third amendment offered by mr. massie of kentucky. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 374 the nays are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 383, the nays are 43 and the amendment is adopted. the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. the chair is announcing to all members that two-minute voting will be strictly enforced. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- mr. flores on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the

ayes were recorded by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 236, the nays are 190. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sanford of south carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will stand and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 134 the nays are 290rk the amendment is not adopted. -- are 290, the amendment is not

adopt. the unfinished business -- is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number three offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in congressional record offered by mr. kick of iowa. the chair: a vorded -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 222, the nays are 204. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 227, the nays are 198, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. denham on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. denham of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is 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 245, the nays are 181. the amendment is adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 98, line 21, this act may be cited as the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriation act 2016. the chair: the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise and report the bill to the house with sundry amendments and with recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and the bill as amended do pass.

the chair: the motion is on -- 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. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2578 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2578 and pursuant to

house resolution 287 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. thunder erule, the previous question is ordered. -- under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment under the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them in gross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the sque on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: bill making appropriations for the departments of commerce, justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016, and for other purposes. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the chair: the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mrs. lowey: i am in its current

form. the chair: the clerk -- ms. brownlee: i am in its current form. the chair: the clerk will report the motion. the gentlelady will suspend. the clerk will read. the chair: ms. brown lee of california moves to recommit the bill -- the chair: is there objection? without objection the reading is dispensed with. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. brownlee: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to h.r. 2578 which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. my amendment would provide an additional $3 million for violence against women prevention and prosecution programs, increasing resources for sexual assault victims' assistance. . it will also provide an additional $3 million for

juvenile justice programs for the internet crimes against children task force program. mr. speaker, there is more than ample room within the budget cap for this bill to do more to help sexual assault victims and prevent the exploitation of children. i hope we can all agree that these critical programs are worthy of added resources. >> the house is not in order mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house will come to order. ms. brownley: the sexual assault services program was authorized through the violence against women act and was the first federal program dedicated to the provision of direct services to victims of sexual violence. across the country the sexual assault services program supports critical life-saving safety net services. support services are offered to both adult and minor survivors

of sexual assault and to family members who are helping them cope with the mental health and physical trauma of sexual assault. the program also funds intervention and advocacy services providing survivors with the help that they need to navigate through the medical and criminal justice systems. for many survivors of sexual assault, this program is a critical and necessary source of support at the most vulnerable time in their lives. we must support these life saving programs and stand up for survivors of sexual assault. additionally, we must do more to protect vulnerable children from predators who dispickably exploit children on the internet. this is why my amendment will provide a much-needed increase for the internet crimes against children task force program

which funds state and local law enforcement who investigate online child exploitation. the program also provides forensic prevention and investigative assistance to law enforcement, educators, prosecutors, and families. the program also ensures law enforcement officers are trained to deal with online child pornography and child enticement so that these cases will be fully investigated and prosecuted. in 2014 alone, 7,800 individuals were arrested and the task forces around the country conducted over 60,000 forensic investigations. clearly there is an you are jebt and compelling -- urgent and compelling moral need to address these heinous crimes. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to recommit, to vote yes

to protect women and girls from sexual assault and violence, to vote yes to protect children from online predators. mr. speaker, at this time i yield the balance of my time to my friend and a champion for protecting children, my friend from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized, however she will suspend. the house will come to order. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the gentlewoman's motion to recommit because there are children out there that need to be saved. they are waiting to be saved. this motion provides additional funding for the internet crimes against children program a national network of 61 coordinated law enforcement task forces investigating and prosecuting those who sexually exploit our most vulnerable constituents, our children. with the proliferation of the internet and wireless technology, online child pornography has become an epidemic. and let's not forget that these are not just heinous images.

they are crime scene photos. the forces need to go after these criminals now. in one recent year, the tax only had the resources to investigate a mere 2% of all leads. previous increases in funding have directly resulted in thousands more arrests, contributing to many more thousands of children who are outright rescued or who will be spared contact with an abuser. let's take this opportunity to help the force rescue more children. please, think about these precious babies being victimized. let's rescue as many of them as possible. if you are a parent, god for bid it was your own -- forbid it was your own child. i urge the support of the motion to recommit and i thank the gentlelady for her commitment to making sure that we can arrest -- rescue america's victimized children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. culberson: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: mr. speaker, before i begin, i'll be very brief, i want to make sure to thank the majority staff who worked so hard on this bill. i want to thank our chief clerk john, leslie, jeff, taylor, collin and ashley for their tireless work drafting this bill, along with bob on the minority staff matt, cory and megan in my personal office and a personal thank you to my good friend, congressman from philadelphia, who has done such a great job, we've worked together arm in arm in this bill on this legislation to produce, after over 80 amendments, and starting about 2:00 yesterday afternoon we have worked through over 80 amendments and all the the gentlewoman from california would have had to do was show up here during the course of that debate, any member could have offered an amendment. that's one of the great things about this process. i want to thank our majority

leader and speaker, mr. boehner, for opening up the legislative process, unlike in the past, any member of this congress could stand up and represent their 700,000 constituents and could you take a big chief note pad and a pencil and just write out an amendment and walk right down there and give it to the clerk and all the gentlelady from california had to do was just write the amendment up and present it to the clerk. why, we would even have accepted it. but instead she offers it up there as a procedural trick to confuse and confound. we produced a great bill. my minority member and i have worked together arm in arm to produce a good bill that protects this nation's investment in space exploration and scientific research, but above all invests in the good people of the law enforcement community. mr. fattah: would my friend yield? mr. culberson: i'd be happy yield to the minority leader. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i'm the whip. but -- i want to make that perfectly clear. the fact of the matter is, did the gentleman just say if this amendment had been offered previously?

mr. culberson: earlier. mr. hoyer: that you would have accepted it? mr. culberson: absolutely. mr. hoyer: but you're now -- parliamentary inquiry. parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas role coles the time. mr. culberson: mr. hoyer's exactly right. we would have accepted this amendment earlier in the process because it's an open process. anyone has a chance to come down here and offer an amendment. in an open and free house of representatives, that's why this amendment should be defeated. we've got a good bill. i urge members to vote no against this vote to recommit. thank you very much. 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. ms. brownley: mr. speaker, i request a yea and nay vote, please for the record.

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 the 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.]

7:00