about the usa freedom act, which was signed into law this week. and what it means for national security and privacy. also, republican ryan zinke you member of the armed services committee, on the president strategy host: house lawmakers continue to debate over the legalization of marijuana in this country. democrats and republicans join together to approve several provisions preventing the justice department that have legalized medicinal use of the drug. with open and use growing we get your take on this debate. dial in at 202-748-8,000 and

join the conversation on twitter @ c-spanwj. we'll try to read some of those. good morning to all of you. he'll get to your phone calls here if a minute of the here's the sewsassociate press story. the federal government would be unable to block state laws permitting the use of medical marijuana under legislation approved wednesday bite g.o.p. controlled house. the lawmakers narrowly rejected an amendment that would stop the justice department with interfering with states like colorado and washington that permit the recreational use of marijuana. 242 to 148. when the house first approved it as part of the bill funding the justice department. wednesday's vote was to renew

the pro pot language as part of a bill providing funding for the fiscal year, a measure passed by a mostly party line vote. much republicans opposed and the senate is in g.o.p. hands so the outcome can be reversed. and the g.o.p. controlled appropriations committee last month. we turn to all of you this morning. congress seems to be opening up to this idea of marijuana use, medical and recreational. what are your thoughts on it? do you support or oppose the legalization of marijuana? little bit from yesterday's debate on the house floor. i want to show you what congressman tom mcclintock said to say. congressman: it's not an endorsement to marijuana.

i never used it and my and i raised our kids ton use it. this amendment addresses the larger question, whether the federal government has the authority to dictate a policy on matters that occur strictly within their own borders. i believe it does not. even if it does, i believe it should not. in 1932, supreme court justice described the beauty this way. a state may, if its citizens choose serve as a laboratory and try novel, social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. that's exactly what states like colorado and oregon have done with legalization and what many more have done with aspects of t they believe that the harm that might be done by easier access to this drug is outweighed by removing the violent underground economy that is caused by

prohibition. i don't know if they're right or wrong, but i'd like to find out and their experiment will inform the rest of the country. host: republican congressman from california who joined together with colorado to offer that amendment that would direct the justice department not to mettle with states like colorado and washington that permit. it's failed 222-206 in the house of the we turn it all of you in the debate. kim in texas, you support legalization. why? caller: well for three reasons. one, that it should have never been illegal in the first place. it was all because of minority connection with marijuana. number two because it can't hurt you. it can hurt children but it can't hurt adults and doctors have been prescribing it ever since the seventies to help

people who are dying of cancer. i'm a pain patient. i have fibromyalgia and arthritis and i would love to smoke a joint but i can't because i don't want to go to jail. host: in texas it's not legal. caller: not legal. unless taxes in colorado go through the roof i doubt if the republicans will ever let it be in texas. host: have your views changed on this or have you always supported it? caller: i started supporting it and then when my children were legal i didn't and now that i'm old and broken i support it again. host: well take a look at the map. the brighter green states are the states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana, alaska oregon washington state

and colorado have legalized recreational use of it. those darker green states that have legalized medicinal use and gray states that have no laws on legalizing marijuana. however this debate is happening in other states across the country. we can share some local news with you this morning. darren, in florida you support it. why? caller: yes, i support marijuana. host: tell us why, darren. caller: because throughout my whole life i came up with a -- [laughter] okay. i came up with a job to have the word savages in the stars because i had a thinking problem. so my thinking problem is so bad i would like support marijuana because i see it on television. when i go outside because my job is done, the words "savage" is

in the word in the stars and now i can think. host: we'll move on to ruth. ruth you oppose legalization. tell us why. caller: i oppose it because there's nothing that has been proven that there's anything it that is helpful. they keep saying that doctors have said it's safe and safe for children and and that doctors prescribe it for people who are sick. but there's nothing proven by science that there's anything in it that says all these things are true. host: okay. well ruth oh-- take a listen to republican john flemming he's a doctor. and's was talking about the

dangers of recreational use caller: today colorado has legalization of marijuana not withstanding what's going on with the federal government and its laws and the information is rolling in and the information is bad. the black market is worse than ever when it comes to drugs. interstate commerce has increased and not decreased. again as i stated before, two states oklahoma and nebraska, are now suing colorado over the bleed-over of problems that are occurring. the strength of marijuana is stronger than ever been and related deaths and accidents and even an overdose now with the stormer forms of marijuana. if this is about doctors allowing doctors to work with their patients, let's admit it. we don't allow as a society doctors to just do anything with

any patient. we have some guidelines and restrictions. furthermore, children. children are the end result of bad decisions in all this. we know that the more it's in the homes and the more it's going to get in the brains and blood streams of children. the number of problems are growing mostly from what we're seeing in colorado. studies show that m.r.i. scans even in casual users profound brain changes. we see that the area that deals with ambition is being greatly effected thus the ambition killer sort of knowledge that we have and understanding about this drug. host: louisiana republican john flemming a medical doctor, he talking about the dangers of recreational use of marijuana. here is now democratic congressman of colorado responded to what he had to say.

congressman: i come from colorado where underaged where it's down and driven criminal cartels out of business. i'm from colorado where our violent crime rates are down and where we continue to regulate dispensaries to make sure they're not schools and rather than have a corner street dealer who doesn't care if they're selling to a 13-year-old and we move that away to make sure sure they're not selling to minors. i don't have to convince you and i wish you would leave my sovereign state of colorado alone alone. let us decide what we're going to do rather than federal agents going around and arrest people for doing activities that are fully legal. host: he's responding to what the republican from louisiana

had to say about the recreational use of marijuana had to say. washington and oregon will start the process of legalizing recreational use july 1st. voters approved it. the state of alaska as well. what do you think? ruth in connecticut, you oppose it. did i already talk to you? caller: yes, you did. host: respond to that. caller: i wish they would have listened to him because they fail not to know the fact what marijuana does. if you did not want to legalize smoking why marijuana? i don't understand that. host: gilbert in tulsa oklahoma. you support it. tell us why. caller: yes. for one, let me explain i am a guy coma patient and because i'm law abiding, i'm blind now, i

have known friends who have had glaucoma far longer than i and they're doing everything i used to do. they're playing tennis, raising children and working. their biggest crime against marijuana and other drugs is that they are illegal. our prison systems are overflowing with people who use marijuana. i have it. look at what portugal has done. they have recognized that there are no drugs that are illegal and the crime rate has dropped. we have the drug cartels and all in latin america harming america and our children because we decided by the commission a long time ago against the mexicans in california to make it illegal. host: we'll show you what the i

associate press wrote. almost half the states allow medical marijuana but the federal government has adopted a hands off approach. the justice department has issued guidance to governors in such states including the four. it won't challenge those laws so long as marijuana is tightly regulated. the government is instead focusing on distrubibution to minors. marijuana is a schedule one drug under a landmark 1970 drug law meaning the government deems it to have no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. rebecca in abilene texas. you oppose. caller: yes, i'm totally against

it. i have seen so many kids that have smoked marijuana and you know what? that leads to other drugs. i myself, i hurt all the time. i'm on disability and you know what it's a drug and i oppose it. i don't even want it come to texas. host: linda in murray, kentucky, you support legalizing marijuana. caller: oh, i sure do. for many, many reasons. i have a lot of health problems and a lot of other people i know and we can take dangerous pharmaceuticals and buy alcohol legally and we can buy tobacco legally and we know what they do. i have personally have ended up in the emergency room by ambulance because of pharmaceutical drugs that have prescribed to me. i want freedom of choice. thank you.

host: all right, linda. the associated press also reports that opponents say marijuana remains dangerous. even casual users experience severe brain abnormalities and pot smoking leads to a loss of ambition and lower iq.'s and many other things. the underlying $50 billion spending bill only partially funds obama's local police to purchase body cameras. part of this debate over marijuana was part of a larger debate over funding for the justice department's overall bill was approved as the house continues to make its way through spending bills for the next fiscal year for the federal

agencies and they will continue to do that today when they gavel in at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. so of course we will go to coverage of the house when that happens. we'll hear from rob in new york. you support, rob, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i do. i feel that like some of your other callers, cigarettes are legal. alcohol is legal. marijuana has real medical uses and i just feel that it's something that grows wild and it's just been used to fill up our prison stemsystems and that's wrong. host: dana oppose. you're on the air. caller: i oppose the use of marijuana because aside from possibly medical marijuana in the form of medicinal oil that is given to children for things like epilepsy in terms of smoking it, not only does it

effect people like any other second hand substance but i've seen personally people's lives have -- it's taken a toll on their lives of the it is torn apart families, people have lost their job over it and become addicted to it. i don't think that it should be legalized because i see it as a problem here in our society. host: what do you say to people that are argue you can say the same thing about alcohol? caller: well, alcohol is has a different history in our culture. i think was that as common and socially acceptable we might have a similar debate about the risks of legalizing alcohol. but at this point it's been so prevalent throughout history it's harder to remove something

that's already an into krat part of our society than it is to remain strict on something that hasn't been legalized yet. host: look at the washington times. alcohol use disorder effects 33 million u.s. adults and alcohol problems effect 33 million and most have never sought treatment. this according to a government survey that suggests rates have increased in recent years. the study is based on a new term. alcohol use disorder in a psychiatric handbook that was updated in 2013. nearly 40% said they have engaged in binge drinking downing at least five drinks a day up from 31% in the early survey. it was most prevalent among men whites and native americans and those who never married also relatively high rates. anthony in new jersey, you

support legalizing marijuana. good morning to you. go ahead. caller: yes, i do. i'm a veteran and medical marijuana patient and just graduated with an electrical engineering degree. i disagree with ambition or motivation or intelligence. our history to the caller before that, mentioned our history with cannabis. it's actually wrong. humanity has used cannabis since the beginning of time practically going back thousands of years. so, i just think that we chose to criminalize it to pick on minorities and black people. i believe that's where the law was rooted and just kind of stuck. and i believe that's really the problem today. we have unethical laws and we keep them on the books.

host: you're a veteran. you say that you use marijuana for medical purposes. there is a movement in congress started on the senate side and there is legislation in the house as well to allow veterans who use the v.a. system to get medical marijuana to treat any sort of illnesses or disease. what do you think about that and how are you able to get it? caller: well, i pay out of enormous expense but it's a choice between harsh narcotics or medical marijuana. for me it's easy even though it really puts a strain on my finances. i start at about a thousand dollars a month to fulfill my prescription. if i go to the v.a. it's free, but then i end up on opiates and i've been down on that road. i've been dealing with this condition for over ten years. the bill that's currently in

legislation, i'm interested in it and i would like the v.a. to reimburse patients and because it is a big part of my treatment. right now i'm kind of shunned from the program and i really don't even go to the v.a., so i really hope for progress on that front. host: you're allowed medical marijuana in the state of new jersey? caller: yes. so the way new jersey works is a doctor essentially tests my condition that is prepblg sistered in the program and then the state writes my prescription. so the state wrote a prescription for two ounce as month for me to go and i have to pay out of pocket and this is from my service, service connected injury that i have. but i have to pay out of pocket and the v.a. doesn't reimburse and the other social cost of it. i'm trying to find work right

now and it's hard. because employers aren't necessarily understanding of my medical condition which is also another issue. patients rights. host: anthony, would you mind telling us when you served and what did you do? >> my injuries are to my lower spine, lower back problems. and it all happened from my service in 2001 to 2004. i was actually in basic training september 11th. so, it's been a long time for me and my injury -- it was kind of nonchalant and sort of happened and i wasn't in iraq or afghanistan, it happened here. but the fact is i was in active duty and i got injured doing my duty. i was medically discharged from the military for it.

i don't understand -- i feel like i'm being persecuted. i struggled my whole life to get this degree but it's not been easy and i feel like society -- it's a very awkward thing to go serve your country and come back and people tell you well, we don't care about what you've done because you're medicating with cannabis. host: anthony in new jersey. audrey, middleberg, florida. oppose it. caller: i oppose it because i'm a retired therapist i used to do therapy. it is stored in your brain. it's stored in the fatty tissues of your cells and a lot of them that means if you smoke it 2 or 3 times a week you never get it out of your system. alcohol is toxic and dangerous

to your system but you drink it and it gets in and gets out and marijuana really doesn't. if you smoke on anything like a regular basis. so, that's the main reason i'm against it. there may be some benefits for it in terms of medical, so i don't think i oppose that. but that's my stand on that. host: that's audrey. we'll keep this conversation rolling, but some other news for you. again from the washington times about trade. the headline that the president and the speaker of the house are teaming up to sell the asia trade deal. the president doing a round of media interviews and the speaker of the house by urging lawmakers to approve trade. he said congress will have another check on the president's powers. that's the approach the speaker is taking. but the both are teaming up on this issue of trade. the house likely to vote on trade promotion authority next

week. and here from politico john boehner aligned groups span to spend 1 million on a trade bill. they're trying to give house republicans cover to back fast back authority. and also the hill newspaper has their story about where they stand on trade. and the speaker of the house saying yesterday to reporters, we don't have the votes yet on trade. and in that story, they say that the president said he told the leadership that he has -- he believes 20 democrats that have signed on. he needs 25 or so democrats to support the trade promotion authority. we'll see how that turns out when the house is slated to take this up. we'll go to memphis tennessee. and you support legalizing

marijuana. good morning. caller: good morning from tennessee. yes, i do support the legalization of marijuana. 101%. i'm 80 years old and i of -- when i was a child they called it reefer and that's marijuana. they've been doing i was a child it for years and many people use marijuana. we have really not researched it to know what it does. now we are finding out for those persons who have cataracts veterans and so many things and also i want to tell you for any

state -- host: just a reminder to you and our callers when you call in you got to turn your t.v. off and listen and talk through your phone. there are six facts about marijuana. the first fact is that support for marijuana legalization is rapidly outpacing opposition. take a look at the chart. you can look at 1969 where the support and opposition was and see where it is now. number two, not all groups support legalization. only four in ten republicans and only 40% hispanics share that view. and 69% of millennials say it should be legal. baby boomers who were the most supportive generation in the 1970's before becoming opponents

and 1980s likely to favor as oppose to and seven in ten americans believe alcohol is more harmful to a person's health than marijuana and 62% of americans would be bothered if people did their smoking in public even if marijuana were legal. nearly 49% of americans say they have tried it and number 6th fact about marijuana, four states. colorado, washington, oregon and alaska and the district of columbia have passed measures to legalize marijuana. we're getting your thoughts on this this morning as the debate took place in the house yesterday. approving a provision that would stop the department from meddling in states that have passed medicinal use of marijuana. that narrowly failed. the washington times says that

lawmakers are opening up to this idea of marijuana. so we want to hear from you. what do you think? tell washington what you think. laurence from elk grove village in illinois. you oppose. caller: yes, i oppose the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. as usual we have a lot of people that want to confuse the issue like we do with immigration legal versus illegal. we're doing the same thing with marijuana. of course if it can be used for medicinal purposes it should be. duh, it's a drug so it's going to have medicinal purposes. for glaucoma or cancer or illnesses for children it's deemed to have beneficial aspects it should be used. few other things we're confusing too.

i hear a lot of people say, what about alcohol? that's a false argument in a way. alcohol in itself does not -- by itself you could have a beer or two or even have a glass of wine or cocktail without being inhaoeb rated. i could cut my lawn and 1 even have a glass or 2 beers and i'm not going to be inebriated. you could have a glass of wine with dinner and not become intphaoeb rated. especially with the strength of the marijuana being sold today i know that. host: how do you know that? how do you know that you can't smoke it? caller: because i actually smoked some last year. i was actually on a golf course

with a friend of mine who has a prescription for medical marijuana which is a joke too because a lot of people get it who don't need it. he gets it for stress and he hasn't had a day of stress in his life. i was on a golf course and he lit up a joint on a golf course and handed it to me to hold for him while he was taking his golf shot. and it smelled pretty good and i took a few hits and i got ripped. luckily i was only driving a golf cart because i could barely drive cart after another 10 or 15 minutes. making that comparison between alcohol and marijuana is not a fair comparison. one more thing too, concerning cigarettes. cigarettes is an awful thing but don't forget, wasn't until recently if and you look at the history of cigarettes, especially in this country in the fifties and sixties, there

weren't warnings telling you that this was going to cause cancer. the first warnings that they put on cigarette packages as i remember as a kid, my father was an occasional smoker, the message said that it may cause cancer. there wasn't a distinct correlation between lung cancer and cigarette cancer. it wasn't until in the seventies where they started putting the warnings on cigarette packages that cigarette smoking was a direct correlation and thus caused cancer. the last point i'd like to make -- host: i got to move on to other phone calls. larry in indianapolis, go ahead. you support the idea. caller: yes, i do. some of the people who called in with their facts are distorted. i smoked pot for a long time and

i stopped for a while. i stopped for ten years. and i had to take drug tests so that stays in your system. that he a falsehood. for the guy who called about the alcohol, that was his first joint. he hadn't smoked in a long time. yes, he gotten inhaoeb rated. some people do and some don't. but alcohol, you can talk about alcohol. my father with youas an alcoholic and i seen how destructive it was so i didn't fool it. alcohol for certain people effects them in it a different way than it would effect another person. that guy, like he said, he took a hit of a joint on the golf course. i take a drink of beer and

hadn't had a beer in years you get blasted. you build a tolerance to what you do. host: this debate taking place in the house yesterday. it happened last year as well on the funding bill, this there was support for use -- recreational and medical use of marijuana has grown in the house. two amendments, one passed and one narrowly defeated in the house. there is other news to share. "new york times" chafee has taken winding rose in the race. he has been a republican, independent and democrat and on wednesday he added presidential candidate to the list. many were surprised when mr. chafee 62, signaled that he's

interested in seeking the white house. the mood raised eyebrows. where his record in one term had mixed reviews. here is lincoln chafee in virginia announcing his bid. >> as prescribed our constitution which george mason helped write, we'll be electing a new president in 2016. i enjoy challenges. and certainly we have many facing america. today i'm entering the race for the democratic nomination for president. thank you. [applause] [applause]. if we as leaders show good judgment and make good decisions we can fix much of what is ailing us. we must deliberately and carefully extricate ourselves from expensive wars.

just think of how better this money could be spent. for instance, our transportation network is deteriorating and becoming dangerous. we should be increasing our investment and priority in public schools and colleges. this is especially important in some of our cities where there's a gnawing sense of hopelessness and racial injustice and economic disparity. we can and should do better for native americans, new americans and disadvantaged americans. let's keep pushing to get healthcare coverage to more of the uninsured. we can address climate change and extreme weather while protecting american jobs. i believe these priorities, education, inextra structure, healthcare healthcare environmental

issues -- host: chafee launches white house bid and casts himself as the anti-war and datcandidate. former governor of texas will become 10th republican when he announces 10:00 p.m. eastern time. we'll have coverage as part of your road to the white house coverage. former texas governor in the paper, "new york times" as texas miracle fads a closer look at the government's policy. the state lost 25,000 jobs in march and while april was better overall the oil industry in texas lost an additional 8300 jobs as plunging oil prices

prompted drillers and producers to shut down projects there. that likely to become part of rick perry's campaign when he talks about what he would do when it comes to the economy. and then also similar headline in the "wall street journal" on that as well. texas jobs slowdown complicates perry's pitch. that in the papers today. also carly fiorina has released her network. her total $59 million. so that in the "wall street journal". in the "washington post" headline on marco rubio, republican from florida, he's seizing the opportunity as donors express doubts about jeb bush. he's seizing the moment by making all out push to lockdown backers in the coming month and hop scotching the country. by the way politico reporting

this morning that jeb bush will make his official announcement june 15th in miami the florida governor will be announcing june 15th his bid for the white house. there is at politico.com. legalization of marijuana, keith in fargo will be north dakota, you oppose the idea. go ahead. keith, are you with us? caller: yeah. host: you're on the air. go ahead. caller: yeah, i'm against it. my friend from north dakota --? i'm not sure keith that your friend would appreciate giving his name. michigan, you support. caller: i do support. a lot of people who oppose the use of marijuana have listened to the lies of the government in the past, the reefer madness

that started in the 30s and such, they believed the lies. that has a lot do with our drug problem. young people are not believing what the government is telling them. host: okay. caller: what i find interesting all these conservatives who have been espousing small government over the years, when it comes to marijuana they like big government. host: okay. terry in anaheim, california. you support legalization. good morning. caller: hi and good morning. i do support the legalization. i have my medical marijuana license and i've had it for several years. suffer with fibromytpaoeub fibromyial gentleman. the federal government has a patent on marijuana which i find disturbing. there's a double standard there.

i have a sister who died from cancer. i create cannabis butter and it's part of the recovery process when they go through radiation and the chemo following it. i support and if i had my way and if it works out i'd like to get a product out not the market for people who suffer seizures. thank you for your time. host: isis is making political gains in iraq. as a protector of the sunni population. we'll talk about the situation in iraq and syria coming up in the isis strategy with congressman ryan zinky. he's a former navy seal and a member of congress. he'll get his perspective on

that situation. before that we'll talk with adam sheuf who is the top democrat and we'll get his take on the freedom act that the president signed into law tuesday night. speaking of congress, here's "usa today", spending bills headed on a collision course. the president has a veto threat put on every single one of the spending bills. 12 spending measures in total and he has a veto threat because of the low levels that the congress is passing in the house. and then in the papers this morning there's also this the section of the "wall street journal", the chair of the finance committee in the house and republican from texas, he writes an open letter to his colleagues on the export-import bank significant that ourmost

americans don't look to washington for bailouts. republicans can't stand up to corporate interests. how will we earn the moral authority to reform the social welfare state. let the democrats own the corporate welfare by themselves and washington times with the story battle sharpens as the bank awaits its fate. the deadline is looming for reauthorization of this bank and battle that has divided top republicans on capitol hill. wednesday, they were increasingly confident they had the votes in both the senate and the house to keep the banning a

bank alive if it comes to the floor. you oppose legalization of marijuana. tell us why. caller: well, you know, yesterday when you had the republican on there and some guy called in and said you know, i think that marijuana would resolve our unemployment problem because people start smoking it and they won't have to worry about working and unemployment -- will get off unemployment. we have problems with alcohol. we have problems with drugs. we have problems with gambling and when i go to the -- to give you an example, we want to accepted them to alcohol dryout if they have alcohol problem. you got the warnings on the cigarette packages that tells you that cigarettes will kill

you and then when it comes to gambling you can go to the slot machine asks there is a little bitty label on there if you have a gamble problem call this 1-800 number. it amazes me we have all these problems and then they want to cure it. why don't we do away with things that cause problem and then we won't have all these problems. host: okay, all right. got your point. bill in nebraska. you support this idea. caller: yes i do. yeah. host: tell us why. caller: i have supported it because i'm bipolar with eye anxiety. if i do not smoke it i have to take xanax every day. when i don't take my xanax i get withdrawals and i can just smoke my marijuana and i'm fine. host: okay. that's bill who supports this idea dealing with

medical issues. here is the "wall street journal" this morning with the scathing editorial about elizabeth warren. president warren declares she's not running for the white house but acts like she's already there. this is because of the letter she wrote to the f.c.c. commissioner telling her that she's been disappointed with mary jo white's performance. the editorial says, notice the timing of this letter. democratic commissioner lewis aguilar is headed out the door and successful hasn't been appointed. "wall street journal" says this in speaking of return of accountability. if ms. warren wants the authority to hire f.c.c. commissioners she should first have to win a presidential election. "wall street journal" editorial board on the letter that

elizabeth warren sent to the f.c.c. agenda stalls. two years later that pledge has been thwarted by bickering among the five members. couple of stories in the paper about the s.e.c. and this is another story that anthrax was sent to 51 more labs. pentagon saying that we expect this number to rise. that 51 is more than twice as many laboratories as previously believed. michael in byron, georgia you support legalizing marijuana. go ahead. caller: yes, ma'am. i've never heard of a domestic dispute because somebody smoked a joint, you know. i they legalize alcohol.

marijuana has so many good benefits, you know. that little girl who was having all those seizures that chris christie denied getting the medical marijuana and she went from having 2000 a month to three a week. anything that's going to help somebody that much why would the government be oppose it? and all the tax money they make off it. that tax problem they say that we have, that would cure it. look at colorado. the money that they're making off it is kicking off our agriculture again. host: we have to leave it there for now. another editorial to share with you before we end this conversation and that's the "new york times". let transgender troops serve openly and they write in today's editorial about this issue as

many of you are paying attention to this issue with caitlin jenner and attention that has been paid attention to the cover of "vanity fair." we'll talk about this on the "washington journal". this is part of the series. go to "new york times".com and they say troops who are transgender should serve openly in the military. we'll talk about the u.s. freedom act now that it is the law of the land. what does it mean for privacy and national security. we'll hear from the top democrat on the intelligence committee and later on republican he'll be here to talk about the fight against isis. but first, yesterday on the

senate floor intelligence chairman richard burr got into debate over the surveillance powers and whether the courts that the nsa operates in constitutes secret courts. >> he knows the court existed and congress has reauthorized section 215 of the patriot act. the court has reauthorized it and reauthorized it and asked every 90 days and ruled 41 times to allow the section 215 to exist. >> can my colleague yield to a question. >> happy to. >> worthy opinions of this court established by law and yes so it's transparent to the public that the court exists. but the question is not whether it exists but a question of whether the process is open in any feasible way to debate between two points of view. did you know that the opinions of the court were including interpretations of law were never disclosed and kept secret?

>> i actually do know that. >> well, thank you. because that does show -- >> i still control the time, thank you. now, clearly it's evident that if you say something wrong enough times people start to believe it. it's not a secret court and secret law. president knows about it and members of congress know about it and we voted on it and we know what goes on and 15 members of this body have oversight over the program. we do our job and do it well. we disagree with what tools we use and clearly you and i have a big canyon between us, but i got to tell you american expects the president of the united states and congress to defend them. i'm going to continue to do phefrge everything i can to make sure they can do their job and the

threat is big. for people to ignore that today is irresponsible. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, the people of the united states expect the constitution to be upheld and the principals of the fourth amendment and the law passed on this floor will be implemented in appropriate question and consistent. when it is not, our liberty is diminished and our freedom is did he men diminished. and what we did yesterday with the freedom privacy act, it does not disclose to the american public, that is an important improvement taking us back to the democracy that we are all part of and we all love. thank you, mr. president. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're joined in again at our taebl by congressman, the top ranking democrat in the

intelligence committee and this freedom act that was passed into law signed by the president. let me show you and our viewers two headlines. christian science monitor "1 small step for privacy." and national journal "senate passes major reform bill." which is it? >> it ends both collections so it gets the government out of the business. it establishes i think this is very important an independent advocate in the court so there is someone this who can test the government's arguments and challenge some of the case law that the government might site and the american people have an advocate for their privacy and civil liberties in that court. so that's a very important reform and also requires the declassification of opinions

like the one that established the bulk metadata collection program. those would be published so the american people could see what this court is doing. and obviously they would have to be redacted in a way that protects the important sources and methods and then also there's a provision that will allow companies that are served with process that require to provide information to the government to be more transparent with they are customers about it so their customers can have the confidence of knowing this is something that's routine. >> nsa remains largely untouched untouched. this is what the financial times reports. the bulk of the data scooped up by the nsa comes from overseas and based on separate authorities not touched by the freedom act most notably section

702. >> that's all true and the reality is that we really need the nsa to gather information of people who mean our country harm. so i think that has been very substantially addressed. but in terms of our ability of overseas of al-qaida or isis or other powers yes we need a robust intelligent capability. we saw the challenges we have in boston with this recent potential attack. we saw it in garland, texas and attacks in paris and canada and australia. this is a real problem. given that we don't want have to to troops everywhere in the world we're more reliant on our capabilities to keep our country

safe. >> while the law bans bulk collection the government will fiend ways to secure bulky requests that require large quantities of data. it can compel the handover of records without the approval of a j why /* -- judge. >> i don't think that's accurate. it's true that the national security letters and other tools of the intelligence committee don't go away, but they can't be used for bulk collection like we have in the metadata program. >> that has been a routine exercise by congress, if you will to renew the patriot act since the september 11, 2001, terrorist attack. how much credit does snowden get

for that? >> he sparked an important debate. i think a lot of our capabilities post 9/11 outpaced the review that we were giving them and the public debate. there were other ways for snowden to raise these issues without leaking vast amounts of data. a lot of it has little to do with the american people and a lot of it has military applications and i think a pro found question why would he do that if his goal as he has stated it. i think there was an appropriate way to raise those kind of whistle blower objections but what he did went well beyond that and very damaging. >> we're talking about the patriot act that passed on the house and senate and signed into law by the president on tuesday night much those provisions expired sunday because there was a filibuster in the senate by

senator rand paul. we want you to weigh in. they're on your screen. yesterday we had on the show congressman thomas massey who supported rand paul's efforts in the senate. he had this to say about the freedom act and the lack of reform for these courts. i want to get your reaction to it. >> one good thing about the freedom act is the data collection and storage stays at the phone companies instead of going to the government and that makes me feel better but the gatekeeper to that data is the same gatekeeper. i would like it see more reform there. in the original version we had a civil liberties advocate. you have to have two lawyers in a courtroom to come up to prevent the truth and then the judges can decide, but there is not one and no one representing civil liberties.

we put in a civil liberties advocate and they watered it down. it's called a friend of court that serves as a pleasure of the court as a technical advisor. i would like to see that oversight strengthened. host: what do you make of his criticism? congressman: i agree with it i too would have liked to have seen stronger advocate in the identifies is a court. this was a compromised work product. when you consider this one of the most difficult issues and the congress did what it's supposed to do and grappled with that issue and came up with a sensible work product, so, yes, while there are areas i would have liked to have seen the bill go farther, i think it was a pretty remarkable accomplishment for a dysfunctional congress.

host: dave in michigan, republican. hi, dave. caller: hello. good morning to you. mr. sheuf i would like to say i agree with your efforts in congress and it took a republican named rand paul to finalize this deal. you must admit that also. it just seems to me that -- mr. obama was violating the constitution of the united states of america. to me, that's an impeachable offense. host: by doing what? [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] caller: by ignoring the supreme court when he said what they were doing with the nsa was unconstitutional. he content -- the continue to do it anyway. guest: first, rand paul, i'm not sure it was his design did they

-- play passage in usa freedom by holding up what the majority leader in the senate, what mitch mcconnell wanted which a dish which was a clean reauthorization but i'm not sure he was a proponent of you as a freedom. i would only give mr. paul park credit on this. with respect to the president the supreme court has not decided this metadata program was unconstitutional. there have been some lower courts that have addressed the issue and more recently a court of appeals opinion that said not that the program was unconstitutional but that it was not authorized by the statute. section 215 of the patriot act authorizes the gathering of his missed related to an investigation of the court of appeals decided it was interpreted in such a broadway by gathering all of these bulk metadata records that that was not consistent with what the statute was intended to do. that is quite a different conclusion than saying it was unconstitutional.

i don't think you can argue that the president was willfully ignoring the supreme court law on this. the court of appeals opinion is something the government could challenge. it's not necessarily a fait acco mpli. i think the picture is blurry as far as the legality of this program but i certainly don't think there is anything that you can claim its impeachable. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] jonesboro, host: georgia. caller: i have a comment and a question. my comment is, in my opinion this whole bulk data collection issue is simply another distraction by the corporate media. the corporate media is owned by very rich people and the idea that those rich people are liberal or democrats like fox news would tell you is crazy. it is a corporation that's owned

by rich people with more than likely they are republicans and anyone they hire has to do what the boss wants them to do. host: make the connection between corporate media and this debate. caller: i'm going there. in my opinion, this issue has been going on for a long time. bulk eta has been kept by telecommunications companies i decades. it was passed by bush a decade ago. now we are talking about a because we are trying to hurt the image of obama acting like he is snooping on american conversations and listening to their conversations. this is metadata, time, date of the phone call, time link things of that nature. this is not content of what you are talking about. this is hurting the image of obama and is corporate media propaganda, smear tactics. all the media are right wing,

all media is right wing. host: i think we got your point. let's talk about what information is collected. when you save metadata, what does that mean? guest: i think there is confusion in the public about what that means. many americans think the government has been gathering the content of their calls recordings of their conversations and that not the case. it is also not the case that these numbers that are part of the metadata are connected to the names of the subscribers. some people talk about metadata like your telephone bill. your telephone bill has your name and address on it connected with the people you call. the metadata is phone numbers connected with other phone numbers. it's the time of the call on the date of the call and the duration of the call. nonetheless, there has been a privacy concern and legitimate it even though this data is not content, it's not the conversations and even though it not connected to the subscribers, still, it's a lot of domestic data about people that are mostly unconnected with

crime or terrorism. why should the government gather this question mark the caller is right, the phone companies have been gathering this because they need to prepare their bills. upon company is required to store it or at least 18 months. in terms of the media bias, i will just say that the program did start under the last president. it started without any congressional authorization. in that respect, you could say the bush practice was less legally supportable than the obama practice. i think the more conservative media like "the wall street journal" and fox news have been expressing more of the viewpoint that the program should be renewed without any reform. some of the libertarian right like rand paul and mr. massey have supported a complete sunset of these authorities.

it is a more murky picture in terms of the media. host: talk about why the intelligence tactic of gathering a bunch of data in order to see patterns -- one viewer said yesterday that if you're are looking for a needle in a haystack, why would you make the haystack as large as possible? guest: people have this impression that the reason we gather the bulk data is so that we can mie it and look at the connections in an abstract way. if you take that data and run the algorithm, they think we can find a terrorist. the way the program would work is let's say we arrest al qaeda suspect or get information about where oh somma bin laden was killed and it has an american phone number in that cell phone or that pocket letter, as they call it. we would want to know if the number is connected with people in the united states. or in the event of a bombing in

the united states like in boston, we might want to know who the suspect has been in contact with, co-conspirators. with legal process, you can go to the phone company and ask who the phone number is connected to. that's predominately how that's used. it's not as if we are just looking at the data in abstract and looking for patterns in trying to socially mine information from it. host: bismarck, north dakota, republican. caller: good morning, my opinion is there is a reason why we have government. there is a reason why people got to think about voting for the new president. they have to focus on the kind of problems we have. first of all, we have to respect the law. i don't care who it is. i will not mention any names but we have to start from the top start right there.

then we, the people, are the government and we will start thinking about it. we are the ones that set i will vote for these people because of his or her beliefs. host: i will go on to mike and i will have you respond. florida, independent, high. caller: good morning. my question is in regards to the patriot act and this metadata. mr. mercano seemed to be using your tactics on the floor by blaming edward snowden. this is a big issue when it first broke in the media with the people. a lot of people were complaining about the issue that rand paul stood for. i believe it is both unconstitutional. my question to the gentle man --

does he believe congress is dealing and the hard reality of this tough issue? because of the nature of the middle east and that's my question, thank you. guest: thank you i think we certainly are looking at the reality of the situation and the dangers we face. i think there are at least three questions when he to ask about any intelligence program. first, is it constitutional? is it lawful question mark second, is this ineffective? why gather this data if it does not help us in terms of resolving terrorism or protect the country? is the program structured in a way that minimizes any unnecessary intrusion on our privacy? is there a better way to do this where we get the same national security impact without any risk to our privacy? on that letter point, whatever your views are on the first two

issues, clearly the metadata program could not survive an answer to that weston. there was a better way to structure it. the better way was to let the companies hold onto your own data and get the government out of the business of having data. it makes of the best less efficient and i would agree with critics by saying that if the government gathers all the data, yes, it's more efficient. we can harmonize that data and cover it more readily in case of an invasion but through the aid of technology, we can do that pretty quickly even though the providers are holding onto their own data. i think we get the same national security impact but we better protect privacy by leaving it in the hands of the private providers. host: benton harbor, michigan, a democrat, good morning. caller: hello. you know-i am listening to all of this business about privacy. when you are driving in your

hometown, there is cameras at the stoplight. you go in a store to purchase something, everybody has a camera because there are so many- people that want to destroy what we have. our government must be vigilant. guest: you are absolutely right. we have to be vigilant but i think part of what we treasure about our country is the right to be left alone and the right to privacy. this is a balance and it's frankly a alanson a challenge that goes act to the founding of the republic. we have a fourth amendment because we want to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. that makes us inherently inefficient in a way because we could do a more thorough job protecting the country, i suppose, if we did away with

those freedoms and it away with that privacy none of us really want to go there. we don't want terrorist to change our lives. these issues are not going away and will come up in new contexts. in d.c., there are numerous speed cameras. if you go past want to fast, you get this nice photograph in the mail. this is what i am told. you are behind the wheel of your car with your license plate. that is a database but that may be held by a private vendor or police department. it's a database of where people are in their everyday lives in their car and all of their graphic splendor. that is frankly far more intrusive from a privacy point of view than anything in the metadata program.

that has little orgratuity. that is 1 -- that has little or no safeguard to it. there are so many more. i will mention one other because i think it's the granddaddy of the challenges on the forefront of privacy and security. that is the whole issue of encryption. social media platforms and telecommunications companies are creating ways you can communicate with each other that are encrypted so that even with a subpoena, even with a court order, if you go to one of these providers and you say we have cause to believe these parties are engaged in planning a terrorist plot or have committed a kidnapping and we want to find the victim, that provider may say i'm happy to give you what i have but it's encrypted and i cannot even decrypt it myself. we are going dark in terms of law enforcement and the

intelligence community. that is a real issue and i wish i could say there is an easy solution to that but there isn't. host: will go to todd in indianapolis, a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to make a comment. in my opinion, i don't think it's that important to monitor the private citizens e-mails and things of that nature. i think we would be better suited to start monitoring some of these individuals in washington. host: ok. our time with you is short. joseph, you're on the air. caller: thank you. i am a lifelong democrat, 70 years to be exact. i have followed the democratic party since i was a young man. the democratic party has

violated the constitution of the united states by holding midnight votes. the usa freedom act is just the end of what they are doing. benjamin franklin stated that under the constitution, we have freedom from government. host: i have to leave it there. the congressman needs to get going. what are your final thoughts? guest: we were having amendments on the house floor last night until 1:00 in the morning. nobody hates late-night sessions more than i do. i think these are anonymously important issues. they are at the heart of the fourth amendment debate we have been having for a couple of hundred years and they are not going away anytime soon. i think i hope we are reaching an equilibrium where we recognize the national security imperatives.

we are reminded of them every week but at the same time, we want to cherish and ollanta these freedoms that are at the foundation of our republic we have to find a way to balance both. there is never going to be a right line on these issues. we need a functional congress i can do the best job possible. with usa freedom, in a rare showing of the ability to work together, we got the job done. host: we appreciate this and we hope you come back again. guest: thank you very much. host: the top democrat on the intelligence committee. when we come back, we'll talk with republican congressman ryan zinke of montana. we will get his take on the strategy against isis. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> here are some of our featured programs this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span two, booktv is live at the chicago tribune.

our today covers begin saturday at 11:00 a.m. eastern and sunday starting at noon. our festival coverage is followed by a tour of the new york times book review at 7:30 a.m. -- at 7:30 p.m. we continue our coverage of the book has double on sunday -- of the book festival on sunday. he will take your phone calls and questions from the audience. following that, festival speakers include scott simon kevin schultz, and norman mailer. and alice goffman of the results on the war on drugs in disadvantaged neighborhoods. on c-span three, join us for several featured programs on sunday beginning at 4:00 p.m. eastern on real america. " the four days of gemini4".

at 4:30 p.m., world war ii photographer tonyvaccaro on his pictures capturing the war experience and the stories behind the images. at 6:00, we visit with senator lamar alexander as he shares stories behind political mementos and is washington, d.c. senate office. at 6:30 p.m., veteran journalist bob schieffer, peter arnett, and david hugh kennerly discuss their vietnam war experiences. get our complete schedule at www.c-span.org. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps come a a foldout map of capitol hill, and the look at congressional

committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at www.c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome congressman ryan zinke who serves on the armed services committee, the first navy seal elected to the house in 2014 and also part of operation iraqi freedom, deputy and acting commander of combined joint special tax forces in the -- task forces. he was awarded two bronze stars for combat. congressman, what do you make of the strategy against isis in a wreck and syria question mark guest: we would say situation train dictate. it is evolving and i think we are in freefall in iraq. we don't have a policy or strategy in syria that has bled

ices to iraqi since we are don't -- only doing air operations, you have iran playing a much bigger role. the militia that appeared is iranian influenced if not lead. the senior military leaders from the republican guard are embedded. what we are seeing in the end our province with the sunnis is they no longer view the centralized government as legitimate. we are seeing an uprising in the choice -- and the choices are a do the sunnis fight with us? we are not giving them a directly. the kurds are holding because they cannot accommodate the refugees. the eastern part which is now influenced by iran, i'm not sure how you remove the iranian influence that is so strong.

at the end of the day, i am not sure we can repair iraq back to a centralized government that has legitimacy with the kurds and sunni tribes. host: what changes would you make militarily? guest: air operations alone was not effective. we have had a number of hearings and the consensus was the same. the air operations alone would not be effective and we are seeing the result of that policy. at this point, i think our options are fewer. it is playing a card game where we are dealt cards and we only have a few cards left in your options are limited. i think we need to arm the kurds directly and support them and look for coalition with the sunni tribes that i fought with and see who will rise up against isis. the problem is, if you take ground and we secede that grant

to iran, what is the purpose? host: this is the "usa today" yesterday -- do you support sending in more special operation troops? guest: let's look at what would happen if one of our special forces was captured. he would likely be burned alive in a cage as we saw the jordanian pilot. if you put troops on the ground, you'll need to support them. that means you need to put a sufficient force that is capable. that means intelligence because when the use air operations, it you have to have an intelligence overlay to make sure we don't have collateral damage or mitigate the chance. when you put air operations and

folks on the ground, he will have to have sufficient force. you also have to have a medevac. we over to our troops, god for bid, if one of them gets hurt, you have to get them out and you have to get them out to a place that is u.s. held. if they run into problems, like a quick reaction force, american armor and a patch is, we don't want another ben ghazi. if we are going to degrade and destroy isis, it will take a brigade. that is the decision. host: are you in support of a brigade question mark guest: if we have a plan with what we will do with syria and if we have a plan over what we will do in iraq. but just putting troops in without a plan -- what is our end purpose? anytime you put troops on the ground our forces, we own them to make sure we have a plan. the right training, the right rules of engagement to win

successfully. up to this point, we have not had rules in my opinion to win. host: you said let's arm the kurds directly. why not arm the sunnis directly? guest: some of them will fight but we want to make sure that the selected tribes that are on our side that want to rise against isis. you have to be careful with sunni tribes but the policy now is to hold with a centralized government that is iranian influenced and somehow the centralized government will give support and arms to the kurds and sunnis. that's not happening. host: what is the political solution? the front page of "the new york times" - if there is any sunni tribes that disagree with ices, they

use violence against them. in areas where sunnis are populated, isis says they are the protector of sunnis and it's the shia government you need to be wary of. guest: the shia government is being more employees by iran. this is a battle between the east and west. that's why coalition forces were so critical at the beginning. lack of action has consequences as well as action. because we did not get involved -- we put it at arm's reach. somehow, a make-believe coalition of 60 countries that were not capable of dealing with isis directly -- another vacuum was created and that was filled by iran. iran has larger ambitions in many ways to rekindle the power and prestige of persia.

embedded in that, you have almost three different areas in iraq that are separated. i am not sure without a policy on syria, without a policy on what is our end state in iraq and how do you limit iran's influence and on top of this is the iranian nuclear negotiations. to me that's a nonstarter. to give a legal pathway for iran to have a nuclear weapon is reckless. i think congress stood up and said absolutely not. you will have an arms race and on top of everything else, the problems are a direct threat to ourselves and our allies. host: the lines are lighting up to talk to you. let's hear from carl in hannover, maryland, a democrat caller: you good morning. i would like to ask, what would we do -- excuse me, i cannot hear you. host: you are on the air.

caller: i would like to know, what would we do -- what would turkey do if we arm the kurds? it could break up nato because turkey would be upset if we armed the kurds and possibly leave nato. i would like to know if we are ready for this especially if turkey leaves nato. russia is flexing their muscles in the area. it could create a bigger problem than what we have now. guest: i don't think arming the kurds would affect turkey. in fact, i think turkey is in a position of advantage if kurds remain strong. the reason is -- let's say the kurds moved on mosul or it was attacked. where with the refugees go

question mark what we see in turkey is about 2 million refugees putting strain on the turkish economy that is not great to begin with. host: and during an election. guest: that's right and they will not go south into isis- hel d territory. the only area they can go is to the territory occupied by the kurds. arming the kurds as we did in the gulf war and as we did in all 11 is a prudent policy. the kurds are holding their position. i think that is a prudent policy. it's the same with the sunni tribes that followed us. i was in falluja. i know many of the sunni leaders. they are looking at the centralized government as iranian influenced as not a legitimate power. this is a battle within islam as much as between east and west and the different sides of islam are sunni shia and the radical

islam we see in isis or hezbollah. host: portland, oregon independent, you are on the air. caller: thank you. with ices in the news constantly -- with isis in the news constantly and congressmen telling us how ices is a danger and the white house believes it's a danger, where bombing them now. obviously, you are in the armed services committee and you are discussing this in congress. i wonder why it is we do not see more -- especially considering so many republicans are not going on television saying had dangerous isis is and why we don't see any movement toward war votes to go to actual work legally against isis. guest: the president asked for a

revisit of the authority to go to war. he has that authority now. i don't think the problem is as much having the authority to fight isis as to how and what we will do and what is the strategy. air operations alone will not be effective. that's not for me. that was the leaders that have fought their and have enormous experience. air operations alone also, when you don't put our troops on the ground or in a position to gather intelligence, their operations often times are not effective. this is an enormously complex scenario between the sunnis and shias and the kurds and radical islam and revenge and an overlay of the geography. we hear about isis.

it is iran which is the center of it. we cannot lose our eyes on watching iran. iran with a nuclear weapon is still the largest threat in the area. most assuredly, it will cause an arms race. you will likely have saudi or perhaps jordan or turkey all with nuclear weapons in an area that is notoriously unstable. that has ramifications not only for our allies but here at home. host: when you are part of the navy seal team, what did you do in iraq? guest: i was in 2004 at the beginning of the uprising and the surge. we were looking for insurgents. i think we made mistakes in the gulfi and ii. i think we one of the mistakes of agreement

dismantled the iraqi army. and one of the things we are seeing today is veteran with -- when we dismantled the army to soon, we had the unemployment line filled with individuals who had, to a degree, skills and the insurgency. they had weapon familiarity. i think we didn't spend as much time looking at the sunni tribes and working the sunni tribes but early we did. and they were mistakes made. lastly when it became stable, we decided to timeline that we can and we formed a vacuum. and we watched by cisco from a few hundred and syria to now -- and we watched isis go from a few hundred in syria to now

several thousand and they are expanding multinational hly in africa and even south america, which is a problem. sometimes what we face historically is nationstates like iran, like russia, like china, as either an adversary or seem to be hostile. and now we are facing on nations eight -- non-nationstates. it is cyclical, but not unless we engage. host: charles, republican welcome to the conversation. caller: i have a statement. i'm sitting and listening and i'm trying to process all of this cannot what these politicians are saying, both republicans and democrats, about the isis issue. you are obligated to go around

the world and standout evil, but you refuse to speak up about her tell it he not against -- about the brutality not just against african-americans, but against people. police officers are not some private force that we have to deal with. they are government. and yet, you all don't deal with your all -- your own issues in your own backyard. host: ok charles, i got your point. guest: i'm from montana and the police do a great job. i'm concerned with the heavy handedness of some of our belief in law enforcement. they have a tough job. that's some of our police in law enforcement -- i'm concerned with the heavy handedness of some of our police in law enforcement. they have a tough job. i think the solution cannot come from washington. it has to be community-based. the one-size-fits-all from

washington dc is not going to solve the problem, because what makes ends in baltimore is not going to make sense in billings montana. but i think a lot of the problem with law enforcement communities has to be addressed locally. host: we are talking with congressman ryan zinke, the congressman at large, the first abc elected to the house -- the first navy seal elected to the house. here is this headline, isis closes the ramadi dam gate cutting off water to pro-government towns. your reaction to that latest development? guest: it is not surprising. iraq is in freefall. this is the consequence of inaction. the u.s. has a choice. you can go back to john f. kennedy in his inaugural address that we would pay the price for freedom and liberty and very -- very pertinent. -- and their burden.

regardless of whether we like the role as a nation leader, we are the world leader. the world looks at what we do, and when we don't act, it has consequences, sometimes as much as when we do act. being the world leader has a great responsibility. host: how can we act on a political solution? here is a tweak. -- tweet. guest: to a degree, we went in on gulf ii and dismantled visit on the -- this is a -- we dismantled the saddam hussein regime. we bear some response ability. to our coalition allies and to make sure that the iraqi people

have every chance at democracy and to be prosperous and not a failed state. looking at what happened, i think we didn't realize or didn't pay attention enough or believe strongly that iran was going to be a responsible nation , and they are not. they are continuing to support hezbollah. and to mention that iran would have a legal pathway to nuclear weapons, that is the core issue. we cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. iraq unfortunately, unless we stand up and have a policy of where he are going to go it will continue to freefall and get worse. host: call for you from washington, d.c., democrat. caller: good morning. height that it will one. and please, be as as big as not -- as possible -- bs specific as

possible as you have a mo lot of knowledge. the president is sitting in the oval office and has approved backup with medevac, etc. he asks you, what specific policies do you recommend for syria, for iraq, for iran, both in terms of policies in terms of actions on the ground to support the battalion that you recommend, and to provide the context for this fighting troops to achieve what is necessary what specifically do you recommend to the president in terms of actions and policy in syria, iraq, and iran question mark thank you. -- andy ron? thank you. guest: we're going to degrade isis, it would take around 10,000 u.s. soldiers. i americans -- i think americans would support that, depending on

what you're going to do. the challenge is, if we go against isis with the american troops, you have to have the right training, a quitman, and the right rules of engagement. the rules of engagement are incredibly important. you want to make sure our troops do not have their chance -- their hands tied behind their backs. i would advocate to arm the kurds. i would embed with the sunni tribes that are willing to fight with us. but only on the condition that we gain ground that round is not seated to an iranian -- c eded to an iranian influence central government. host: here is another tweet. guest: i'm not sure bribes would be a correct phrase. do we want to degrade and is

the mission to degrade and destroy isis? because simply watching it occur is not going to be mission success. if we are going to come as the president said, degrade and destroy isis, how do we do that? a policy of disengagement and watching from the horizon isn't working. we've had a number of opportunities from the moment isis was in syria and we watched and did nothing. we didn't put a no-fly zone. and it's not about aircraft. it's about isolating the problem. and by inaction again, the cards we have to play now are fewer because you now have iran embedded in eastern iraq. you have the sunni tribes is engaged -- that are disengaged and i'm not sure you can put a policy in to put it back to what we want to go.

and this is a coalition effort. this is a battle within islam as much as it is between east and west. and islam has to take a majority share of the fight. host: congressman ryan zinke it's a busy day on capitol hill. you got to run to do some business of your own. the house is about to gavel in within 20 minutes and we will end the journal when they do that. we hope you come back again. guest: great to be here. host: we will open up the phone lines for the remainder of today's "washington journal." you can talk about what you heard for the congressman, or from what you heard from ryan shift about privacy or anything else in the news today. we will be right back with open phones. ♪ >> this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on first ladies

influence and image, we look into the lives of two first ladies from the 1850's, jane pierce and harriet lane. jane pierce loses her son in a tragic accident. greeting, she does not attend her husband's inauguration and sends much of the time in the white house writing heartbreaking sons -- writing heartbreaking letters to her son. orphaned, james beginning becomes -- james buchanan becomes president. jane pierce and harriet lane this sunday night on c-span's original series "first ladies, influence and image." from martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. and as a complement to the series c-span's new book, first

ladies, presidential is orient on the lives of 45 iconic american when in -- women. >> this summer, book tv will cover book festivals from around the country in top nonfiction authors and books. this weekend, we are like for the chicago tribune printers row lit fest. along with bullets are prize-winning author lawrence wright and your phone calls. -- pulitzer prize prize-winning author lawrence wright and your phone calls. in the middle of july, harlem book fair. author interviews and panel discussions. and at the beginning of september, live from the nation's capital for the national book festival celebrity for the 15th year. those are a few of the events the summer on book tv. washington journal continues.

host: we are back in open phones for the next 20 minutes or so. getting your thoughts on public policy, anything in the news you want to talk about this warning will stop -- about this morning. charlie is up first. good morning. caller: good morning. there was something that happened during one of your programs and it happened within a 30 day window and i didn't call at the time, but i would like to talk about it now. host: all right. caller: ok, it was monday, may 11, the day after mother's day. at 7:00, the program opened with this question "how concerned are you with homegrown terrorists?" and in the course of the discussion the host read this tweet on the air "in america we call our terrorists tea

baggers." and i thought, wow, those of the washington journal just called me a terrorist and he thought it was perfectly ok to do so. it is bad enough that you call -- you allow liberals to call us on filenames and now you are doing it for -- vile names and now you're doing it. your host called me a teabag or on the air. -- 18ger --a teasbagger on the air. host: charles, anderson we were saying and we do want it to be a civil conversation and not have people taking it to that level.

on the strategy of isis, here is usa today with this headline. it is from yesterday. we were just talking about this strategy from the white house and the congressman that you heard from said we need the coalition to step up and do more. the coalition was defending its strategy in iraq the of the day. the u.s. says it will ease transfer of weapons and ammo to iraqi forces. so the coalition at 60 countries that are come together to fight isis, saying that the strategy is right. you can talk about that or anything else here on open phones. nick in boca raton, florida, independent stop high, nick. -- independent. hi nick. caller: i love you and what you

do, but maybe can answer this. that former congressman, when someone called in and asked my question before and asked him -- he said he would support a degrade -- a brigade only if there was a plan for both syria and iraq. and then a color called in and said specifically if you were in the oval office and the president was going to give you your brigade, what would your plan look like, and your policy for iraq and syria? he didn't answer it. he went back and started to talk about -- you know, he skirted the question is not -- he skirted the question. he did not get specific. you were sitting there, and i was so hoping that you would say to him, the caller asked you for specifics.

what would your policy be that would enable you to support sending in 10,000? i didn't know what a brigade was. why couldn't you push that question to get this man to answer the question? host: unfortunately, we didn't have a lot of time with the congressman. he comes on we will ask him to be on longer. and the beauty of the program is you get to call up and ask and challenge. we did have one viewer who tweeted in, specifically are you advocating brides to the sunnis in anbar province? the question was asked, and the congressman answered how he answered. hopefully next time you or someone else can call in and ask him for more specifics. the person who sits in his chair, we do try to follow up as much as we can, but we've got to balance that with getting in as

many phone calls and tweet as we can from you as well. fred in oregon, republican. wrong my. fred, are you there? caller: yes. i wanted to talk to the gentleman also, but i happen to be one of his ilk. i just want you to know there is a problem with that question. first of all, you're dealing with thousand year-old problems in syria. i was in beirut and syria. i was all over that area. i did a lot of mapping of that area. for the government. i will try you this -- i will tell you this. there is a way to settle it. but this is all in stone right now. you people who are worried about isis, i worry about isis here. because isis there is not going

to exist much longer. once this deal is done with the nukes with the president, he's going to turn that area over to the iranians to take care of the mess. and when they come down off that mountain, i guarantee you isis won't be there. because they will gather up their troops from the iraqis and all the other areas that are of their same faith and bring a war to that part of the continent that you won't even believe. host: fred, you said you were of the congressman's ilk. what did you mean by that, navy seal yet -- navy seals? caller: yes. host: what you think of him

saying that it is their fight. caller: they have no real -- they don't have anything in the game. the kurds absolutely do. they absolutely do. but as far as the iraqis, they don't know what is going on. they are being controlled by a government that they don't believe in. they see the iranians that they fought for years off and on when saddam hussein was in control. you got a situation that is going to grow into a monster problem because isis is going to walk through them. host: the add to what you just

said, because here's the new york times front-page this morning. ice is what they report. -- isis is making political gains is what they report. we are in open phones this morning. you can weigh in on the iraq or anything else. john in florida, democrat. what is on your mind? caller: i'd u.s. and concerns with that last guess also.

-- i do have some concerns for that last guest also. i think he was speaking with a four ton, too. --a forked tongue, too. how we won before his we paid off the troops, that is how we won. and the other thing is, in syria why is the united states supposed to be the one to impose a no-fly zone? is disingenuous in the way he presented himself.

when the commander-in-chief says what is your plan, you better give him there who know what where, and when. host: susie nashua, new hampshire, independent. caller: good morning. my father was a diplomat to iran many years ago. i believe that what is happening today encapsulates people who are on the edge, and there are many other people who are moderates, and we are an estate of looking at whether or not -- we are at a state of looking at whether or not we are going to war. am i not correct? host: and so what do you make of all of this? caller: i believe we need to

support what we are doing however we need to realize the people who are on the edge and really focusing on the "terrorist side" of the issue they are not the populace. it's the people who are the silent majority that are trapped in what we are doing. i believe in humanitarian efforts. i believe in helping people. we need to really cautiously look at what is happening and be aware. thank you to the congressman from montana. he did a wonderful job.

but i think we need to focus on where we are putting our resources. host: david in new york, independent. good morning. caller: in the short run battling out and trying to minimize the role of the so-called isis in the region might be inevitable and for this, the iranian forces or their proxies, really the most effective one to battle them out. in the long run, this is just to battle out with the effect. we have to go after the cause. we really have to promote and culture and nurture secularism and out of that should come out a totally effective federal system in which all constituents , the kurds, shiites, and sunnis

all have a voice not because they are kurds, shiites, or sunnis, but because they have something to bring to the table. host: how do you promote secularism? how long would that take? caller: it will be a longer-term goal, which is really anchored on education socioeconomic empowerment of all constituencies based on their capabilities. but one thing to say for sure, the main culprits in this region, whether we like it or not is the ruling family of saudi arabia. that is were isis if its ideology and its financial resources. host: stephen, where are you from? caller: i'm originally from iran. host: what you make of iran's role in all of this? caller: i wish it was more curtailed, because 436 years they've had a lot of failures

inside the country -- because for 36 years in that a lot of failures and the country. as judy from new hampshire mentions rightly so, they've had no democratic rights and they need to get their own house in order. but there are so-called 60 countries on paper showing a coalition and the u.s. amy carry the burning -- carrying the birurden. the iranian proxies with much less capability are doing a far better job of keeping isis at bay for the moment. i certainly hope this issue of the nuclear accord, once and for all the iranians can solely focus on their own house and to a peaceful, sovereign, independent move it -- movement

and ultimately gain and realize their dream of a secular and democratic form of government for a society that really friendly for 150 years they have been fighting for. host: mike in ohio, make it quick. the house is about to gavel in. caller: first week with saddam hussein into power in 1970 whatever. suddenly we dethrone him because he was feeling his people and all this other stuff. the congressman you just had on he was talking about the status of forces agreement that george bush and maliki came up with. that was under bush. but there is one thing these republicans don't mention in the status of forces agreement. maliki wanted to have sole

condition over any of our soldiers that did wrong over there. if they killed a civilian by mistake or whatever, they couldn't try these people in the military tribunal. they would be turned over to the iraqi court system. they will be tried convicted and sentenced by the iraqis. we would have nothing to say about this. and these republicans keep sneaking around this. host: ok, mike. the doors have opened on the house floor. they are about to gavel in for this morning's legislative session stop -- session. [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] god of grace and goodness, thank you for giving us another day. your divine wisdom and power are abundantly sufficient for our many needs. endow the members of this assembly with the lilt that never waivers and the courage that never faulters as they

seek to fulfill the high and holy mission which has been entrusted to them. may it be their purpose and all of ours to see to the hopes of so many americans that we authenticate the grandeur and glory of the ideals and principles of our democracy with the work we do. grant that the men and women of the people's house find the courage and wisdom to work together to forge solutions to the many needs of our nation and ease the anxieties of so many. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glorry. amen. -- glory. 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 gentlelady from north carolina ms. grisham.

ms. grisham: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on june 4 1989, a pro-democracy demonstrate -- democracy demonstrators were killed by chinese troops. mr. hultgren: in the aftermath, the chinese government arrested large numbers of protestors and their supporters, prohibited other demonstrations expelled foreign journalist, and has prohibited discussion or remembrance of these events ever since. today is a solemn reminder of the state of human rights in china 26 years after tiananmen

square. since 2011, fu, a chinese democracy advocate, christian dissident and poet has languished in prison simply for expressing his democratic beliefs. today i urge his immediate and unconditional release. as part of the defending freedoms project, my colleagues and i will continue to shine a light on his case and that of other prisoners of conscience. i applaud him and his fellow champions for the freedom and their courage. we thank them for their courage. they are not alone. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new mexico seek recognition? ms. grisham: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. grisham: imagine that your loved one was diagnosed with terminal leukemia on january 1. they will undergo chemotherapy, need daily medical care, and attention and be unable to

work. without any income they apply for social security disability insurance benefits and are quickly approved. however due to an archaic law your loved one will have to wait five months before receiving any benefits. if you are diagnosed with a terminal illness on the first week of the new year, you wouldn't receive disability benefits until this week the 21st week of the year. mr. speaker, i wish this was just a hypothesis example, but this happened to a albuquerque resident and my friend, jere m who had to wait months for receiving the benefits he earned after being diagnosed with leukemia. that is why i along with my colleague con man israel -- congressman israel are introducing the sanchez-young social security disability insurance for the terminally ill act which would repeal the five-month waiting period for the terminally ill and ensure that s.s.d.i. protects the most vulnerable recipients when they need it most. i urge my colleagues to support

this sensible bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the men and women of the lake county forest reserve district and their 100 year vision for protecting lake county's precious environment. mr. dold: led by executive director, they have assembled a bold 100-year vision for how to preserve our wildlife and natural resource. not just for us today but for our children and children's children. mr. speaker, the lake county forest reserve district wants to ensure future generation can reap the benefits from a healthy environment and understand the only way to ensure a better future is to make changes today. their education and leadership on conservation issues will go a long way to protecting this incredible resource. mr. speaker, i thank them for

their efforts and humbly stand by their side to continue to champion the importance of protecting our environment. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker today i rise to speak in support of new legislation. i'm co-sponsoring with my friend, congressman david jolly to extend florida's gulf coast oil drilling ban to the year 2027. ms. graham: the drilling ban currently extends 125 miles off much of florida's gulf coast and as far as 235 miles in some areas. but it is set to expire in 2022. and there are some in the senaterying to reduce the ban to just 50 miles as soon as next year. this legislation reaffirms our

commitment to protecting florida's precious gulf coast beaches and will protect the environment, our economy, and military operations in the gulf. an oil spill like deep water horiz just 50 miles off northwest florida's beaches, would be devastating for our region. we can't allow that to happen and should pass this legislation to extend the drilling ban and protect florida's gulf coast beaches. thank yo mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady elds back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson:equest permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania virginia tech. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, house majori leader kevin mccarthy calls it, and i quote, some of the best ic cream i have had outside of my hometown of of baksfield, end quote. the majority leader of course is referring to the ice cream produced at penn state university's burke cream. i'm proud to rise today in

recognition of the crey's 150th aiversary. the creamry, located in the rodney a. erickson food science building on penn state university's main campus, was first established in 1865. penn state is home to the largest university creamry in the united ates usi more than 4.5illion pounds of milk each year supporting pennsylvania's robust dairy industry. to help celebrate the 150th anniversary, the creamry has launched social media contest whichllows fans to select a special sesquicentennial flavor. voters have a few days left to choose between birthdayake, strawberry cheesecake, or red velvet. as a proud graduate, i congratulate the creamry on its 150 years and the hardworking student employees and full-ti employees that make the operation a success. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker prtempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the

gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. jolly: i rise today to recognize the tampa bay estuary program and the great work they have done since their founding in 1991. the tampa baye cue -- estuary containts one of the most unique systems along the gulf coast. more than 70% of all fish shelish, and crust at this shans spend some of their stage in these waters protected from larger predators who swim the open sea. more importantly, scientists have found that the tampa bay now supports over 40,000 acres of sea grass beds. tampa bay's florida's largest open water estuary tampa bay's water quality is now as good as it was in 1950. i want to thank the leadership of tampa bay's program particularly the director, for her vision not only for the estuary program but the entire

tampa bay community. tampa bay is coming back to life. again assume its position as a shimmering economic and environmental centerpiece of the vibrant southwest florida region. thank you, 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 montana seek recognition? the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize tomorrow johnson. mr. zinke: chuck's 43-year journalism career began in 1977. in decades since, chuck has been the primary educator of government, politics, and ethics for generations. i had the pleasure of getting to know chuck as a state senator and had the distinct pleasure of traveling with him across montana. he's a straight shooter and true professional. in the era of online and

24-hour news outlets that push agendas and competition for clicks chuck's mow dust oppran die was tell the truth, the facts, and let the people of montana decide. i urge future journalists to study his work and learn what they can from this true montana professional. i wish chuck fair winds and following seas in his retirement. bravo zulu. i yield back mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana yields back the balance of his time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? 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 the further consideration of h.r. 2577. will the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, 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.

2577 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today, an amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 156, line 15. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 the gentlewoman from tennessee, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm certain it comes as no

surprise to anyone in this body that as we go through this appropriations season i come back to the floor working to make another cut to get our spending levels down. the bill we have before us, the t h.u.d. approps is a $55.3 billion bill. that is discretionary funding. credit should go to the subcommittee chairman and to those that have worked on this to get the spending levels down. because this is $9.7 billion below the president's request. that is really quite remarkable. my amendment, which is another 1% reduction, a penny out of a dollar, would save our taxpayers $598 million and would reduce the 2016 outlays

by $369 million. now, when you look at budget authority and you look at the outlays, those are significant numbers. they are significant also mr. chairman, when you look at the debt. we are at $18.3 trillion in debt. and quite frankly i think that that is too much debt for us to ask our children and grandchildren to handle. i think it is imperative that we as stewards of the taxpayers' money put these issues on the table and say yes, there are great things we would like to do. yes there are projects that would be wonderful. but we have to be responsible to the taxpayers. this is not federal money. it doesn't just grow on trees. what we have to realize it all comes from taxpayers. they are overtaxed. they feel the federal government is overspent. they want to see the spending brought under control.

i agree with them. that is why i bring this amendment forward. i think also we have to look at the fact that our economic security, our fiscal security, our national security are all closely linked. and because of that, as admiral mullen said, greatest threat to our nation's security is our nation's debt. we have to get serious about reducing this debt. . with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: to reserve the time in opposition -- claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. the bill that is in front of us is a responsible bill that adheres to the budget caps set by law and passed by this body. we set priorities in this bill and we made targeted cuts to overhead, salaries, expenses and also duplicative programs,

mr. chairman. many programs are also held at last year's level or below. again, we made tough decisions. the problem is when you do a frankly across-the-board cut with this amendment it would have some frankly -- and i know it's well-intentioned -- would have harmful effects on the priorities set by this house, by the members of this house. again, we cut programs but based on hearings, on meetings, on discussions on careful reviews of, again, the budget justifications and also the audits. this amendment for example -- and i know it's very well-intentioned -- would hit air traffic operations and cause unnecessary flight delays. look, it could hurt our most vulnerable populations by for example affecting assistance to over 50,000 residents, including elderly and disabled populations.

now, i'm not telling you there are not areas that can be reduced. we've done that. as a matter of fact, we've been in debate and we heard a lot of debate hearing from people we've done too much of that but we did that after hours and hours of deliberations, of studies, of hearings. again, i know it's a well-intended amendment and i'm a huge admirer of the sponsor of this amendment but i'd have to respectfully urge a no vote precisely because of the time we have spent to make the right reductions as opposed to across-the-board reductions. with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i thank the chairman of our subcommittee for yielding. mr. rogers: i want to join him in opposing this amendment. -- -- mr. price: i want to join

him in opposing this amendment. this would result in fewer air traffic controllers, fewer pipeline safety inspectors, the eviction -- literally, the eviction of elderly and disabled tenants. more generally, investments in our transportation and housing infrastructure would be halted. the associated jobs would be lost. this bill is already underfunded, mr. chairman. it's got to be revisited when we have a budget agreement that lets us do a decent job with this bill so this amendment goes exactly in the wrong directions. it would encourage the agencies not to do more with less but to do less with less. and it would be a body blow to our constituents and our communities. i strongly urge opposition to the amendment. and i yield back. mr. diaz-balart: i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. let me tell you why this is the right approach. our states who can't go print

money in order to balance their budget utilize across-the-board cuts. look at tennessee massachusetts washington state, new jersey colorado they all employ this. here is why. if you want to engage state employees, federal employees, bring the agencies into the process, you say ok, we have set your budget levels, we have appropriated your money. now we're coming to you. you're a part of the team and we need you to engage in how we best save taxpayer money. this is why it works in the states. when i was in the state senate in tennessee we didn't balance the budget, we didn't go home. it's time for the federal federal government to dig deep and engage these employees and you can talk with rank and file federal employees. i've done it many times. they say, we know how we can save money, but they're not

incentivized to do so. let's challenge them, let's engage them, let's have them bring forward their best ideas. a penny on a dollar? absolutely. we are doing this for the children. we are doing this for future generations. we are doing this for our nation's fiscal health, and we are doing it to preserve our sovereignty to get these debt levels down. it is time for us to do that. it is responsible budgeting. it is time for everybody to be a part of the team putting this nation back on the road to fiscal health, to a balanced budget and being respectful of the taxpayer and the good steward of the taxpayers' money. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i ask for a rerded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: i rise to offer an amendment that i successfully offered last year. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: will the gentlelady submit the amendment? ms. norton: i have submitted the amendment, i do believe. here's another copy.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. norton from the district of columbia. insert the following -- section. none of the funds made available by this act may be used in controvention of the fifth or 14th amendment to the constitution or title 6 of the civil rights act of 1964. the chair: for what purpose does the ntleman from florida seek recognition? pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to offer an amendment to prohibithe use of federal funds to stop investigate

detain or arrest people on highways based on their physical appearance in violation of the fifth and 14th amendment of the united states constitution and title 6 of the civil rights act of 1964. this is the same amendment i successfully offered for the fiscal year 2015 t-hud appropriation bill and was agreed to by voice vote on the house floor and was incded in the fiscal year 2015 omnibus bill. i ask the same for the current amendment, which like the one passed by the house last year seeks to prevent profiling by law enforcement officers ando ensure that citizens are not stopped investigated or detained based on their color or other physical -- inherent physical appearance.

the supreme court in renn vs. united states held tt profiling based on physical appearance on highways violates equal protection of the laws. title 6 of the 1964 civil rights act whose 50th anniversary was celebrated in 2014 enforces the 14th amendment and applies to funding for all federal agencies and departments. my amendment carries out title 6 that mandate as expressed in transportation fnding in particular. federal guidance regarding the use of race by federal law enforcement officials finds that racial profiling is not merely wrong but is also ineffective. not only blacks and hispanics are affected but many others in

our country as well given the increasing diversity of american society. the united states department of justice bureau of justice statistics reports that whites are stopped at a rate of 3.6% but blac at 9.5% and hispanics at 8.8%. more than twice that of whites. the figures are roughly th same rerdless of region or state. in minnesota for example, a statewide study of racial profiling found that african-american, hispanic and native americans drives were stopped and searched far more often than whites, yet contraband was found more frequently in cars where white drivers had been stopped. in texas where disproportionate stops and searches of african-americans and hispanics were found to have taken place, it was also found that whites more often were carrying contraband. earlier this congress i

introduced the racial profiling prevention act, my bill to re-establish a popular federal program aimed at reducing racial profiling. this bill permits states to apply for grants to develop racial profing laws, to collet and maintain data on traffic stops, to fashion programs to reduce racial profiling and to train law enforcement officers. nearly half the states participated in the program when it was in existence which shows both the need and the interest in our country in tackling thicivil right issue. i got this program included in the surface trasportation law in 2005 but that program expired in 2009. i will try to get this bill included in thsurface transportation re-authorization bill we will be writing this year, but in the meantime, a formal prohibition on racial profiling is in order. meanwhile, congress should have no hesitation in carrying out the 14th amendment and the 1964

civil rights act mandate regarding federal funding of transportation and neither the house or senate hesitated last year. considering our country's history and increasing diversity we are late in barring profiling at the national level. at the very least federal taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize the unconstitutional practice of law enforcement -- of law enrcement officials in the states. i urge the adoption of this amendment, especially in lht of recent issues cities like ferguson and baltimore. and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back h time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the ayes have it. themendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk number 90. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. thclerk: an amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. insert the following -- section. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to carry out the rule and title affirmatively furthering fair housing published by the department of housing and urban development in the federal register for july 19 2013, 78 federal register 43710, docket number 01 or to carry out the

noice entitled -- affirmatively furthering fair housing assessment tool published bthe housing and urban development in a federal register on september 26 2014, 79 federal register 599 -- 57949, fr-73-n-02. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control fe minutes. e chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment intended to prevent yet another costly overreach by the federal gernment into the jurisdiction of local towns and communities. . and prohibit community development block grant funds from going to communities that nee them. the amendment seeks to once again defundnd block this new

regulationhat wanot proved by congress. h.u.d.'s misguided rule would grant the department of authority to dictate local zoning requirements in any community across the country that applies for a community developme block grant. according to the reports, in 12 this rule would have negatively impacted more than 1,200 municipalities throughout the country, costing these communities to forfeit million that are meant to help the neiest of families. this proposal by h.u.d. would crease local taxes, depress property val ue, and cse further harm to impoverished communities that are in need of these funds. the burdensome zoning rules would be imposed h.u.d. bureaucrats on localits that would derived from tracked resident databased on citizens' race sex, religion, andther federally protected demographics. multiplwatchdog groups have raed serious and valid concerns aut h.u.d.'s proposal. and a trial run of this rule already took place in new york.

it failed miserably. and a local county was initially forced to forgo $12 mlion in fun that would have benefited the community due to the impractical and realistic requirements. the couy had intended to use a large portion of these block grant funds to establish public housing forndividuals in need. but reclint the united states courts of appeal for the second circuit ruled in favor of the county and granted a stay against h.u.d.'s attempts to reallate those millions. this new regulation that is sitting at.m.b.s very dangerous and worst of all unnecesry. the federal government is already the authority to withhold grant money from communities that violates the law. and to clarify i do mean the actual law in the united states code as oppod to overreaching executive particular tums. american cizens - dictums. american citizens should not be subject to

micoverengineering. further, h.u.d. officials shouldn't be holding hostage grant moneys aimedt community improvents based on unrealistic utopian ideas that every commuty should resemble. cal zoning decision vs. traditionally been and should always be made by local communities nt bureaucrats in washington, d.c. i ask my colleagueso support this commonsse amendment becaue it keeps the government out of yr backyard. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment bcause it aims to trea municipalits and ndividual citizens as capable anintelligent rather than denanchised, divided, a ddled groups in need of protection from a problem that doesn't exist. as always thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on the committee. with that i reserve the balance of my time.

mr. price: h.u.'s rule is inended to help communities to ore fully comply. th charge thatthis rule injects h.u.d. to local planning and zoning decisions is simply inaccurate. nor does it set up additional hurdles to deral funding. that's inaccurate, too. e rule allows for communities to bert undetand cal conditions and create locally implemented solutions. i don'tnderstand why we want to revert back to a standard that relied on drawn out litigation rather than simply presenting communities up front with information on local housing conditions and letting them address their needs. i know my local officials prefer community developed solutions over decrees that are judicially imposed.

with that i'd like to yield to a distinguished member of the financial services committee, mr. ellison, to express his opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: let's talk about what we are really actually talking about. we are trying to fight racial segregation. that is what this is all about. our nation, the nation i love held slaves for 246 years and did jim crow segregation for another 100 years, and that created racial segregation patterns which this member is trying to stop us from correcting. this is deeply offensive, and i just want to say that when i think about the progress that our nation has made to try to say so that when we say all men are created equal and when we say liberty and justice for all, that it will be true. and this amendment is saying no. we are not going to allow it to be true.

we are going to keep residential segregation based on race. we are going to make communities balkanize. when i hear communities say the federal government should stay out of local affairs that sounds like some state rights talk of 1955. that sounds like something really offensive to me. look we need h.u.d. to help implement affirmatively farr housing rule. we need that. we need h.u.d. to expand the its to fight discrimination and promote equal opportunity in every community. too often in this country too many people's economic opportunities, their life chances are limited by where they live. yes, the federal government should promote equality and should promote fair housing and affirmatively further fair housing rule helps to do that. why we would want to strip it out makes absolutely no sense to me. i urge members to understand what is going on right here and to very fervently vote no on the gosar amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

north carolina. mr. price: i yield back my time. the chair: yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: how dare the opposition create and instigate racism. this is about decisions made at the local love and local level knowing what's best for their communities. there is nothing of the sort that the gentleman from minnesota brought up in regards to that amendment i brought forward. this is an overreaching of the federal government and spilling into our local communities where, how and when people are going to live. that's the wrong way to be. instead of building -- we ought to make sustainable communities based on local ideas and principles. with that i ask all people to vote for this amendment because it definitely rejects the overreach of the federal government. 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. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

mr. gosar: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbia seek recognition? ms. norton: mr. speaker, i have a desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. norton of the district of columbia, 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 permit air transportation service between midnight and 6:00 a.m. at ronald reagan national airport, d.c.a. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 the gentlewoman from the district of columbia and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i rise to offer an amendment that would prohibit federal funds from being used to permit airline service between midnight and :00 a.m. at ronald reagan national airport. last month i held a widely attended community meeting. it was standing room only, on airport, airplane noise with residents in pal said, fox hall georgetown, and other impacted neighborhoods in the district of columbia. representatives of the metropolitan washington airport authority, the federal aviation administration and residents sat on a panel while we discussed airplane noise that has completely disrupted the life of this community. over the last 18 months, d.c. residents have reported an increase in air traffic activity during nighttime and

early morning hours, breaking the sleep of children and adults alike. during this time period, one airline added two flights that arrive at ronald reagan washington national airport after midnight, and three flights that depart before 5:00 a.m. as of now there is no congressional prohibition, none whatsoever on nighttime flights at ronald reagan national airport. until recent years however flights at this airport could not land after 10:00 p.m. or take off before 7:00 a.m. my amendment gives airlines greater latitude without introducing continuing sleepless nights for residents. congress can settle this issue in the nation's capital to provide relief to those residents who suffer from

airline noise night after night and early morning after early morning. i urge the adoption of my amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i would at this time have to oppose this amendment. i'm actually concerned about the potential unintended consequences of this amendment. we don't know all of the potential impacts of this amendment. from safety to capacity, to the effect on local governments, local economics i should say. we have made in this bill an effort not to legislatively direct restrictions or flight paths. as you can well imagine, mr. chairman there are a lot of these issues out there. but we have made the decision to not do that. again we just don't know all of

the potential unintended consequences. so i would respectfully have to urge a no vote. i would yield the remaining part of my time to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i appreciate the chairman's yielding. i want to simply add an observation about the situation . this and other amendments we may be considering today points to with respect to the pending f.a.a. authorization. it's expiring at the end of this fiscal year. our colleagues on the transportation and infrastructure committee are exploring options to reform the f.a.a. one of them includes separating the f.a.a. from the department of transportation. and allowing the f.a.a. more independence over the use of its resources. this is an important time to encourage our colleagues to think very carefully about that. about whether a more independent f.a.a., one that does not have to rely on annual

appropriations, would be as attentive to concerns such as our colleague raises today, concerns about noise concerns about flight paths. we ought to move very cautiously in this area. i have misgivings about the piecemeal approach, but i believe there is an important message that's being delivered to the leadership of the fay nay, strongly urge -- f.a.a., strongly urge the administrator that the f.a.a. is more attentive to the concerns raised by communities about their new flight procedures. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i understand the concerns of my friends on the other side of the aisle. and i appreciate the remarks of my friend on this side. i do alert the house to the fact that i have at least seeking from breast dent. i understand all over the united states there are people who may have similar concerns, remember we are talking about a jurisdiction which in recent years, has had no flights

between 10:00 and 7:00, and now there are some airlines that have taken advantage of the fact that there are no limit on flights at reagan national airport. this is a community in the nation's capital that is metropolitan in scope. the nation's capital is different from many other communities. i ask the house and i certainly appreciate the remarks concerning possible privatization of f.a.a. to bear in mind that it is congress that is the ultimate arbiter of such concerns. i yield back the balance of of my time and urge adoption of my amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have amendment number 94 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end before the short title add the following -- section. none of the funds may be used to implement administer or enhance care car standards and operational controls for high hazard flammable trains published by the department of transportation and federal register on may 8, 2015 80 federal register 26643. 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. geaux geaux -- mr. gosar: thank you, mr.

chairman. my amendment would prohibit funds for rail tank car standards. i am strongly in favor of robust standards and best practices which actually improve the safety and efficiency of oil by rail transport. however, the new tank car rule completely misses the mark. instead of utilizing the expertise and practical experiences of the rail, oil manufacturing industries, the obama administration developed a series of special interest regulations on the behest of extremist environmental groups that seem more intent on thwarting the renaissance than creating a safer rail network. in fact, the only reasons these were proposed was because of a misguided lawsuit filed by the -- to the d.o.t. by the sierra club. the analytics firm i.c.f. international estimated the cost of these new regulations to top $42 billion which will be laid on the backs of individual consumers and hardworking americans. i repeat $42 billion will be

lost to our economy as a result of this new rule. these costly regulations would be reflected not only in the price you pay at the pump but also in the products that use plastics and chemicals derived from american petroleum. the most egregious part is these regulations don't address the root cause of these accidents which are related to track conditions and human error. this new rule is nothing more than regulations in search of a problem. department of transportation secretary anthony foxx said as much in 2014 when he admitted the truth is 99.9% of these oil shipments reach their destinations safely. these new and overreaching mandates require railroad companies to unnecessarily increase their steel tank cars for an estimated $154,-- 154,500 tank cars. in fact "the wall street journal" reported that the steel jacket alone would lower the car's 30 gallon capacity

forcing shippers to deploy more cars, according to the rail industry's analysis. clearly this is unintended consequences of new regulations for a .01% problem which increases this by requiring significantly more railcars to actually haul the amount of oil. in addition, the aggressive timeline by d.o.t. is unrealistic and could harm consumers by disrupting the shipment of goods, including chemicals, gasoline, crude oil and ethanol. if democrats in this administration were worried about rail safety, they would approve the keystone pipeline. pipelines are the safest way to transfer crude. our country is in the midst of an energy renaissance which is driving a much-needed economic rerifle in the american manufacturing. we should be pursuing thoughtful, fact-based best practices instead of adding artificial constraints on the

growth of american energy sector focused on a 1% problem that's caused by user error. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and assist the department of transportation, pursue a more feasible, data-driven approach that has safety standards in mind. i thank the chair and ranking member for their leadership on this bill and with that, mr. chairman i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: mr. chairman, i wish to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment and honestly in some disbelief that it's actually being offered. members of congress and industry stakeholders have been calling for months for d.o.t. to complete its rulemaking, to update the integrity of tank cars that carry energy products and other hazardous products. d.o.t. has gotten the final rule out on may 8 and now the gentleman today wants to stop the implementation of that rule in its tracks.

there have been countless examples of derailments involving trains that carry crude oil and other energy products. these incidents have resulted in explosive fires that burn for days. the incident that occurred in quebec resulted in preventable deaths of almost 50 people. u.s. and canadian transportation officials have worked hard to try to improve the safe transportation of these dangerous products. the railroad industry wants stronger cars. safety groups want stronger cars. communities desperately want stronger cars. we ought not to delay the implementation of this long-awaited rule so i urge colleagues to oppose the amendment and i'm happy to yield to our distinguished subcommittee chairman. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i first need to also just recognize and thank the sponsor of the amendment for -- i'm grateful that he's so vigilant on making sure the federal government does have the

tendency to overregulate and frankly does so i would say irresponsibly. i have to, however, in this case have to oppose his amendment. we've seen some horrific accidents recently associated with crude oil and i think most americans would agree we need to do what we can in a reasonable fashion to try to stop that from happening. and while i encourage and i'm grateful for the sponsor of the amendment for always being vigilant on making sure that government doesn't overregulate i think in this case, again, i have to respectfully oppose his amendment and urge a no vote. and with that i yield back to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i yield back my time. the chair: yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i thank you, mr. chair. i want to make sure that everybody understands that user error and train track applications are the ones that have been actually caused by these problems. so when you actually look at a

solution to a fact-based application, we ought to be spending more time on engineering errors and track conditions than we are with something that's misguided like these tank car metals and i urge all my colleagues to vote in regards to this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back 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 noes have it. mr. gosar: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment -- the clerk will now report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. at the end of the bill insert the following section. section 5309-a of title 49 united states code is amended. 1, in paragraph 3 by striking

or as merited by ridership demands after weekend days. two, in paragraph 4-a by inserting or includes performance features that otherwise ensure reliable travel times for public transportation operating in a separated right of way in a shared use of facility after peek periods and three, in paragraph 4-c-iii, merited by ridership demands after weekend days. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves a point of order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. mr. polis: on behalf of western representatives i'm offering this amendment with others. as we know and as often been mentioned on the floor transportation is the lifeblood of this country it moves

people, goods, ideas and information. denver boulder fort collins and broomfield in my district are one of the fastest growing cities in the country. the majority are tourists, over 46 million in 2014 make their way through the denver metro area. but the very things that make our state a popular home as well as a popular tourist destination including biking, hiking, hunting, fishing skiing, challenge, growth and infrastructure as well. despite the fact these cities are growing at significant rates and tourism is heavily congesting space, many of the major thoroughfares intersecting the region haven't been expanded in decades. highway 70 west stretches from the denver metro area out to our 14,000 peaks i-25 north takes our visitors north all the way to wyoming. these are -- these two highways are effectively the only major arteries traveling north and

west of denver and the only option for residents in my district to get out of vail breakenridge and fort collins. and the highways have as little as two leans meaning hardworking constituents might wait for hours every day just to go back and forth. tourists likewise, spend long times waiting to get out of their destination towns or to their -- our attractions. worst yet, mr. speaker is a lack of a clear solution. you simply -- you cannot simply expand a road that winds up some of the steepest peeks in the united states and it's very costly to expand a tunnel under a large mountain. one of the only good options that we have for quick reliable and affordable mass public transportation is bus rapid transit systems. on highway 36, our main -- artery from boulder to denver, we recently begun operating a b.r.t. system with huge success. now, this system shares a hot lane with high occupies

vehicles that ensures arrival times that is used by hundreds of people every day for their commutes. that tool, however, was taken out of the toolbox for states across the west. a hugery problematic change to our surface transportation and authorization map-21 bill three years ago, was liability for project grants that build b.r.t. systems nationwide. unfortunately, for the first time in history the body required -- congress required b.r.t. systems have access to an exclusive lane and operate as regularly during nonpeak weekday hours. that doesn't match the reality on the ground in places like colorado and arizona. mr. speaker, we need access to these grants and the ability to create and innovate in education should be -- in transportation should be encouraged by congress. and yet we're removing the very critical area of investment for b.r.t.'s under the current

map-21 rule, barring them from b.r.t. eligibility because we don't have the capacity to add additional lanes. nor does it make any sense to have a lane solely for bus traffic and nor does it make sense to have buses every couple of minutes on let's say a tuesday at 2:00 p.m. or a sunday at 9:00 p.m. ridership and data should drive these decisions, not washington bureaucrats and not congress. my amendment would allow our states and localities the flexibility we need to create the best possible surface transportation system in our area. there simply isn't a one size fits all when it comes to growth and infrastructure and i encourage this body to take the needs of the states like colorado and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, for what purpose do you seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: i reserve a point of order. the chair: point of order is reserved.

the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: did the gentleman invoke his point of order or reserve a point of order? the chair: the chair understood that he reserved his point of order. mr. polis: ok. instead of giving top-down directives from washington we should be allowing for equity of federal resources and take into account local needs. what works for some transportation corridors might not work for others. we simply have different needs with regard to our commuting patterns and tourism patterns around the country and i'm proud to bring up this amendment with a strong bipartisan of coalition of members that includes coffman perlmutter schweikert, mcsally and kirkpatrick because we can't discuss funding levels like those in the underlying bill without first putting in place equitable policies that encourage innovation for their dispercentment.

i ask members to work with me to find a fix as we move forward with the re-authorization later this summer. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from florida to see if he will be willing to work with us with regard to finding a fix on this policy issue. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman. at this time -- mr. chairman, i thank the gentleman. i know he is very committed and has worked awfully hard. i look forward to working with him on this. so, again, i know how passionate he is about this. i look forward to working with him. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gosar: i have amendment 100 at the desk. 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 for the federal transit administration's rapid growth area transit program. the chair: pursuant to house resolution the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will control five minutes of the the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise today to offer a commonsense fiscally responsible amendment that will ensure scarce transportation dollars are going towards highways, bridges, and other critical infrastructure that is in desperate need of repair. the obama administration's budget request for the fiscal year 2016 included $500 million for our new discretionary grant program for bus transit. the administration made -- the same new request in fiscal year 2015 for this same misguided program. this request was rejected in its entirety last year and the proposed rapid growth area transit