ered 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 program received no

funding in the cromnibus. with significant infrastructure needs including roads and bridges maints nance, now is not the time to spend $500 million on a new discretionary bus transit program. the obama administration actually proposed two new programs this year that sought funding from the highway trust fund, both of which asked for $500 million each. the committee made clear in the committee report that they choose -- chose to fund the new $500 million fixing and accelerating surface transportation or the fast program n. this bill. if i had to fund one of these programs that is the one i would have funded. so i applaud the chairman, ranking member, and committee for the choice and also apparently choosing not to fund the proposed rapid growth area transit program once again in this legislation. having said that there are no detailed summaries of the particular program accounts because authorizing language has not yet been passed. in addition, nothing is said about the proposed $500 million new discretionary bus transit program in the bill or the

committee report. my amendment is also necessary to prevent funds from being transferred to this account. a recent economic analysis found, and i quote over the past few decades lawmakers have diverted more trust fund resources, thus starving general purpose roads of funds and transit, including light rail trolleys, and buses, marks the largest diversion. in 2010 alone t. received 17%, or $6 billion of the federal highway users fees, even though it accounted for only 1% of the nation's surface travel. despite receiving a portion of federal user fees for decades, transit has failed to reduce traffic congestion or even maintain a chair of urban travel. for example, between 1983 and 2010, traffic volumes in the nation's 51 major metropolitan areas increased by 87%. peak travel times in these areas increased by 125%. and transit share of passenger miles fell by 1/4. i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, though once again i will --

mr. diaz-balart: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to once again repeat what i said a little while ago. i want to thank the gentleman for his hard work. it's evident that you spend the time, you do your homework. i'm appreciative of that. mr. chairman, i have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. thank you for yielding. mr. gosar: i thank the gentleman. reserve the balance of my time the chair: the gentleman reserves. does the gentleman yield back? mr. gosar: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, those in favor will vote aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered ms. lee of california, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to administer, implement, or enforce section 193 or section 114 of this act. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. first of all -- the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. sanford for his leadership as it relates to this amendment. and helping us try to end these outdated and failed policies toward cuba. i rise in support of our amendment and i'm very proud to co-sponsor this simple bipartisan amendment. this amendment would strike two provisions included in this bill that would further limit travel to and from cuba via

fairies. not only are these provisions inappropriate policy riders, they would deny americans the right to travel to cuba. i understand some of my colleagues including our subcommittee's chair personal interest in cuba, yet personal interest should not stall progress nor interfere with what is good for the american people. and i'm joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in a diverse coalition of organizations and businesses in strong opposition to this and other attempts to undermine efforts to normalize relations with cuba. not only are the current provisions in this bill wrong for diplomacy, they are patently anti-business. that's why this amendment is supported by the united states chamber of commerce, the american society of travel agents and the broad based coalition engage cuba. these provisions currently in the bill set us back 50 years. they would eliminate flights

when airlines have already invested in and would kill new market for maritime carriers. simply put these provisions are an affront to americans' basic freedom. cuba's the only country in the world, including north korea, iran china, and vietnam, where americans cannot freely travel. the president's announcement to expand travel was a step in the right direction. we should be passing bipartisan and bicameral freedom to travel act, h.r. 664, which i'm proud to co-sponsor with my colleague, mr. sanford, rather than moving backwards towards -- with these misguided provisions. opponents to normalizing relations are quick to claim that renewed engagement somehow rewards the cuban government. that couldn't be more wrong. in order to engage on issues like human rights and democracies, americans should be able to do just that. this amendment allows that. those who are serious about moving our relations forward to

the betterment of americans and cubans know that increased exchange and formalized relations are the path we need to be on. a majority of americans and cubans agree. we need a 21st century approach to our relation was this nation 90 miles away from our shores. this is 2015, my colleagues. not 1960. the rest of the world is doing business with cuba. allows its citizens to travel to cuba. and also has normal diplomatic relations with cuba. the united states is isolated. this amendment begins to that you that freeze and keep our country moving forward in this next decade and further to become part of the world family who understands that americans should like other citizens in other countries have a right to travel wherever they so desire. i now would like to yield three minutes to my colleague from south carolina mr. sanford,

and also reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady only has a minute and a half remaining. who does the gentlelady yield to? ms. lee: i yield to my colleague, our ranking member, mr. price. mr. price: i intend to strike the last word. so give the speaker more time. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lee: thank you. now i'd like to yield to my colleague, mr. sanford, for three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady only has a minute and a half remaining. ms. lee: i yield the minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. sanford: i appreciate it, sir. my comments will be brief. it is quite simple. the concept is this, if i travel on delta airlines to moscow, it does not mean that i support putin. if i travel on royal caribbean to shanghai, it does not mean i support the chinese regime. this bill is fundamentally as my colleague from california has pointed out, about americans' right to travel.

it is about something we talk about as republicans which is balance of power. if we don't want the president overstepping his pounds, we shouldn't overstep our bounds as members of congress because this is precisely what this bill does in trying to proscribe the president though he has full authority within the licensing, within the department of commerce to do as he's done. it's finally, i think, about american opportunity. why should we have canadian or mexicans traveling to a country we are allowed to travel to rather than americans. i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. sanford: i do. the chair: the gentleman cannot reserve. yield back or -- mr. sanford: i yield back to the gentlelady from california. 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 for five minutes. mr. diaz-balart: just a couple things from the debate that we have heard. the sponsor of the amendment talked about that this may be a personal issue for some. mr. chairman, let me be very

frank and very clear. this is not a personal issue. let me also talk about what the language in the bill does that this amendment is trying to take out. it doesn't deal with the overriding issue of policy versus whether we like the president's policy or not. it deals with one specific issue and one specific issue only, mr. chairman. whether we should condone, whether we should approve whether we should permit the trafficking of confiscated in other words stolen property. when the gentleman from my side of the aisle said that, this is an issue about traveling to other countries when we travel to russia, we should be able to do that. that's fine. but is he also saying, which is what this amendment says, that we should condone the use of stolen confiscated property? property that was stolen, confiscated illegally from americans. so if you support this

amendment, mr. chairman, what you are saying is it's ok to do business on property that was stolen from americans. i can understand having differences of opinion on overall policy, but the language in the mark deals specifically with confiscated in other words stolen, properties from americans. for the life of me i would never understand how anybody can justify doing business on confiscated stolen property and then try to obfuscate the issue talking about policy which is not what is in the mark. with that i would like to yield to the the gentlewoman from florida, a distinguished gentlewoman from from the intelligence committee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, i thank the chairman. as the chairman points out, do we really want to trample on the property rights of innocent americans whose properties were

illegally stolen by the cuban regime? the gentleman from south carolina is correct, the concept is simple. but the concept he doesn't seem to understand is this. it's not about travel to cuba. this is about protecting american property that were illegally seized by the castro government. we are selling out these legitimate property claims to thousands of american citizens. respect for private property rights, mr. speaker, there's been a consistent american policy since the founding of our republic. the cuban regime illegally confiscated property from american sit zens. our citizens have not been compensated. we know there's no respect for the rule of law in cuba. americans' property has been seized. what does that american do? well there's no fair court for recess. let me tell you what the law review has noted about the cuban regime's confiscation of u.s. assets. it says, quote it is the largest uncompensated taking of american property by a foreign

government in history. so this is what this amendment is about. if this amendment to strike the use of confiscated property were to pass, we would be in essence allowing and condoning the trafficking of stolen goods. currently, there are over 8,800 claims certified by the foreign settlement claims submission which is under the u.s. department of justice, american citizens whose properties were seized illegally almost 9,000 have filed claims that castro regime doesn't care. these certified claims are they just small? no. they are worth approximately $8 billion. this body must protect the interest of those citizens of all of our citizens. i implore our colleagues to not support these misguided artempts to normalize relation -- attempts to normalize relations with the cuban regime on the backs of american citizens. we are bert than that. we must not allow this amendment to pass. we are about protecting

american private property rights. this language in the bill protects american citizens, constituents that we represent in our congressional districts. is this chamber really going to side with the communist tie ranlt in cuba over american -- tyrant in cuba over american citizens? the cuban regime should not be allowed to use american property stolen from our citizens for its commercial benefits. if the u.s. endorses such a practice, what will we be sending a message to other rogue regimes who would love to be confiscating american properties. if we want to help the cuban people, i'm sure all of us do let's not give the oppressors more resources to violate their rights. we are here to protect private property rights of american citizens. we must reject this amendment. rather than striking the provisions directly, which my colleagues could have done, they are offering limitation amendments that would prohibit funds to enforce those same provisions. let's not do this. i urge my colleagues to oppose

this amendment. let's not trample on the rights of american citizens' rights. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, she has 30 seconds remaining. ms. lee: i'd like to yield those 30 seconds mr. chair, to my colleague from south carolina. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. sanford: thank her for doing so. three quick points. if you follow this logic, then no american plane should fly into saigon. no american plane should fly into china. no american plane should fly into russia because indeed property was conif i stated at the time of the russian revolution, the chinese taking, or for that matter what happened in vietnam. there were american properties there. this is not about american property rights. this is about legalistically trying to undo that which has been changed via -- one second, i will. the other thing that it's about is again legalism, what the bill says is the previous 180

days, within seven miles of a port property where there may be -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sanford: this is an attempt to undo what the president has done. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: in order to express my strong support for this amendment. . i appreciate the gentlelady from california for offering it. i'm pleased to yield her the rest of the time. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding. i'd like to yield two minutes to my colleague from california. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has the time. does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. price: happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farr: this is a bill and the language reads that we're trying to strike out.

none of the funds may be used to facilitate new scheduled air transportation originating from the united states if such flights would land on or pass through property confiscated by the cuban government including property in which minority interests was confiscated as the term confiscated cuban government are defined in the paragraphs below. this is just a job killer for americans. there are thousands of americans visiting cuba illegally. you know how they get there? mexico. who gets the business? mexican airlines. or any other country in the world that has normal travel relations with cuba. you're just cutting off the ability for american enterprise to get access to cuba where everybody wants to go. because there's family feuds going on here. i wouldn't doubt that your family has -- your family might have some interest. >> if the gentleman will yield?

mr. farr:, no, i -- mr. farr: no, i won't. it includes property which has a minority interest of any -- how are the airlines, how are the people going to decide what property's been confiscated, whose the ownership title? these are big problems in the united states when we confiscate property to build freeways or railways. this amendment really screws up the ability for america to be involved in a business that americans want to do. they want to travel. censorship of american travel, this is just ridiculous. what's the message to the world? that we prohibit our citizens from going to countries that are communist countries? you can go to psalm, you can go to china you can go to russia but you can't go to cuba because there's a lot of feuding going on in florida. in fact, florida's going to benefit from this because where are the airports that these scheduled airplanes will leave from, they're tampa they're miami, businesses in your state. so if you want to give american

jobs to americans and you want commerce to occur and you don't want to continue the censorship of cuba, then vote for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: happy to yield to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. lee: thank you. couple of points i'd like to make. first of all confiscated property 50 years-plus ago should be part of negotiations in terms of bilateral discussions as it goes to normalizing relations with cuba. what's in this bill right now is what we've indicated and which is why we offer this amendment. this bill prohibits americans from traveling to cuba and it eliminates jobs in america and it eliminates economic growth through our maritime industry and our airline industry. once again, all of the issues that occurred 50 years ago are

subject to discussion based on any bilateral negotiations faking place. i'd like to yield back now to mr. price or to mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina controls the time. mr. price: let me ask the gentlelady, do you have further speakers? ms. lee: i don't have further speakers except mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. sanford: how much time -- the time remaining? mr. price: could i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has 45 seconds remaining and he's yielded to the gentleman from south carolina. mr. sanford: i thank him for doing so. i'd like to make three last points. as was correctly pointed out by my colleague from california indeed, this is about american jobs. indeed it is about again, this larger notion of private property rights. i'd stand my private property rights up to anybody. ms. lee is correct.

should there be bilateral relations between the united states and cuba, this would be part of the discussion but the idea of creating an airline a hurdle, they can't, it makes no sense to me. finally, i've said this. we tried 50 years of one policy and it hasn't worked. it was ronald reagan that encouraged travel to the eastern block countries. i think it would make sense in this instance. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. we heard a lot of things. by the way you notice very few times does it deal with the language in the bill. by the way for example that this is going to hurt american jobs. you know to argue, mr. chairman, that companies will ben -- american companies will benefit from trafficking in

stolen property stolen from american companies i think is probably the definition of an oxymoron. number one. number two is there's a lot of offiscation. what this amendment is trying to do so strike language which simply says -- the language in the bill doesn't say that americans can't travel. the language says that they cannot use trafficking in, make a profit from property that was stolen from americans. stolen from americans. so i understand that the gentleman says that his property rights record is as good as any, but mr. chairman, the language in the bill deals with a specific issue and one specific issue alone. should we condone, should we allow, should we permit, should

we encourage the trafficking, the profiting from stolen property, property that was confiscated from americans where there are certified claims or not you support this amendment, mr. chairman, you're saying it's ok for folks to traffic in property that was stolen from americans. illegally stolen from americans i think frankly that's a sad day. mr. chairman, what i'd like to do now is yield time to the gentleman from florida, mr. curbelo. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. curbelo: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman it is fascinating to come here to the floor and to listen to colleagues who struggle to support free trade agreements with our allies, come to the floor and advocate for expanded trade with one of our enemies taking advantage of properties stolen from american citizens. i heard that we have a personal

interest in this matter and i do. i'm an american citizen. i was born here and i want to do justice by american property owners. shouldn't we resolve these 8,818 claims before proceeding? shouldn't we do justice by these families, these businesses whose property was stolen with no due process, with no hearing by the castro government? whose side are we on, mr. chairman? that is the question here. i will not yield. that is the question here. as americans, do we want to be on the side of those who are agriefed by a tyrannical regime american citizens or do we want to reward that regime by allowing others now to profit over those stolen properties? that is the question that we need to ask ourselves today. this is not about travel. no one is here advocating for restricting travel to cuba.

many travel to cuba today legally and that would not change, but i cannot stand for violating the property rights of my fellow american citizens. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. chairman, again, before i yield back, as mr. curbelo just mentioned this is not an issue of travel. in is not an issue of the overriding policy. this is not an issue with even arguing whether president obama has been a good negotiator on anything or a horrible negotiator. this is whether we want to condone, permit, accept in violation of everything that united states stands for to trafficking of stolen property confiscated property, illegally confiscated from american citizens. if you support this amendment, mr. chairman, you are supporting you are condoning you are assisting, you are helping the trafficking of --

the profiting on property that was stolen from americans. this cannot stand. this should not stand. i respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment and i'd yield back the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. lee: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i ask the yeas and nays. -- i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida, mr. posey, seek recognition? mr. posey: mr. chairman, i have

an amendment number 29 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk:

the chair: the clerk will now report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following. section 416. none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of transportation to take any actions with respect to the financing of a new passenger rail project that runs from orlando to miami through indian river county, florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman

from florida and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. posey. mr. posey: i thank you, mr. chairman. this was presented as a private passenger rail project that would run from miami to orlando and vice versa along florida's east coast. the project was initially sold to the public as the first privately funded and operated passenger train. however, that story soon changed as all aboard florida decided to pursue $1.6 billion with a b loan from the department of transportation. apparently because the loan requires strict environmental impacts to be completed, all aboard florida decided to also apply for a $1.75 billion in tax-exempt private activity

bonds from the department of transportation. the u.s. department of transportation has moved to green light this financing option even though they have absolutely no statutory authority to do that. and the environmental impact study has yet to be completed. . we don't even know if the project is safe or feasible yet. furthermore, these trains will move through our small beach towns at speeds up to 110 miles per hour with virtually no, none ngata, buffer separating it from our communities. all aboard florida envisions 32 trains running per day on top of 20 freight trains. that's a lot of traffic. given how close this tract is to our adjacent roads and neighborhoods, obviously there are serious safety concerns. why should you ask taxpayers to be on the hook for this train? i ask my colleagues to join me

in supporting my amendment to stop the department of transportation from funding this train and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: mr. chairman, i'd like to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i yield to my colleague from florida, ms. brown. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. here we go again. trying to destroy passenger rail in this country. i don't understand why republicans refuse to support transportation infrastructure. let me tell the gentleman from florida that our competition is not georgia and it's certainly not alabama. it is europe. it's japan. it's china. and the people in florida support all aboard florida. this is a system that will go

from orlando to miami. the studies indicate it is an economic boom to our state. i just for the life of me don't understand why with that vision the people perish. and why is it can you go to europe and you can get on a train to go from london paris, two hours 1:15. and we don't want that same system here. our competition is spending close to 8%, 8% of their economics for passenger rail and we fight about 1%. yet we can spend close to $300 billion for tax breaks, but yet we don't even want to encourage public-private partnerships. shame on you. the people in florida need to be able to move, move around

our state. and this is not just a florida issue. it's a national issue. here we are $2 billion that could fix amtrak and yet we can do a tax break for close to $300 billion and don't pay for it. i don't understand. what is wrong with the people's house? what is it that we don't support transportation infrastructure? this is not just a florida issue. it's when we had 9/11, amtrak was the only train that was moving people. when we had katrina amtrak, we had over 3,000 people that couldn't move around the area. we need a train that leaves new orleans to go to orlando and

down to miami. that is the future. shame on you. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. price: i yield back. the chair: members are advised to address their comments to the chair and not to each other. the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. mr. posey: thank you, mr. chairman. shame on me for asking the department of transportation to follow the law? respect the constitution of the united states and make economically sound decisions. this is not a partisan issue in response to the allegation. in september i wrote the g.a.o. along with my colleague from florida, representive patrick murphy, asking them to study the project to ensure taxpayer funds were not at risk. a recent independent economic analysis conducted by dr. john frieman concludes that even under all optimistic assumptions, it will generate losses of more than $100

million and will be unable to service its debt burden. the doctor has a ph.d. in economics as a distinguished brown university professor and former economic council special assistant in the current obama administration. the department of transportation has been unable to explain where they get their authority to authorize bonds for this project. that's because they don't have the authority. they say title 23 funding has been given to the project in the past, but have been unable to state where title 23 funds were ever spent on what projects and when. this is just commence. it might not make some congressional sense to some people, but this is common sense and a simple ask that the department of transportation follow the law and not violate the law to help a special

interest put the taxpayers on the hook for 1 sen 3/4 billion dollars. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. posey: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. price: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. posey: i yield back. the chair: yields back his time. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. posey: i ask the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman from florida ask for a recorded vote? mr. posey: yes, sir. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gallego of arizona. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following. section, none of these funds made available by this act may be used by the federal aviation administration, f.a.a., to redesign the phoenix metroplex regional airspace. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gallego: i rise to offer an amendment that would prevent the f.a.a. from moving forward plans to redesign the phoenix metroplex airspace. let me explain why and why it's important to my city. imagine living in a quiet neighborhood and wake up one

morning finding that dozens of planes have been rolling over your head. imagine running a business, raising a family, or getting a good night sleep when your windows are rattling because of passing aircraft. imagine this was both needless and unavoidable. it was done by out of touch bureaucrats without bothering the people who live there. unfortunately for thousands of phoenix residents, this is not a hypothetical situation. in september of last year the f.a.a. instituted new flight patterns for the aircraft departing from sky harbor airport without any notice to our neighbors. for too many members of my community, these changes have meant more noise and a lower quality of life. the f.a.a. altered these flight paths without seeking local imput. not only that, but the f.a.a. also failed to provide a report that was mandated by the previous congress on sky harbor's -- last year's f.a.a. bill about what the pilot plan

to do and change the patterns. it is two months overdue with no response from the f.a.a. this is isn't how our government is supposed to run or the f.a.a. operate. i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, is recognized. mr. schweikert: thank you. i appreciate that. a couple -- let's put some facts around this. the phoenix sky harbor airport is the 10th busiest airport in the united states but we have something that's a little unique. think about this because this is coming to your neighborhood, too. we actually have a downtown airport. our city grew up around an airport. so it makes traffic patterns and the mechanics dealing with it quite unique. also our little -- big county, has about 4.2 million people in it. it's either the third or fourth most populous county in the united states.

so puge population. remember, arizona most urbanized state in the country. and then i have a downtown airport, and then the f.a.a. goes and starts to change the flight patterns, and then when it becomes one of the biggest issues at all of our congressional offices, they are arrogant, they don't return calls, we point out the fact that they are violating last year's law, and they just grin at you and then walk out of the meetings with this sort of arrogant vanity. this is the process we as members -- remember, there are seven congressional districts that touch this phoenix metroplex area that all care about this. this is our opportunity to at least get our voices heard. and i'm going to ask the chairman, please, consider what's happening to 4.2 million people in the phoenix area and

the fact of the matter is, there's well established corridors where you don't have to have the effects on the neighborhoods and we can still be moving to the next gem if i can find someone at the f.a.a. who could actually listen to our concerns. with that i yield back to mr. gallego. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego. mr. gallego: could i add one minute? the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego, has a minute and a half remaining. mr. gallego: i appreciate that. thank you the gentleman from arizona. just to finish, this amendment's very straightforward. it would suss preliminary -- simply ensure the f.a.a. does not proceed with the regional airspace around sky harbor airport until these issues are resolved in the local neighborhoods. experts tell us if the flight pats are altered the entire metroplex airspace will also need to be revisitted. by asking them to slow down, consider the overall effect of what's happening now, we are going to do them a favor by not

having to revisit later on. instead of rushing forward the f.a.a. should do the prudent thing and wait until all our community's concerns have been addressed. let me offer a word of warning. for those of you who think this is a phoenix problem just wait because your city could be next and you could be dealing with the same f.a.a. relationship we are dealing with now. someone who is not responsive to the local politician, members of congress, and citizens. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i would be concerned about the unintended consequences of the amendment, we don't know all the potential impacts of this amendment from safety to capacity to local economics. while i sympathize with both these gentlemen and i pledge to work with the gentlemen in his community and the f.a.a. to find a resolution, we have made an effort in this bill not to ledge legislative live direct specific flight restrictions on flight paths. i urge a no vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield

back his time. does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. price: would the gentleman yield? >> i yield to mr. price. the chair: the gentleman does not yield back his time but yields to the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for yielding. simply want to add or reiterate that our subcommittee's fiscal 2015 report required the f.a.a. to work with the phoenix community on this issue. and to report back to the committee on these efforts. we are still waiting for that report. again, let me reiterate what i said earlier, the f.a.a. must be more proactive in responding to concerns that are raised by communities. these are legitimate concerns and the f.a.a. needs to be accountable. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. >> yields back. the chair: yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, seek recognition? mr. sessions: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the gentleman from texas will specify which amendment. mr. sessions: known as the sunset amendment. i believe number 11, thank you. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new section, section 416, none of the funds made available by this act shall be used to support amtrak's route

with highest loss measured by contributions/loss per rider as based on the national railroad passenger corporation fiscal years 2014 through 2018 five year plan from april, 2014. . the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. my amendment is very straightforward. it would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line at amtrak the sunset limited, which runs from new orleans to los angeles. the amtrak reform and accountability act of 1997 required that amtrak operate without any federal operating assistance after 2002. i have since then offered this amendment each year. amtrak was supposed to be free of federal operating subsidy yet, despite this commonsense

requirement that amtrak cease their fiscally responsibility and mismanagement instead they continue this line that cost the taxpayers $405.67 for every single ticket that is bought for every single trip. that's $405.67 to subsidize the travels of passengers from new orleans to los angeles, a trip that takes nearly 48 hours, assuming the train is on time. i believe this is -- it's exceedingly unlikely, also, because it has a terrible record of being on time. according to amtrak's most recent monthly performance record, the sunset limited was only on time 42% of the time. yet, 100% of the $405 was paid for the ticket. this places the sunset limited as one of the top 10 worst

ontime ruths from amtrak -- routes from amtrak's routes in the report. perhaps taxpayers should be happy when the train is not running but not running on time and the cost to the taxpayer is prohibited. why does it run this route when amtrak loses an average of $41 million a year? mr. chairman, my amendment is simply to help amtrak make tough decisions that they appear to be incapable of doing them self. i think it's the first time -- themselves. i think it's a first tame. failure to do so will only continue amtrak on this process rather than being a north-south provider on both coasts. i hope my colleagues will join me and i urge my colleagues to legislation and the underlying

legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment. our colleague from texas has offered amendments like this in the past, an attempt to micro manage amtrak from the floor of the house. i don't it's a good idea. we had a vigorous debate last night on the importance of investing in intercity passenger rail and of course he'll get no quarrel from me or other colleagues, i suspect, in arguing for improved service and arguing for making this service more attractive. but what we're dealing with here and have been through this whole debate is a number of colleagues who simply want to defund passenger rail in this country. overlooking the fact that every mode of transportation is subsidized to some degree and that national interests requires a diverse -- a

diversity of modes of transportation. colleagues seem intent on singling out passenger rail for elimination. we had amendments offered to this bill that would do just that. this one is more about micromanagement. it's more about a specific route. the sunset limited. this would eliminate the sunset limited's long-distance route. it serves communities along the southern tier of the united states. actually, it serves more than 300,000 passengers annually in five states, louisiana, arizona, texas, new mexico and california. it's no way to run a railroad if i might say so, and i urge rejection of the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve or yield back? mr. price: i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: that's 300,000 times $405.67 for every single ticket. i am not trying to micromanage nor am i trying to kill amtrak.

i vote for amtrak. i am for amtrak. but they also need more and more resources to help in their north-south line, in the east coast and the west coast. what they're doing is bleeding off their hard-earned money, using the subsidy rather than doing what their original mission should be. mr. speaker, i think i support all of amtrak and i'm for it but this is not micromanaging. it's showing them the obvious things which they need to accomplish and i appreciate the time today and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the question's on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. chair, i move to strike the last word. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: does the gentlewoman seek to offer an amendment? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. i'm sorry. the chair: and will the gentlewoman specify the amendment? ms. waters: it is the hicola amendment. waters 54. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. maxine waters of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following. section. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to carry out section 210 of this act with respect to the housing authority of the county of los angeles, california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment that removes exemption that the housing authority of the county of los angeles currently has from the requirement to have a resident of public housing or section 8 on its governing board. i'm offering this amendment because i've learned that hicola is not in compliance with requirements outlined in this exemption which has directly resulted in a lack of meaningful engagement by residents of the housing authority on important policy issues affecting the effectiveness of the programs that it administers. in 1998, congress passed a law requiring that governing body of a public housing authority must include at least one member who is directly assisted by the housing authority. this provision was an important recognition of the need for the perspective and participation of tenants in the governance of public housing authorities. it's simple as that, mr.

chairman. i ask for an aye vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question's on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk that i believe is number 12. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sessions of texas. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new section. section 416. none of the funds made available by this act shall be used to support any amtrak route whose cost exceed two times its revenue as based on the national railroad passenger incorporation fiscal years 2014 through 2018, five-year plan from april 2014. the chair: prupet to house resolution 287 -- pursuant to house resolution 287, the

gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. i stand in trying to help amtrak to effectively manage its system by taking away those routes that are cost prohibited. mr. chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for amtrak's long distance routes that have a direct cost that is more than twice the revenue they generate. every single long distant route that amtrak provides those over 400 miles in length, operate at a loss every month. 11 routes cost double the amendment of revenue they create. oh boy the way mr. speaker -- and this is true -- since 1997, when i came to congress, these routes were ineffective and waste valuable taxpayer money as well as money that could be used in the system for highly used routes for the safety and security of their passengers on

north-south routes. some argue that many travelers cannot afford to fly and they need a less expensive travel alternative. however, most of these routes, bus tickets and plane tickets are less expensive, more efficient and more frequent in time. combined, these 11 routes cost the american taxpayer about $500 million in fiscal year 2014 alone. four lines cost over $50 million each. i think it's clear that government subsidized rail service on amtrak does not make economic sense if they have enough money to bleed off $500 million with routes that cost twice in expense what they generate in revenue. so i'm offering this amendment again. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

texas 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 from our friend from texas. this amendment outdoes his last one. we're now talking about eliminating nine routes with a total ridership of over two million people. the cardinal and capital limited routes from d.c. to chicago through west virginia, pennsylvania kentucky, ohio, indiana. the southern crescent, new york city and new orleans, new york city to new orleans. the co-star light along the coast of california, oregon and washington. i want to elaborate further on our opposition to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. i appreciate him referencing the co-star light.

this is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- congress has created difficult situations for amtrak, consistently shortchanging maintenance and capital. as my good friend from north carolina points out, all modes of transportation in this country are subsidized by the public. amtrak is no exception. it provides a variety of services for people. we're watching in the west coast ridership increase and provide an important opportunity for business people. if you talk to business people in seattle, in portland, they would say they would like the federal government to invest more. it's made a big difference for how they conduct business. part of the strength is having a network, and make no mistake, we are in fact going to have a passenger rail network in the united states despite consistent efforts to chop away and minimize it. china, six years ago, had no high speed rail.

today they are moving more passengers than the entire air fleet in the united states. we'll have higher speed rail, but the question is whether we're going to build on what we got, american built, american managed or we'll wait until it deteriorates, gets so bad that we end up with a design build to china, paying more, shipping the profits and the work overseas. i'd suggest it's far better to protect what we have now, build on the progress, not undo the network and most certainly reject this amendment. mr. price: i thank the gentleman. i yield the balance of my time to mr. joyce. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. joyce: thank you. i oppose the gentleman's amendment. this amendment has far-reaching implications and it would should down nine of 15 long distance routes. i don't believe an appropriations bill is the place to do this. this would need to be carefully debated and discussed by the committee of jurisdiction. for these reasons i urge a no

vote on the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i yield back. the chair: yields back his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. look, i made a mistake. i came here from business. i came here from somebody that had to operate within the bounds of common sense and doing things that made sense with money and opportunities. i will just say to you, mr. chairman i'm going to stay after this issue. i'm all for amtrak but not when they continue to have routes that cost twice what the revenue is. this is what our airlines did for a long time. they provided service and they went broke. and then we want to turn around and say we're going to subsidize the airlines. marketplace ideas work and that is why we are a capitalist country. i urge my colleagues to think over this commonsense amente. i appreciate the gentlemen. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schiff of california. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, -- mr. schiff: i request unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: is there objection? the clerk will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: i thank the chairman. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support the amendment that i'm offering along with my southern california colleague, mr.

sherman. the amendment would allow the burbank bob hope airport to implement a nighttime curfew between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and restore local control to the community that has been denied to them for decades. thousands of residents of southern california's san ferre indianaow valley who live -- fernando valley who live there endure the jarring interpretation of sleep that is caused by a roaring jet taking off or landing. i want to also distinguish this measure, i know my colleagues have heard some other curfew measures today. without detracting from them, i want to point out that the facts of this one are quite different. so this is i think, a unique case in the case of burbank airport. when congress passed the 1990 airport noise and control act, it intended to permit airports to implement noise restrictions if they met certain requirements. at that time congress exempted several already voluntarily --

exempted several airports from the law's requirements for f.a.a. approval of new noise rules if they had pre-existing noise rules in effect to address local noise concerns. so airports were grandfathered in when anca was passed but because of a mistake, bob hope airport, which had a curfew in place, did not get grandfathered in. the bob hope airport in burbank was one of the first airports in the country, in fact, to impose a curfew and has a long history of curfews, but unfortunately was not given the protection of the grandfather provision of anca that several other similar airports received. this amendment would correct this inequity and put bob hope on the same footing as several other airports across the country that have curfews before anca's passage. so it doesn't set a precedent in terms of other airports and this would be uniquely confined to the situation involving bob hope. by correcting the emission of

bob hope we would return loam control to the community has has sought it for years. it's also important my colleagues understand the impact this will have on aviation in southern california. there will be no impact on commercial flights. zero. almost all commercial airlines already voluntarily abide by the voluntary curfew of bob hope and the impact on general aviation will be limited to two nighttime landings. the impact however will be significant for people trying to get sleep that are disrupted by those small number of flights. so i urge my colleagues to support this and i would be happy to yield a minute to my colleague from southern california, mr. sherman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. sherman: thank you. i thank the gentleman for putting forward this amendment. bob hope is a local neighborhood airport, only through a technicality was it denied a curfew. all the commercial carriers

already adhere to that curfew. we have a handful of nighttime flights that could easily go through one of the larger airports in the los angeles area. this amendment is a good balance between the needs for commercial aviation on the one hand and the need to sleep on the other. and i yield back to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman and i just want to make one final point. this amendment had bipartisan support last year it. came within just three or four votes of passage. because of the unique situation facing burbank airport i would urge unique consideration of correcting the injustice that bob hope was not grandfathered as it should have been. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from california has the time. is recognized. mr. schiff: i urge support for

the amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. chairman, on that i'd request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have amendment number 30 at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. posey of florida. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section 416, none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of transportation to authorize exempt facility bonds to finance passenger rail projects which do not use vehicles that are reasonably expected to be capable of attaining a maximum speed in excess of 150 miles per hour between scheduled stops as

defined in section 142 of title 26 united states code. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. posey: thank you mr. chairman. exempt facility bonds are special tax-exempt financing instruments designed to help raise funds for important infrastructure projects like airports, waste management facilities, highways and other transportation needs. in fact, our current law 26 u.s.c. 142 clearly lists 15 specific categories of projects that can receive financing through the use of exempt facility bonds. one area the law restricts the ability of the department of transportation to authorize exempt facility bonds is to finance passenger rail.

which it limits to high speed rail that can reasonably obtain the speed of 150 miles per hour between stops. yet the department of transportation has decided -- has decided to ignore the law and authorized bonds for projects that clearly do not qualify. whatever views members have on passage of rail -- on passenger rail my amendment would simply ensure that the department of transportation follows the law in authorizing the use of tax-exempt bonds and i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does someone rise in opposition? the gentleman from florida. >> i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. because because all aboard florida received private activity bond allocation to issue these bonleds. mr. diaz-balart: there's no provision in this particular section of u.s. code that requires a passenger rail project to achieve 150 miles per hour. this amendment would prevent

d.o.t. from taking any potential further steps on this very, very important project. if for some reason let's say the project needed a small extension, d.o.t. could not process it. now, the passenger rail line that would link miami to oral -- to orlando is an important project to the state of florida and one that i fully support mr. chairman. we have to remember that it's being done by the private sector. so i don't think that we should be looking at creating any unnecessary restrictions, any barriers or uncertainty for this project as it moves forward. it is a project potentially -- i think the first of its kind in the country where you have the private sector assuming most if not almost all of the risk, you have the private sector who's going to be involved in it, the numbers can't be made up, cooked or anything because it's the private sector who's doing this and who ultimately will be held

accountable by their shareholders. so with that i respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment and i would yield back the remainder part of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. mr. posey: thank you mr. chairman. with all due respect, there's nothing in this amendment that adds any restrictive impediments whatsoever. it only requires that the florida -- or that the department of transportation follow the law when they allocate these funds. although this is being called a private project the taxpayers will be on the hook for over $1.7 billion. that's $1.7 billion. so i think it's important, in the interest of protecting our taxpayers, certainly that we make sure the department of transportation follows the law.

if there wasn't a propensity already demonstrated not to follow the law, i would not have to bother with this amendment. but it's clear there's some intentions to violate different provisions of the law and do things that they're not authorized to do and so that's why i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, to bring accountability and protect taxpayers for $1.7 billion. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant or the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: the amendment is adopted. -- the gentleman from florida -- for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. chairman. i would ask for a recorded

vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. posey, will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section the amount otherwise provided by this act for necessary expenses for the department of transportation office of the secretary salaries and expenses is hereby reduced by $1. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from oregon and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. chairman. you know my heart goes out to the chairman and ranking member for the task that they've been given. people have appropriately

condemned and opposed many of the provisions, as people dig into the bill, mortgage they see, the worse it looks. slashing tiger grant funding, no funding for high speed rail, cutting amtrak, overall reductions. no wonder it's drawn a veto threat. but it is definitely not the fault of the committee. they've been given an impossible task. they've been requested to finance the federal government's transportation responsibilities in 2015 with 1993 dollars. our country is falling apart while we are falling behind the rest of the world. we are of a generation when some of us can remember the united states having the finest infrastructure in the world. we had rail passenger service airlines superb highways, transit. those days have long since passed.

we are watching the deterioration of transit, the squabbling here over amtrak is really dealing with a failing system because it's a symptom of our inability to invest in the future. just one but a very glaring symbol. and sadly it has, in the 55 months that my republican friends have taken over congress we have not had a single hearing in the ways and means committee, on which i serve, for our responsibility for funding transportation. we have not increased the gas tax in 22 years. mr. chairman, in the last six months, six republican states have raised the depass tax and we can't even -- gas tax and we can't even have a hearing on a proposal that is supported by the u.s. chamber, by the

afl-cio, by the american automobile club, the truckers, contractors, transit bicyclists and everybody in between. and as a result we continue to limp along. what did we do late last month? we extended the transportation funding for the 33rd time on a short-term basis. what country ever became great building its infrastructure six months at a time? and we'll be dealing with this in another two months. i suggest that we deal with this bill as best we do, because it's not adequate. i'm going to oppose it. but the bill is a symptom of the failure of my republican colleagues to face what other entities have done, including red republican states. why don't we come back next

week and put the ways and means committee to work for a week, inviting in the people who build, maintain and use our infrastructure listen to them, let the committee do its work come up with a proposal that will adequately fund our infrastructure, and then we can have the authorizing committee not screw around with a couple of months' extension, but get down to work to fashion a six-year comprehensive transportation bill that will put hundreds of thousands of people to work in communities all across the country, making them more livable, making our families safer healthier and more economically secure. we shouldn't be caught in this trap of our own making. let's step up, invest in the future and do our job. thank you and i yield back. i will respectfully withdraw my amendment. .

the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida, mr. posey, seek recognition? on which further proceedings were postponed i have amendment number 3 -- mr. posey: i have amendment number 31 at the desk. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following -- section 416. none of the funds made available by this act may be used by the department of transportation to make a loan in an amendment that exceeds $600 million under title 5 of the railroad revitalization and regulatory reform act of 1976. 45 united states code 821. the chair: pursuant to the rule to house resolution 287, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. posey: thank you, mr. chairman. the riff program provides loan guarantees to finance railroad

infrastructure. under the program, the federal railroad administration is authorized to provide direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35 billion to finance development of railroad infrastructure. since 2002, the federal railroad administration has made 35 loans which demonstrate the importance of this program to our nation's railroad. no doubt about that. however, only five of these loans have ever met or exceeded $100 million. two of those were to amtrak. in fact, prior to this year, the largest loan ever made was to amtrak in 2011 for $562 million. my amendment ensures funds are spent responsibly on viable railroad projkts and taxpayer risks are minimize.

i ask my colleagues to support my fiscally responsible amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: mr. chairman, to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you very much, mr. chairman. this amendment prohibits the department of transportation from making a railroad rehabilitation and improving financial loan that exceeds $600 million as the chairman says. i know it sounds like a lot of money because it is. but when we're dealing with financing of railroad projects, it's just really not. this low loan ceiling is way too restrictive and would eliminate valuable projects, including safety projects from even being considered for a loan and has really far-reaching effects, including -- and could frankly, every railroad entity in america. for example, there are railroades that are using this

rif loan for positive train control. for positive train control. so again it is unduly restrictive. i think it could have some far-reaching negative effects so i would respectfully ask for a no vote. i cannot support this amendment. i would like, mr. chairman, to yield my time to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: mr. chairman, i thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding and simply want to underscore his opposition to this amendment. it would block amtrak's loan request for $2.5 billion for new high speed train sets. this loan would make it possible to upgrade amtrak's best and most profitable service but one that's severely stressed. we need to remind ourselves the cars in which people died in philadelphia were 40 years old.

we desperately need the kind of investment that this loan would make possible and as the chairman has stressed, this may turn out to be the way that we can fund positive train control. it may be the only way given other limitations in the bill, other limbations in amtrak funding. it would prevent loans that exceed $600 million for other purposes including safety purposes. very, very ill-advised amendment. i urge colleagues to reject it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. mr. diaz-balart: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida, mr. posey. mr. posey: i thank you mr. chairman. you know, it's been said that this could be restrictive. well, i just want to point out that never ever before this year in the history of this program have they ever loaned $600 million under this

program. so i don't think it's unduly restrictive. i mentioned discussing some other amendments. i'm staring down the barrel of taxpayers being on the hook for $1.7 billion on one program that clearly is not going to be able to repay the loan so it's going to fall on the shoulders of the taxpayer. i think it's just common sense that we take this measure on behalf of our honest, hardworking taxpayers at home. they work hard, play by the rules. i think we should respect that. you know there's some people that just consider the federal government to be a bill pinata and everybody's going to take their whack at it and get all the goodies and candy and money that false fauls out of it. we're not going to be around here to pay it back. it will be paid back by our children and i think we need to act responsibly and think about their future. i urge my colleagues to please support this commonsense amendment for better accountability in our government. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from florida. those 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 florida seek recognition? mr. posey: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. the committee will rise in formalry. -- informally. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the

senate has agreed to s. res. 191, relative to the death of joseph biden iii. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. an amendment by mr. mcclintock of california. an amendment by mr. walberg of michigan. an amendment by ms. esty of connecticut. an amendment by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. an amendment by mr. garrett of new jersey. first amendment by mr. brooks of alabama. second amendment by mr. brooks of alabama. an amendment by mrs. capps of california. an amendment by ms. lee of california. an amendment by mr. stivers of ohio. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after this first vote series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclick to be, on which further

pro-- mcclintock, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] ed by th s.ouretatives.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 166. the nays are 255. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. walberg of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 189. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms.esty on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. esty of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote's been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. the committee will be in order. members are reminded that the two-minute voting limit will be

strictly enforced. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184 the nays are 236. the amendment's not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176, the nays are 247, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 160, the nays are 266, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 143, the nays are 283, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama, mr. blooks, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise

and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this amendment the yeas are 139. the nays are 286. the amendment is not adopted.

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 202. the nays are 222.

the amendment is not adopted. the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: i ask unanimous consent that proceedings on roll call 300 be vacated to the end, that the postpone proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut ms. esty, at the end of the current series of postponed proceedings. the chair: without objection. the vote will be voted last as a two-minute vote. now the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote

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

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 176. the flies are 247. -- the nays are 247. with one voting present. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. stivers of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 224. the nays are 198. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to the order of the

day, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded volt on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty, in which further proceedings were postpone and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. estesy of connecticut. -- by ms. esty of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184, the nays are 230, the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. diaz-balart: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, at this time i would move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion's adopted. accordingly, the committee

rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2577, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration. had r. 2577 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker i wish to announce to all members of the house that the permanent select committee on intelligence has ordered the bill h.r. 2596, the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2016, reported

favorably to the house today with an amendment, and will file its report on the bill in the house early next week. mr. nunes: the bill is going to be considered in the house later in the week. the classified schedules of authorizations and the classified annexes accompanying the bill are available for view by all members at the offices of the permanent select committee on intelligence in room h.b.c. 304 of the capital visitors center. the committee office will be open during regular business hours for the convenience of any member who wishes to review this material prior to its consideration by the house. i recommend that members wishing to review the classified annex contact the committee's director of security to arrange a time and date for that viewing. this will assure the availability of appropriately cleared committee staff to assist members who desire assistance during the review of these classified materials. i urge interested members to review these materials in order to better understand the committee's recommendations. the classified annexes to the committee's report contain the

committee's recommendations on the intelligence budget for fiscal year 2016 and related classified information that cannot be disclosed publicly. it is important that members keep in mind the requirements of clause 13 of house rule 23 which only permits access to classified information by those members of the house who have signed the oath provided for in the rules. in addition, the committee's rules require that members agree to writing a -- to a nondisclosure grumet, the agreement indicates that the member has been granted access to the classified annexes and that they are familiar with the rules of the house and the committee with respect to the classified nature of that information and the limitations on the disclosure of that information. 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 california seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. mr. mccarthy: and further ask unanimous consent that it be read in full. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 299, whereas joseph rob net bode biden iii born in delaware served our country as an attorney in the department of justice for seven years, including assisting the nation of kosovo in rebuilding their criminal justice system, whereas boo biden served his blovened state of delaware for eight years as attorney general, where's he joined the arm iny in 2003 at the age of 34, rose to the rank of major in the delaware army national guard's judge advocate general corps, deployed to iraq in 2008 and received the bronze star for his service. whereas beau biden leaves behind a beloved wife, haley, and two children, natalie and

hunter, and whereas beau biden was the eldest son of the current vice president of the united states and president of the united states senate, joseph robinet biden jr. now therefore be it resolved that the house of representatives has heard the announcement of the untimely death of joseph biden iii. resolved, that the clerk of the house of representatives communicate this resolution to the senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the vice president of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? >> mr. speaker, i reserve the right to object. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized on his resolution. reservation. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution that celebrates the life of beau biden. the son of our vice president, my state's former attorney general, and my good friend.

this past weekend beau biden left this world far too young at the age of 46. my home state of delaware and this country suffered a loss that is deeply painful and deeply personal. beau won our heartings when as a young boy he and his brother survived a car accident that killed his baby sister and his mother. his father, joe, was sworn into the united states senate at beau's hospital bedside. after the accident, joe held his children tight because he knew how fragile life was and the rest of delaware did the same with the entire biden family. we watched beau grow into a young lawyer and then lected him twice to be our attorney general, where he became a champion of protecting the most vulnerable among us. we were filled with pride as we watched him join the national

guard and deploy to iraq. we were inspired by his example as a loving husband to haley, a doting father to natalie and hunter and as always, a devoted son and brother. family for beau, like joe, was everything. beau was a truly giving person. he appreciated the good in others in a way that we all should. he leaves a legacy that calls on each of us to be more gentle in our judgments and more gracious with our thanks. . beau was one of the best of the good guys. back in my home state of delaware, people are hurting. it feels like every person you meet has been wounded by this loss and just wishes there were something we could do to support our friends, the bidens. but it is they who are comforting us. they have shown us the courage to believe that there is something more enduring than

grief. love endures. beau and his family through their love for each other have shown us that. and so as we say goodbye to this distinguished american, this genuinely good man, we say to him until we meet again, beau, may god hold you in the palm of his hand. i remove my objection and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's reservation is withdrawn. without objection, the resolution is agreed to. the motion is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday next, and that the order of the house of january 6 2015, regarding morning hour debate not apply on that day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise today in memory of maureen lance corporal joshua barron from spokane valley, washington. joshua crew chief died on may 18 of injuries sustained during a training exercise. he was one of 22 marines aboard the osprey that came down in hawaii near bellows air force base.

joshua was raised in spoke can valley and graduated from university high school in 2009. those who knew him called him a superhero, an all american kid, the best our nation has to offer. during his service here in the national defense medal, the global war on terrorism medal. the spokane area was joshua's home for his entire life, and it is with a heavy heart that the community that raised him and loved him now says our goodbyes. my prayers are with the barron family as they lay their son to rest this friday. when he left for the marines, he left his family a message that read, because you're worth it. this is a testament to the self-less spirit of this fine young man. thank you for everything joshua. you're worth it. rest in peace. with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor officer greg bener of the rio rancho police department who was killed in the line of duty on march 25. i offer my heartfelt condolences to the family and loved ones as they mourn the loss of a husband, a father, grandfather, and friend who was taken from them far too soon. officer bener dedicated his life to protecting his community and his country. from his career in the air force, the rio rancho police department officer bener put his health and safety on the line to make us safer and leaves behind a legacy of valor and service. the loss of any police officer is a painful reminder of the changers they face, but we are

shaken by officer bener's loss, we can take in comfort the memory's he's left behind for all those who knew him and the example he set. while a tragedy such as this is unexpected and shocking the response has brought out the best of the residents of rio rancho who have displayed an outpoorg of support and sympathy. my thoughts and prayers are with his family, fellow officers the entire rio rancho community and i hope he'll find peace in the most difficult time. officer bener, may god bless you. may you rest in peace. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i'm delighted to wish a happy and healthy 90th birthday to dr. juan ortiz. as one of the oldest full-time practicing m.d.s in the u.s.

dr. ortiz has provided exemplary care to his family, friends, and patients in our south florida community. dr. ortiz has always shown impeccable leadership in both his professional and charitable endeavors, and his reputation for excellence is widely known. when he is not treating his pasheents -- patients locally, you'll find him volunteering his medical services during catastrophes in remote locations throughout central america, the caribbean, and africa. not only is dr. ortiz a seasoned medical professional, but he's also a poet, writer, and avid traveler with destinations extending as far as antarctica. dr. ortiz, once again, i would like to express my appreciation for your contributions and your service to south florida. i wish you a happy and healthy 90th birthday. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? ms. plaskett: unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in support of h.r. 2615, and house resolution 291, both of which i introduced earlier this week. nearly a century ago the united states purchased the virgin islands from denmark for its geopolitical importance. the citizens of the virgin islandses of the united states commemorates this event from march 31, 1917 each year. mr. speaker, house resolution 291 asks the united states postal service to create a commemorative stamp in honor of the centennial. the purpose of h.r. 2615 will form a bipartisan congressional commission to research, plan develop, and carry out activities to the commission considers appropriate to commemorate the 100th anniversary. the commission will bring a national awareness to the events commemorating the

centennial engage lawmakers here in congress as well as the administration and a new national discussion around the relationship in place of the virgin islandses with the united states. the coming centennial anniversary of the inclusions of the virgin islandses in america affords us an opportunity to revisit this history in our ongoing relationship. it's also an opportunity to highlight the enormous contributions to the united states by virgin islanders and the richness of our virgin islands heritage. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from is recognized for one minute. ms. mcsally: mr. speaker, i rise to commemorate the life of eric height, a tucson police officer and former air force member who was killed in the line of duty seven years ago this week. as well as the great work of his wife following his tragic

death. eric was a model public servant and exemplary cop. to honor his memory and commitment to family his wife founded the eric height foundation in 2009 to support construction of a daycare facility for the children of police officers, firefighters, military personnel, and other emergency responders. the foundation also runs enrichment and outreach programs that offer a safe and positive environment for these children. today the facility cares for up to 45 children a day and a flexible setting that matches the around the clock hours that men and women of law enforcement are assigned. it has become a life line for many families who sacrifice to protect and to serve our community just like eric did. though nothing can make up for eric's tragic death, his wife has kept his spirit and the ideals he lived for alive through her amazing efforts. i commend this incredible woman for the difference she

continues to make in southern arizona. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lucas: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a momentous event in this nation's history and honor the men and women who work so diligently to make it happened. the apollo-soyuz test project which took place in 1975 was the first international human space flight. a joint operation between two rivaling superpowers the united states and soviet union. the apollo-soyuz test project was so successful many historians attributed the handshake in space to be the beginning of the end of the cold war. lieutenant general tom stafford was wlorn in weatherford, oklahoma in 1930.

after graduating from the naval academy, earning wings from the air force in 1953, and graduating from the air force experimental test pilot school, stafford went on to serve as a pilot on gem my 6, a commander of gemini 9 commander of apollo 10, and finally commander of the apollo-soyuz test project. i want to congrat hit him on his -- congratulate him on his accomplished service and distinguished career. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarksment the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the university of florida in gainesville, florida, the lady gators softball team. the lady gators won the women's college world series in oklahoma city last night in defeating michigan, 4-1.

this is the lady gators' second national championship in two years. it's a back-to-back national championship. and again congratulations to the lady gators' awesome softball team, their coach tim walden for his great coaching and leadership. i would like to end by saying it's great to be a florida gator. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarksment the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate mr. vick story on being named the 2015 swisher sweets sunbelt expo florida farmer of the year. this is a tremendous honor and one he truly deserves. as the head of his family's citrus business, mr. story has demonstrate add lifelong commitment to the citrus industry. he's not only a successful grower, but he's widely regarded as a leader in florida

agriculture a. he's played a key role in educating the media, the general public, and elected officials like me about the importance of citrus to the state of florida and this country. he's taught me a lot even i'm proud to count him both as an advisor and a friend. so on behalf of the 17th district of florida, florida's heartland, i would like to commend mr. story for his contributions to the industry and to his community. and i wish him the best of luck as he competes with other state winners in october for the title of southeastern farmer of the year. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? million fitzpatrick: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of a career of service both to our country and to those preparing to defend it. since 1988, glenn has served

our nation as an officer in the united states coast guard and since 2001, captain has served on the faculty of the united states coast guard academy. as a professor and chairmanship of the department of humanities. in reach role he has worked tirelessly to i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america nage and educate cadets, faculty, government officials, and the public on national security law. public policy and international conflict. he's a recognized expert in these areas. his expertise has not been limited to the academy. he's the author of multiple books and countless publications. a noted academic on the topic of national security and a fellow in homeland security and national security law for the center for national policy here in washington, d.c. there is no doubt his knowledge has been an asset to our nation as it struggles to understand the security intricacies of our current world. his commitment to the protection in defense of our

nation is commendable. as he prepares to retire there the from the coast guard, i join with countless other americans in thanking him for his service and wishing him the best of luck in the future. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise to recognize maxwell meyer, his performance at the scripps spelling bee. mr. paulsen: he was the survivor in the preliminary round when over 200 were eliminated. he spelled both of his names right in the nationally broadcast semifinal round on thursday and unfortunately came up just short of the finals after failing to score enough points on a written vocabulary point. the national spelling bee mr. speaker, showcases some of the brightest, most dedicated young students across the country and

maxwell makes his community and the state of minnesota proud. to reach this stage of the spelling bee takes countless hours of hard work learning the skills and knowledge to be an accurate speller and for some that means reading the dictionary. he had folks all over the state of minnesota cheering him on and we congratulate him on his success and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. doyle of pennsylvania for today and mr. stewart of utah for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair lays before the house a communication. the speaker pro tempore: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rules 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have been served with a grand jury subpoena for the

central district of illinois. after consultation of counsel i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely anthony dethomas, legislative corpte. -- correspondent. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker today along with my colleagues, walter jones of north carolina, and barbara lee of california, i introduced house concurrent resolution 55 in order to force this house and this congress to debate on whether u.s. troops should withdraw from iraq and syria. we introduced this resolution under the provisions of section 5-c of the war powers resolution. as all of my house colleagues

know last year the president authorized air strikes against the islamic state in iraq and syria on august 8. for over 10 months, the united states has been engaged in hostilities in iraq and syria without debating an authorization for this war. on february 11 this year, nearly four months ago, the president sent to congress the text for an authorization for use of military force, or an aumf, on combating the islamic state in iraq, syria and elsewhere. yet, congress has failed to act on that aumf or bring an alternative to the house floor even though we continue to authorize and appropriate the money required for sustained military operations in those countries. frankly speaking mr. speaker, this is unacceptable. this house appears to have no problem sending our uniformed men and women into harm's way. it appears to have no problem spending billions of dollars for the arms equipment and

airpower to carry out these wars but it just can't bring itself to step up to the plate and take responsibility for these wars. our service men and service women are brave and dedicated. congress however, is the poster child for cowardess. the leadership of this house whines and complains from the sidelines and all the while it shirks its constitutional duties to bring an aumf to the floor of this house, debate it and vote on it. our resolution, which will come before this house for consideration in 15 calendar days requires the president to withdraw u.s. troops from iraq and syria within 30 days or no later than the end of this year, december 31 2015. if this house approves this resolution, congress would still have six months in which to do the right thing and bring an aumf for the house and the

senate. either congress needs to live up to its responsibility and authorize this war or by its continuing neglect and indifference our troops should be withdrawn and come home. it is that simple. i am deeply -- i am deeply troubled by our policy in iraq and syria. i do not believe it is a clearly defined mission with a beginning, middle and an end but rather just more of the same. i am not convinced that by enlarging our military footprint that we will somehow end the violence in the region, defeat the islamic state and address the underlying causes of the unrest. it's a complicated situation that requires a complicated and more imaginative response. i'm also concerned by recent statements by the administration about how long we will be engaged in iraq, syria and elsewhere fighting the islamic state. just yesterday, on june 3, general john allen, the u.s. envoy for the u.s.-led

coalition fighting isil said this fight may take, and i quote, a generation or more, end quote. he was speaking in doha, qatar at the u.s.-islamic world forum. mr. speaker, if we are going to invest a generation or more of our blood and our treasure in this war, then shouldn't congress at least debate whether or not to authorize it? according to the national priorities project based in north hampton massachusetts, which is -- northhampton, massachusetts, which is in my congressional district, every single hour the taxpayers are playing $3.42 million for military actions against the islamic state. $3.42 million every hour, mr. speaker. this is on top of the hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent on the first war in iraq. and nearly every single penny of this war chest was borrowed

money, put on the national credit card, provided as so-called emergency funds that don't have to be accounted for or subject to budget caps like all other funds. why is it mr. speaker that we always seem to have plenty of money or the will to borrow all the money it takes to carry out wars? but somehow we never have any money to invest in our schools our highways and water systems or our children, families and communities. every day, every single day this congress is forced to make tough, serious painful decisions to deprive our domestic economy and priorities of the resources they need to succeed. but somehow there's always money for more wars. well, if we're going to continue to spend billions on war and if we're going to continue to tell our armed

forces that we expect them to fight and die in these wars, then it seems to me the least we can do is stand up and vote to authorize these wars or we should end them. we owe that to the american people, we owe that to our troops and their families and we owe that to the oath of office that each of us took to uphold the constitution of the united states. i want to be clear, mr. speaker. i can no longer criticize the president, the pentagon or the state department when it comes to taking responsibility for this war against the islamic state in iraq and syria. i may not agree with the policy but they have done their duty and every step of the way, beginning june 16, 2014, the president has informed congress of his actions to send u.s. troops to iraq and syria and to carry out military operations against the islamic state. and on february 11 of this year, he sent to congress the draft text of an aumf.

now, mr. speaker while i disagree with the policy of the administration -- while i disagree with the policy, the administration has done its job. it has kept the congress informed and as military operations continue to escalate, they sent a request to an aumf to congress for action. it is this congress, this house that has failed and failed miserabley to carry out its duties. always complaining from the sidelines, the leadership of this house failed to act last year to authorize this war even as itess contemplated and expand -- as it escalated and expanded nearly every month. the speaker said it wasn't the responsibility of the 113th congress to act even though the war started during its tenure. no no. somehow it was the responsibility of the next congress the 114th congress. well the 114th congress

convened on january 6, and it still hasn't done a single solitary thing to authorize the war against the islamic state in iraq and syria. the speaker asserted that congress couldn't act on the war until the president sent an aumf to congress. well, mr. speaker, the president did just that on february 11, and still the leadership of this house has done nothing to authorize the use of military force in iraq and syria. and now the speaker is saying he wants the president to send congress another version of the aumf because he doesn't like the first one. are you kidding me? well i'm sorry mr. speaker. it doesn't work that way. if the leadership of this house doesn't like the original text of the president's aumf, then it is the job of congress to draft an alternative, report that revised aumf out of the house foreign affairs committee, bring it to the floor of the house and let the members of this house debate and vote on it. that's how it works.

if you think that president's aumf is too weak then you make it stronger. if you think that it's too expansive, then set limits on it. if you're opposed to these wars, then vote to bring our troops home. that's what we are here to do, and that's why members of congress -- and that's what we are charged to do under the constitution and that's why members of congress get a paycheck from the american people every week, to make the hard decisions, not run away from them. all i ask, mr. speaker, is that the congress do its job. that's the duty of this house and of the majority in charge of this house, to simply do its job, to govern, mr. speaker. but instead we -- all we witness is dithering and twiddling and complaining and whining and blaming others and the complete and total shirking of responsibility over and over

and over and over again. enough. enough. so with great reluctance and frustration, representative jones and representative lee and i introduced house concurrent resolution 55 because if this house doesn't have the stomach to carry out its constitutional duty to debate and authorize this latest war then we should bring our troops home. if the cowardly congress can go home each night to their families and loved ones then our brave troops should receive that same privilege. doing nothing is easy and i'm sad to say that war has become easy too easy but the costs in terms of blood and treasure are very, very high. so i urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and demand that the leadership of this house bring to the floor

of this house an aumf for the war against the islamic state in iraq and syria before congress adjourns on june 26 for the fourth of july recess. congress needs to debate an aumf, mr. speaker. it needs to do its job. and at this point, mr. speaker i'd like to yield as much time as he may need to my colleague from north carolina, congressman walter jones. mr. jones: i want to thank my friend, mr. mcgovern, for always being out front on this issue and i'm delighted to join him. as he said in many of his comments, the house has a responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the american people. i have the privilege to represent camp lejeune marine base, cherry point marine station. i have over 70,000 retired veterans in the third district of north carolina. they're frustrated too. they believe sincerely that we

must meet our constitutional responsibility and have this debate, and as you have said, mr. mcgovern, be for it or against it but have the debate. that is what is absolutely frustrating. i joined you and barbara lee in a letter to mr. boehner in september and august 27 we wrote a letter to the speaker of the house asking him to please allow a debate on a re-authorization of our involvement in the middle east. then on september 25, i wrote by myself to the speaker of the house and asked again for the debate. as you have stated, he did say publicly that because of the forthcoming election in 2014 that he thought it would be proper to have the debate in 2015 which you already stated. and in 2015 the speaker of the house said that he was waiting for the president to submit the

aumf. as you have stated the president did submit an aumf which many of us in both parties for different reasons were dissatisfied but it was the vehicle to go to the committee, to have the debate and then to bring it to the floor for a debate of the full house. . i quote frequently down in my district what james madison said. pouter to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. he didn't say the executive branch he said the legislature. that is, we in the house and we in the senate. it didn't say the president. he said the legislature. but if we don't bring it forward ourselves and if the speaker wants the president to submit the aumf, which he's already done but now as you stated he's asking for another aumf. i don't understand. our nation has spent $1.7

trillion in iraq and afghanistan combined. this is the first war in iraq. not the continuation that we are into now. we are spending billions and billions of dollars every day. as you say, we have cut programs left and right. even our veterans are concerned about their benefits being cut. and many of them did serve in afghanistan and iraq. i take it upon myself to go to walter reed. i will go to my grave regretting that i voted to send our kids to iraq, which was an unnecessary war initially. very unnecessary. but we went and our kids, 4,000 died, 30,000 were wounded 100,000 iraqis killed. that's history now. i know we can't change history, but hopefully we can learn from history. the people are frustrated. i talk about this down in my district, mr. mcgovern. that's why i support this h.con. resolution 55. i don't know how many billions

of dollars we are spending in afghanistan. i know that's a different subject. i want to make my point. the billions of dollars that we are expending in afghanistan is just so ironic that the inspector general of afghan reconstruction, talks about the waste, fraud, and abuse. it's ongoing. and we have had marines from my district who were sent to afghanistan to train the afghans to be policemen and soldiers, and the people they were training turned the guns on them and killed them. we are sending our young men and women into these middle east countries and our countries and we don't have an end to the plan. i'm not a military person, but i have heard from military leaders. if you have a strategy, that means you have an end point to your strategy. but we don't have an end point to our strategy. that's why it is so important that we bring up and what you're trying to do is to force

a debate on an aumf to get this congress to re-engage itself. and i'm like you sir, i get tired of funding all these programs. in fact, on fox today they were talking about the weapons that we have given to the iraqis and the army is disbanning half the time. the weapons that we have given them from machine guns to humvees that now are in the hands of isil, we now are bombing the equipment that we sent to the iraqi army. it does not make any sense. just a couple more points and i'll yield back to you your time. i want to thank you and the barbara lee -- that's why i joined you because i see the frustration of the marines down at camp lejeune. they have been deployed three, four, five six, seven times.

and they know that they might be called upon again and they will go, just like all of our services and those who serve in our services, they will go back and go back and go back. as you have said many times and as james madison said, it is our responsibility not the president's responsibility to initiate these aumfs and i hope that the president will follow what the speaker is asking for a second aumf and if he sends a second aumf, then there is no excuse that we, the republican party, which i am a republican our leadership does not bring it to the floor. and so mr. mcgovern, i thank you again. i'm pleased to join you in this effort. i will say that we need to meet our constitutional responsibility. i go to walter reed. i see the broken bodies. i see the amputated legs. i signed over 11,000 letters to

who have lost loved ones in afghanistan and iraq. i want to fulfill my duty as a member of congress and follow the constitution and have the debates on spending blood and money in these foreign countries. so i will yield back to you your time, and thank you for allowing me to be a small part of this. thank you. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank my colleague from north carolina for his eloquent statement and for his passion on this issue and for his courage on this issue. because i know that it is not easy to stand up and to raise some of these questions, but he has done so consistently and i think the country owes him a debt of gratitude. i want to thank you for that. i think as mr. jones pointed out, there is a constitutional principle at stake here. we have a responsibility when it comes to matters of war. it's a little bit puzzling to

me that we have a lot of complaining in this chamber by some that the president is not consulting enough with congress, or he's doing too many things with executive actions, and yet when it comes to the issue of war, we don't want to have anything to do with it. it is just too easy to do nothing. and i know that these issues are uncomfortable. they are complicated. they are difficult. but our job is not to run away from an issue if it's uncomfortable. we have to deliberate on a lot of issues that are important to the american people and to the national security of this country. and i don't think it takes any courage for a member of congress to be quiet on this issue. and cheer the white house on if the military operation is going well or criticize them if it's not. but never having to take a

vote. that's not leadership. that's cowardest. that's shirking our responsibility. i don't care whether you are a democrat or republican, we are all for the sake of protecting the integrity of this institution should assist we assume our proper role when it comes to issues of schwarzenegger -- issues of war. war is a big deal. at least it should be a big deal. as i said earlier, what bothers me is that in this chamber and in this city, it's become easy. we don't talk about it. we had a debate on the defense authorization bill last week and a number of us tried to bring amendments to the floor to kind of force this issue, and we were told this is not the place to talk about the war. the defense authorization bill. which authorizes a lot of the funding for this war. if that's not the place to talk about it then where is the place to talk about it?

every attempt that we have had that we have launched to try to force a debate on the floor, we have been frustrated. we have been told you can't do it. here we are in june. and we have been at war now for many many months. the time has come for us to stand up and to be heard on this issue. and, look, i have great reservations about the white house policy. in iraq and syria. i don't support much of what the president is trying to -- is doing right now. i know his heart is in the right place, but i don't think that the ultimate answer here is expanding our military footprint. i have reservations. but even if you believe that you ought to give the president all the power in the universe to do whatever he wants around

the world, you still ought to support what congressman jones and congresswoman lee and i are trying to do. that is to make sure that congress has a role in this. that we authorize whatever action is going to take place from this point forward. and again, you can vote to expand the president's authority. you can vote to limit the president's authority. or you can vote to say we don't believe the president should have any authority to launch any more wars in the middle east. but that's what -- that's what the debate should be about. we should be talking about the specifics of our policy. is there clearly a defined mission here? i don't see. clearly defined mission has a beginning, middle, and end. but we ought to have that debate. how does this all end? we were told initially oh, it won't be that long. then it was a few years. now it's going to be a generation or two.

the length of time that we are going to be expected to be engaged here gets longer and longer and longer and longer with each passing month. isn't that worth a discussion? isn't that worth a debate? we debate a lot of things on this house floor that i would say are pretty trivial. we debate a lot of legislation that we know is going nowhere. why can't we take the time to debate this issue of war? why can't we take the time to do what's right by our service men and women who are being put into harm's way to make sure that we are getting it right with regard to iraq and syria and the war against the islamic state? again, i know it's uncomfortable. but so what? we need to do our job. and i'll just close again by

reiterating something that congressman jones said and that is, we have a lot of needs here in the united states. we can't get a long-term highway bill passed. we have tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the united states of america, the richest country on the planet, who are hungry. we have some schools that are in disrepair that quite frankly our kids deserve a heck of a lot better. we have infrastructure needs. we have -- i go right down the list of the things that we need to do. we have people who are unemployed. we have people who are homeless. we need more housing for people. there are so many things that we have to do. we are told we can't do any of it because we don't have the money. but when it comes to wars that never end, or wars that last generations or more we are a

a.t.m. machine. when the money's not there, we'll give you an i.o.u. we'll put it on our credit card. people talk about the deficit and the debt. and yet we are adding all these billions and trillions of dollars because of these wars that are not paid for. no one says anything about that around here. that's one of the biggest contributors to our debt. we ought to realize that. so when we talk about national security, i would just say to my colleagues national security also includes the quality of life for people here in this country. whether people have a job. whether people have access to good education. whether people have health care. whether people have food. whether they have shelter. all those things are important parts of our national security and our national defense. we are negligenting -- neglecting them on a regular basis. but we are spending every cent we have on these wars overseas.

this deserves a debate. and again we would prefer that an aumf come before the full house under regular order with the house foreign affairs committee would report out a bill and we would just debate it, but we have been patient long enough. nothing has been forthcoming. here we are in june. and still no promise that anything may be coming. more excuses. so that is why we introduced this privileged resolution. we are going to force a debate. and we are going to force a vote. and we'll do it again and again and again and again until this congress lives up to its constitutional responsibilities. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. louie gohmert, for 30 minutes. the floor is yours, sir. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker.

so much going on these days. i would just like to take up a very important issue that's going on right now. . there was an interview by our president that was discussed in "the l.a. times" an article by christy parsons and michael mcmully and i saw a part of the interview on television. headline of the story is "obama raises possibility of allowing u.n. vote on palestinian statehood." their subheadline says, "obama makes veiled threat about palestinian statehood in an interview." obama takes a tougher line with israel.

in an interview released tuesday, raising the possibility that the u.s. will allow a u.n. vote on issues related to the palestinians if the two sides make no meaningful moment toward peace. in an interview with an israeli television station obama noted that his administration has, quote, up until this point unquote, quashed such efforts at the u.n. while insisting that veil the israelis and palestinianians must negotiate a resolution. but it's a challenge that the u.s. keep demanding that the palestinians negotiate in good faith if nobody believes the israelis are doing the same. further down it says obama's critical tone toward netanyahu describing him as someone who is quote predisposed unquote to quote, think that peace is not even, unquote appeared to

return to the tough language that marked administration statements earlier this spring around the time of the israeli election. more recently the white house had seem to be trying to mend fences. well obviously that's not the case now. so i thought it might be important, mr. speaker, to take a look at some of the comments that have been made by folks who say they're leaders, and we know them to be leaders of the palestinians because mr. obama is getting some terrible advice. i don't know who is advising him. maybe he's still skipping those briefings and who knows where it's coming from but somebody needs -- somebody -- i hope,

mr. speaker, somebody close to the president will start advising him on the position of the palestinians. they cannot make their position more clearer, and when prime minister netanyahu stood right here second level and made the statement in essence that if israel lays down its arms there's no israel. if the palestinians lay down their arms, there will be peace. they will not do so. and they continue to teach their children about how evil and horrible these jews are these israelis are, that they need to be wiped off the map. they continue to name streets and holidays for those who would kill innocent israeli children, innocent israeli moms and dads as they sit having

coffee. oh, they think that's wonderful. let's make them heroes because they killed innocent israelis and yet this president continues to want to help the palestinians have a big spot in israel, a massive spot which israel has already seen makes their nation indefensible while the president seems not to be getting the message of their position. they want to wipe israel off the map. some quotes. this is yasser arafat the previous p.l.o. leader. he said, we plan to eliminate the state of israel and establish a purely palestinian state. we will make life unbearable for jews by psychological warfare and population

explosion. we palestinians will take over everything including all of jerusalem. now, the current palestinian president has made clear in his statement. we cannot compliment on jerusalem. they're taking all of jerusalem. and there is a quote they would never recognize a jewish state. the quote is, first of all, let me make something clear about the story of the jewish state. he told dream to tv on october 23 2011. he's quoted, they started talking to me about the jewish state only two years ago. discussing it with me at every opportunity, every forum i went to, jewish or non-jewish asking, what do you think about the jewish state and i've said

it before and i'll say it again, i will never recognize the jewishness of the state or a jewish state. another quote, hamas kidnapped or rather captured a soldier and managed to keep him for five years and that's a good thing. another quote from president, in a final resolution we would not see the presence of a single israeli, civilian or soldier, on our lands. and of course their lands, they anticipate getting all of israel. they intend to wipe the israelis off the map. whoever wants jihad the direction is well-known and clear. this is mahmoud abbas.

he said those who send young people to syria or elsewhere to die for a misdirected cause must stop and understand that jerusalem is still waiting. jerusalem is the direction. jerusalem is the address. another quote -- actually hamas, a group designated by the state department and european union as a foreign terrorist organization. they, of course are well respected in the area the palestinians are occupying and the palestinian diplomat chief negotiator said hamas is a palestinian movement, is not, will not ever be a terrorist organization. well, we know the facts dictate otherwise. but we keep coming back to this point, mr. speaker. as long as the leaders of the palestinians continue to say

that terrorist organizations are peaceable, in their view, even though they want to kill israelis, wipe them off the map, and as long as they continue to say they will never recognize an israeli state, a jewish state, they will never allow them to exist they'll continue to push to wipe them off the map, how in the world can the president of the united states act like he is a friend to israel and yet say we want to accommodate their getting a vote that will make israeli indefensible the people that want to destroy them? here's some more quotes. following excerpts in an interview of hamas m.p., which aired on may 11, 2011, he said the jews are brought in droves to palestine so that the

palestinians and the islamic nation behind them will have the honor of annihilating the evil of this gang. all the predators, all the birds of prey, all the dangerous reptiles and insects and all the lethal bacteria are far less dangerous than the jews. here's another. in just a few years, all the zionists, the settlers, they'll all realize that their arrival in palestine was for the purpose of the great massacre by means of which allah wants to relieve humanity of their evil. here's another. from this hamas member and cleric. when palestine is liberated and its people returned to it and the entire region with the grace of allah will have turned into the united states of islam, the land of palestine will become the capital of the islamic caliphate and all these

countries will turn into states within the caliphate. another great quote from these wonderful leaders. another leader said i swear if we had a nuke we'd have used it this very morning. so those are the people that president of the united states thinks are being extremely reasonable and he considers that netanyahu in wanting to keep a country in which they can live without being wiped off the map is being unreasonable. netanyahu's made very clear they want peace but how can they sit down with people who will not even acknowledge they have a right to exist? that's not a precondition. that is a condition for wiping them off the map as a threat to

mankind if they're not willing to recognize that genocide is inappropriate. they are war criminals wannabes and when people make clear that they're going to commit murder or genocide, how long do you have to wait before it's ok to stop them? well the president's made clear, it may be time to move out of the way so that these palestinians that want to obliterate israel can have their will. i mean, one thought came back to mind back in my days as a felony judge you know, when you have somebody who's driving a car and people say, hey, we just need a ride to this location once we get there we're going to murder some people but we don't need anything from you. we just need a ride.

the person that drove that car, knowing that those people made those comments about wanting to kill people when they get to that location they're also guilty of murder. so i'm not accusing anybody. i'm raising questions. so if the united states says, here, palestinian terrorist groups, we want to provide you the vehicle to be -- have a powerful place right in the middle, a huge section of israel, we want to give you that place and you've made clear. you know once you're there you're going to wipe out israel . does that make the united states' leaders that facilitate, does that make them accessories? just asking. mr. speaker, you can advise the parliamentarian, i'm not accusing. i'm just asking the question.

the p.m. ppt -- the president needs to be aadvised by somebody that people are threatening murder, genocide and those are not the people whose side we should be on trying to accommodate to reach that goal. it's a difficult time. and it's a scary time. many of us believe what scripture says to whom which is given much is required. i mentioned a number of times the elderly west african gentleman who advised me when i was over there with mercy chip that, you know we were so excited when you elected your first black president but we've continued since then to see america get weaker. and you've got to go back to washington and tell your friends there that when america gets weaker we suffer. and then we see the stories

that to whom much is given. this united states of america that our leaders in this administration according to articles catholic bishop in nigeria, that this administration is saying we're not going to help you stop boko haram, these radical islamists. we're going to let them keep killing innocent christians, kidnapping and sexually raping abusing christian girls. but if you will change your laws and accommodate same-sex marriage and pay for abortion, then we'll be willing to come help. advised by some other members of congress that got back from a trip to east africa where they were told by leaders in east african nations the same thing. that they're being told by this -- people in this administration oh, we'll help you with radical islam, only if you change your laws to violate

your strongly held christian beliefs that same-sex marriage is wrong and also start providing abortions, also violating your strongly held religious beliefs, only if you'll violate your christian beliefs will we be willing to come help you. . if there's a god as the bible talks about, there will be a price to this nation for acting in such a way. my dear friend, i think the world of him, man named sean hanity. i don't usually get to see his- -- his program live, and again last night in the wee hours, i was watching a replay of sean's program, and he was talking about once again, a terrorist with ties to hamas in the boston area, and of course i know i had done some research

on this. found research that had been done by others, and found an article by ryan morrow, back from december, 2013, but i know when i was questioning the director of the f.b.i., director mueller, before our judiciary committee, and i was incredulous that the russians, of all people, could advise the united states twice that the older zarnafter had -- zarnyeve had been radicalized long before he ever killed people and maimed people during the boston marathon. when we took no action the first time, then they advised the f.b.i. that the older czar nigh yeve had been radicalized. the best i could find out the f.b.i. interviewed him and he said he wasn't a terrorist, imagine that.

they talked to his mother and she said her son was not a terrorist. and i challenged him and said in effect, you didn't even go to the boston mosque where tsarnaev attended to find out to investigate if he had been radicalized. and he challenged me he said that wasn't true. i said what part wasn't true? he said, we did go to the mosque. i didn't hear the little tag on line he put after that until i heard a replay, my staff had to say, you apparently didn't hear what he said after he said we did go to the mosque. so i had to listen to the replay. what he said -- we did go to the mosque. in our outreach program. in the outreach program? we talked about that before. it took years before the f.b.i.

final -- finally suspended their partnership with care after years before the f.b.i. had found evidence that was utilized in the holy land foundation trial, the largest terrorist prosecution case in american history, and care was named as an unindicted but co-conspirator, and they tried to have their name removed from the pleadings, but the federal judge at the district level and the united states court of appeals both said there's plenty of evidence to support there being a co-conspirator supporting terrorism so no. we are not going to strike their name from the pleadings. there were other names that were there as well. i was surprised it took years for the f.b.i. to decide to

suspend their outreach program, their partnership with care. and yet according to the director, director mueller, they continued that outreach program to that mosque. but i did challenge him with one final question and held up these documents here, the articles of incorporation, articles of organization. this is for a group, this is the commonwealth of massachusetts, they got these articles of organization, and it is organizing a group called the islamic society of boston which established the mosque in boston that tsarnaev attended that that the latest terrorist attended but my friend sean hannity was asking a question about this mosque because he was shocked like i was previously. why has there not been more investigation?

and this article pretty well tells the tar heel from 2013 -- tells the tale from 2013, clarion project, islamic society, boston. it says, the islamic society of boston's teachings are largely based on islamists like muslim brotherhood spiritual leader and others. the brotherhood cleric who influenced osama bin laden as reported in 2008 that the muslim brotherhood and the pakistani islamist group are the prominent belief systems, the popular websites used by the members and recommended by mosque leaders are mostly fundamentalists and home phobic. yeah, we already knew that. osama bin laden had said that the writings particularly the

booklet "milestones" helped radicalize him. if our f.b.i. training materials had not been purged as have our intelligence training materials and other training materials, if they had not been purged of material that care found offensive, care being the entity that the circuit court of appeals and u.s. district court said there is limited evidence to support their being co-conspirators in terrorism, they found some language offensive and so there were -- they classified it, i thought it was ridiculous, i won't say the approximate amount, they found many pages to be offensive to them, this co-conspirator in terrorism according to the pleadings in the foundation trial, so they

were removed. so as one intelligence officer told me, we blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy. so probably they don't even know and our f.b.i. that they should go into the mosque and talk to people there. they should have asked look, you know tsarnaev, was he reading qutb? an egyptian -- they call him an egyptian martyr, he was a terrorist. promoted terrorism. he wrote this booklet that has helped radicalize people. if you know what radicals believe, then you're able to ask the questions to get to the bottom. so you're not just going to the mosque to sit down and pat each other on the back and have some food together. you're actually investigating whether somebody is going to kill people at the boston

marathon in the future so you can save their lives. but they didn't know enough to do that because they are not properly trained anymore because care gets offended when we try to properly train them. but this article goes on and says, the writings and teachings were fanatical, and this is from chic mansur in 2013, he's talking about there at the islamic society of boston's teaching in the mosque, he says, the writings and teachings were fanatical. i left and refused to go back to pray. i left egypt to escape the muslim brotherhood, but i had found it there. the muslim brotherhood advises this administration and for the incompetent people that say gohmert never gives names, he just says they advise the president. they don't know how many times i have given names. muhammad from plano was on the

top advisory group for the homeland security. the president of the all dulles area muslim society, adams i'm sure john adams would appreciate that, but he was president of that, he was part of a group that was co-conspirator in the -- named as a co-conspirator in the terrorist prosecution trial of the holy land foundation. he advised the president regular. he gave him advice according to the media. he gave advice to the president about his speech back in 2011 where the president inaccurately said everybody agrees to going back to the 367 -- pre-67 boundaries. no, they don't. if you are part of what was named as a could he conspirator in terrorism maybe you think that, but certainly the parties didn't agree to that.

this article goes on in 2004, the islamic society of boston website had a section titled, 40 recommendations for the muslim home. it said to, quote, hang up the whip where the members of the household can see it, unquote. and that children are to be hit if they refuse to pray once they are 10 years old. it also said regarding wife beating, quote, hitting is not the way to discipline it is not to be resorted to except when all other means are exhausted or when it is needed to force someone to do obligatory acts of obedience unquote. which apparently include of a sexual nature. the article says, one of the founders of the islamic of boston is alamodi who was its first president. i insert here, i asked director mueller, were you aware that

allah mudi was the one who started this mosque that tsarnaev attended? he said no he was not. but he shured knew who he was. -- sure knew who he was because the f.b.i. gathered the evidence whether they wanted to or not that put him in prison. i think the british gathered the evidence that was so overwhelming that there wasn't much choice. he had to be prosecuted. yes, he had helped the clinton administration. been some help to the bush administration. according to him. he gets arrested at dulles airport and is doing, i believe, 23 years in prison for supporting terrorism. but the article points out he was convicted of -- on terrorism related charges in 2004 and has admitted to being a secret muslim brotherhood operative. he wrote from his prison cell, quote, i am, i hope, still a member of the muslim brotherhood organization in the u.s.a. unquote.

he was last paid a speaking fee by the slam imnic site in boston in 2000. the same year he publicly expressed his support for hamas and hezbollah. the muslim brotherhood spiritual leader has been on the i.s.b. board of trustees. tax filings from 1998 to 2000 include his name under a list of officers, directors, trustees, and key employees. 2002, he helped i.s.b., islamic saudi boston fundraise via videotape because the u.s. would not grant him entry. his name also appeared on islamic society boston's website until march of 2001. islamic society of boston originally denied having any connection to him and later claimed that the inclusion of his name on the tax forms was in error. the i.s.b. hosted islamic speakers in march of 2010 an

imam said a young woman arrested for al qaeda ties was innocent and quote, you must grab on to this rope, grab on to the typewriter, grab on to the shovel grab on to the gun and the sword, don't be afraid to step out into this world and do your job. unquote. i.s.b. donated thousands of dollars to the holy land foundation a u.s. muslim brotherhood entity. later shut down for financing hamas. it also donated to the ben nevillens international foundation, later identified as al qaeda front. imam sheik was served -- has served islamic saudi boston for at least 10 years. also a board member of the boston chapter of muslim

american society. in 1994, hamas frrter -- fundraiserer addressed the muslim arab youth association. he spoke after an individual was introduced as a leader of the mosque military wing. an f.b.i. report documented the speaker saying, quote, i have been told to restrict or restrain what i say. i hope no one is recording me or taking any pictures as none are allowed because i'm going to speak the truth to you it's simple. finish off the israelis, kill them all exterminate them, no peace ever. these are the muslim brothers that the president gets advice from. this organization, it's time to stop it's time to listen to our friends in israel and do not at all costs facilitate the destruction or the attempted

destruction of israel by our enemies and their enemies. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman from texas would you like to make the moths to adjourn? mr. gohmert: at this time i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the motion is adopted -- aye vs. it. the motion is adopted. the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, june 8, 2015.

reporter: do you feel like the portrait in the speaker's lobby needs to come down? >> i have no inkling whatsoever and i was shocked and dismayed by the reports that i read. but again, i think it's important for us to have the

facts before we make decisions. reporter: speaker pelosi was up here earlier saying you want a couple pay-fors for t.a.a. and other things you left pass. much larger and bringing it up. the speaker: she and i and our teams are working to resolve that issue. just so you know. reporter: the complaint that you guys basically demand pay-fors for piggy back stuff. the speaker: many of us believe lower tax rates mean higher revenue to the government because you stimulate more economic activity.

spending on the other hand is spending that needs to be offset. and so it's -- there's no contradiction here. reporter: in reference to the u.s.a. freedom act is it a win for n.s.a. whistleblowers and senators cornyn and mcconnell have suggested? the speaker: i wouldn't -- they can characterize it any way they want, but i believe we have a good bill that will help keep americans safe and address the concerns that have been brought to light over the last couple of years. and glad the senate passed the bill and i'm glad the n.s.a. is back in business. reporter: are you getting enough

done or is that -- [indiscernible] the speaker: senator mcconnell and i have a very good relationship and we meet virtually every week that we're in session. but, you know, he has his caucus and i have my caucus. and while we may be republicans as you all know, not every republican thinks exactly alike. we have to work through a lot of issues. but it's good that we have a good relationship. makes it easier to work through some of these issues. but we are going to have disagreements over issues, but no big problem. reporter: a republican senator

said earlier today concern about there was a lapse in the time that they were tracking the terror threat to boston and said the law that was just passed and signed already weakened the program to do surveillance. the speaker: i don't believe we have weakened our ability to track terrorists abroad or here in america. and while i'm disappointed there was a lapse, i'm sure it's been corrected by now. it's always the last one. reporter: the unusually high proportion of senators who are running for president complicate legislative life around here. u.s.a. freedom act trade, senator sanders running for

president. seems like candidates are making things tougher. the speaker: i'm not aware of any house member that's running for president. [laughter] the speaker: i don't have the problem. you can ask senator mcconnell, thanks. >> speaker john boehner there. next, we'll look at minority leader nancy pelosi holding her own briefing earlier today. this is just under 20 minutes. ms. pelosi: good morning everyone. today is the 25th anniversary of the tiananmenen square massacre and they were advocating for

their rights and dignity and respect that they deserve. such a very, very sad day and the miracle of communication, we were sadly see what was happening. students and workers from all backgrounds who marched on the square and still live in our promotion of rights and freedom throughout the world. here in congress, we have the continuing saga of triple-down economics versus middle-class economics. republicans continue to bring bad bills to the floor, based on a bad budget, bills in a budget based on trickle down for the special interests paid for by hallowing out hallowing out the future of hard-working american families. commerce justice, state finished yes slashes state and

local enforcement assistance by $325 million, below the 2015 level. $325 million below the 2015 level. by eliminating funding for hiring programs for cops, the community-oriented policing services. this hiring program would have helped hire 1,300 more new law enforcement professionals. it underfunds the violence against women prevention and prosecution by nearly $20 million beneath the president's request and slashes vital juvenile programs by almost 30%. the 30% below the 2015 level. again trickle down, tax cuts for the rich and now how do we offset that by making cuts ap

initiatives that help people. today, we are continuing consideration of the transportation and housing and urban development bill. for years, democrats and republicans have worked together to invest in safe modern, job-creating infrastructure and that's what america needs to succeed in the 21st century. we have always worked together. has not been partisan until recent years. this week, republicans are advancing the transportation-hud bill that otherwise known as thud and that's what it hits the floor with, cuts funding for amtrak $250 million below f.y. 2015 and $1.3 billion and slashes the tiger grants which funds highways, transit, passenger rail and important investments by 80% below the

2015 level. these are all investments in the infrastructure of america. let us work together on a long-term plan to avert the expiration of the highway trust fund, which has shifted into the summer season, endangering thousands of vital instruction programs throughout the country threatening nearly 700,000 good-paying construction jobs and republicans -- how long have we been talking about this highway bill? since 2011 when the republicans came into the majority. they had not held a single ways and means committee hearing on financing a highway bill. and now we are weeks away -- well, we kick the can down the road to july 31 and we still

haven't had -- with all the good intentions and hopefully we can work together for a highway bill, but it has to be a funding mechanism and the republicans haven't held a single hearing in that regard. infrastructure and investing in infrastructure and highway legislation is really important for commerce. it's important for safety. it's important for quality of life getting people out of their cars by having mass transit and having roads bridges and highways that facilitate mobility and it's about clean air. it's about competitiveness for our country. and immediately creates jobs and continues to create jobs well into the future. it's really unfortunate, but i'm hopeful, i'm hopeful that the speaker and i can work together recognizing the urgency is

there, understanding the tradition of bipartisanship. and this bipartisanship extends beyond congress, governors, mayors coirnt superviseors are asking for us to get this done and we can do it and we have to do it soon. another deadline that is fast approaching is the exim bank charter which expires june 30, 12 legislative days from now. this exim bank has sustained more than 160,000 export-related american jobs. it created or sustained 1.5 million private sector jobs since 2007 and does this at no cost to the taxpayer. this pays for itself, if not makes money. so i hope we can work in a bipartisan way again. i know there are members of the republican party who share our view or we share theirs.

we join together in that and the frustration of why can't we move this bill. so support for renewing it is bipartisan. we just want a vote. we hope that that will be soon. these are two opportunities, highway infrastructure, et cetera, and exim that are job creating where we can work together to create jobs and strengthen the economy. working families are tired of the endless manufactured crises that the republicans come up with threatening national security and weakening our economy and costing our country jobs. long time passed for congress to act in a responsible way on these initiatives. this afternoon, we'll go to the white house and wearing orange because we have the world champion -- world champions san francisco giants being honored by the united states -- the

president of the united states. some will be boarding planes to go to see the warriors compete for the trophy. any questions? reporter: the house is quickly approaching votes on trade and the president does not want changes to the senate bill. can you support that t.p.a. bill as it came from the senate. ms. pelosi: the house is fast approaching -- do you know when this is going to happen? i suppose when they have the votes and we'll see when that is. we have really had a very, i believe, internally respectful process going forward where we have invited the administration on a regular basis to address different categories in the bill in some cases different countries in the partnership

the p.t.t. the vote -- there will be two votes, one eventually when the bill is negotiated and people see what the final product is, and that's months away. but a vote that is closer in time that i don't know how near is the p.t.a. and we have -- we are in the process of finishing our drilling down on certain issues and countries to see how we can do better. there are other issues too, that trade adjustment act that we need to pass in a better way than passed the senate. so there's some -- they sent over two bills joined would you say at the hip or shoulder or joined, and we are saying that we have many objections to the

t.p.a., but the t.a. bill is a nonstarter in terms of how it is paid for. reporter: former germ said we are losing the war in iraq, talk about old issues that have been going on forever. how do you see it? ms. pelosi: general petraeus had the responsibility of training troops in iraq. and i remember hearing from him he trained 175,000 iraqi troops and personnel so that they can take over their own efforts. so i would ask him about that. i think that the number is far smaller than he has represented to us. reporter: how many votes have you told speaker boehner he is going to have to deliver from his side of the aisle to get t.p.a. across the finish line?

ms. pelosi: 200. reporter: 17 declared democrats are the only ones? ms. pelosi: 200 is what he should come up with. they have 245 whatever the number is. they have over 245 votes. was that person sworn in yet? they have 245 votes. they need 218. they probably have as you said dozen and a half on the democratic side. i don't know where everybody is. and the speaker should be able to get 200 votes. the awesome power of the speaker. i know of what i speak. but maybe -- i don't know. i don't think -- i don't know why they want this so much. they have the majority, why there's even any question that

they can deliver their vote. but you have to speak to him. 200 would be a good round number safe number, in case somebody doesn't show up that day, ok? reporter: you mentioned the provisions of t.a.a. dollar amount for a small issue can you go into detail about what your objections are for the pay-fors? ms. pelosi: it came out of medicare and i have an objection to that. the money that is set aside for the trade adjustment act to help those workers in those communities that have been hurt by trade, it is under a billion dollars, $700 million. a small price to pay. really, we should be doing much more, but nonetheless it must be paid for and don't like where

they are taking the pay-for. i'm hoping that we can come up with a better pay-for so we can have that bill pass and move onto the taking up of the t.p.a. and i don't know where the votes are on that. but put this in perspective. we're asking for a better pay-for so the same communities that we're trying to help in terms of trade adjustment are not hurt by taking the money out of medicare. i think that's really a bad choice. at the same time, this congress in recent time has weeks ago -- has passed legislation -- you have heard me say this before and i think it bears repeating -- over $260 billion in tax cuts . that's over a quarter of a trillion in tax cuts for the

5,400 wealthiest families in america. unpaid for. 5,400 wealthiest families get a tax cut of over a trillion dollars unpaid for. certainly, we can afford a few hundred million dollars to help communities or workers who are affected by the trade adjustment. it has to be paid for. let's find the pay-for and let's not take it at a place that hurts the very people that it is trying to help. reporter: the president's trade bill do you feel you have responsibility for capping the president's trade bill? ms. pelosi: it's the speaker's responsibility. it's where the support exists in his caucus. he has the majority and it's his

responsibility. and he said it was a test of my leadership and i have confidence in him and i think he can deliver 200 of his members, but it's not my responsibility. reporter: just follow up on that, 14 senate democrats reported this and 32% of senate democrats, why can't 32% of the house democrats get behind something the president wants so badly? ms. pelosi: we do not set our agenda senate as a standard for where we are on a bill. members are taking this very very seriously. we have many members who are not supporting this who have over time always supported trade initiatives. i just don't think that this reaches the standard that we need to go forward with 11 different kinds of countries.

but you have to ask them individually, because these are individual votes. and i can't tell you why some are in one place and some in another. but i can tell you this is a very large number in our caucus that is not supportive of it and if we were to use the senate standard, i would hope they would use our standard from time to time. but we are two separate bodies and that's the beauty of it and we respect those differences and respect each person's vote. but you have to go back to the origins of our country when they decided that each state would have two votes in the senate and that the house would be divided by population. and maybe you could compare those numbers to population rather than house to senate, because it doesn't have any parity. in any event it'sal lively debate and refreshing debate

it's substantive and it's an opportunity to do something great in terms of our presence in the global economy. it doesn't meet the standard we have all put forth which is to increase the paycheck of american workers and that means lifting the working conditions and wages of workers in other countries, otherwise we're driving down the paychecks of american workers. but putting that aside and going back to what is on the floor now which are these bills, which is cutting into initiatives that help america's working families protect the american people grow the economy instead we are giving tax breaks at the high end and to special interests rather than addressing the needs of the people's interests, all of which will bring a return to the treasury and to our economy. thank you all very much.

go giants. go giants. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the congressional directory is a handy guide with color photos of every senator and house member and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and 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 cspan.org. >> here are some of our featured programs this weekend.

>> get our complete schedule at c span.org. >> hillary clinton will be kicking off her campaign next saturday june 13 and has been visiting new hampshire and iowa, holding discussions and making remarks. we will be live right here where remarks by the former secretary of state speaking at texas southern university. live scheduled here live 3:30

eastern time. we'll look at today's white house briefing with press secretary. mr. earnest: good afternoon everybody. [laughter] mr. earnest: we're doing our best here. [indiscernible] mr. earnest: we'll try to get us all back on a more predictable

schedule. nice to see you all this afternoon. before i get to your questions, i want to acknowledge one member of our staff today is her last day at the white house and been sesk on the national security council for three years and last year in her current role. many of you had the same kinds of observations that i have, which is she is passionate about her work here and extremely diligent and responsive. and as i had the opportunity to convey to her in a more private setting, we are going to miss her not because of her talent, skill and knowledge, but the way she does her job. she is extraordinarily courteous and professional and collegial and we're going to miss her, but we wish her very well and her future employers are going to be very lucky to have her. [applause]

mr. earnest: we wish you well. >> thank you. reporter: our best to you. mr. earnest: we'll have news on that. reporter: want to ask you about trade. speaker pelosi just recently said that shouldn't count on more democrats coming on board. and publicly encouraged speaker boehner to come up with 200 votes. does the president aagree with that assessment? and he is pretty much stuck at that number and why can't he get more? mr. earnest: there is no one who is a better, more effective and more accurate vote counter on capitol hill than nancy pelosi. so i would have no reason to disagree with her assessment. that said, the president is also

pretty determined advocate for the most progressive trade legislation that's ever moved through the senate, and he believes that there is a.m. will reason why democrats in the house should vote for it. and he will continue to make the case that they should. primarily because of the likelihood that it would expand economic opportunity for middle-class families and that is after all the president's top domestic priority. the other thing i would say about this and this goes more directly to mrs. pelosi's comments, speaker boehner shortly after the election indicated that advancing trade legislation was one of the top items on his domestic policy agenda. and he working closely with other republicans worked hard in the last election successfully to their credit to expand their majority in the house of representatives.

and we would expect that he would use that substantial majority to mobilize substantial support for the items that are high on his agenda. and i think as the speaker indicated in his news conference earlier today, he had the opportunity to speak to the president about this specific issue just yesterday. and that is an indication that democrats and republicans may be able to seize on some common ground here to advocate within their parties for legislation that both the president and the speaker of the house believe would be clearly in the best interests of the u.s. economy. so our strategy moving forward will be to continue to make the case for members of congress on the merits of this issue and we'll see what happens. reporter: there's talk of this vote coming up as early as next week. does the president have any quams about it being that soon or that the votes need to be secured and more democratic

votes to be secured? mr. earnest: it is the responsibility of the speaker whether the vote takes place and i'm confident that the president will aggressively advocate for the passage of this bill right up until the vote occurs. and that the speaker of the house will do the same thing. we feel very good about the merits of this argument, that this legislation would write in enforceable labor standards, that previously were not included would have an impact towards raising human rights among the member nations who are taking part in this agreement. and there are a.m. will reasons why progressive democrats would support it. we saw about a third of the

democrats in the senate support this legislation. and i don't think we will get a percentage that that's high in the house but there are ample reasons for democrats to support this bill. reporter: in 2002, the last time that there was a successful vote on t.p.a., there were 21 or 22 democrats in the house that voted in favor of it and there was a republican president in the white house. why is it so difficult for this president to even achieve that number this time around? is it dynamics of trade changed so much? mr. earnest: what the president has acknowledged that there is in the democratic party reflects opposition to trade legislation that many democrats do look back on recent trade agreements that have been negotiated with some concern about the impact that that has had on some segments of

the economy. that's precisely why the president has sought to learn the lessons from those previous agreements. and maybe democrats point to nafta as evidence that trade policies do not benefit american workers and the president i think made the agreement that he's negotiating in terms, with these other asia-pacific countries, including mexico and canada, would write in enforceable labor standards, would write in enforceable environmental standards, would include important human rights protections, would include greater protections for intellectual property. these kind of agreements that are structured in that way would start to put upward pressure o