now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. holy and compassionate god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as they return from their constituent visits, bless the members of the people's house, amid so many political pushes and pulls. give them perseverance and wisdom to address those most pressing needs for the benefit of our nation. in the aftermath of severe storms, bless those recovering

from floods and storms this past week and those emergency workers who have placed themselves in dangerous path in service to their brothers and sisters in need. may we all be inspired by their heroic example and moved to step forward in those times when we might be called upon as well. may all that is done today be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pliege of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. mr. kildee: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america mr. kildee: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i rise to 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. burgess: today i note with great concern the divisive involvement of russia forces in syria. due to the failure of this administration to articulate a strategy, russia has now stepped in to conduct its own strategy, including air strikes. the united states adversaries have picked up on the administration's lack of a well articulated strategy in syria.

sources say that russian forces are launching deliberate air strikes on syrian groups backed by the c.i.a. while conducting these contentious attacks, russia has violated turkish airspace. nato has warned president putin to halt the air strikes. where is president obama with his warning? if sources are accurate, the administration has abandoned c.i.a.-backed fighters. president obama is fearful of taking the necessary steps, but given his failings in the region, is anyone surprised by the russians' actions? this unrest contributes to the growing refugee crycy, putting a strain on our own country and others to manage the influx of refugees fleeing the purr -- turmoil this administration has helped create. as warn in proverbs 29:18, where there is no vision the people perish. i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. kildee: i seek unanimous consent to address the house for

one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. last week 151 republicans, a majority of the republicans in congress, voted to shut down the federal government. this week another entry into this calendar of chaos and dysfunction, we are coming up on several crucial deadlines and so far the republican leadership in congress has presented no clear plan. no path forward. we approach another debt limit, a question as to whether the united states government will default on its obligations. another highway funding expiration. another government funding deadline, december 11. lack of the re-authorization of the export-import bank, which is costing the united states jobs, thousands of jobs. the american people are frustrated and rightfully so. we may not agree on this floor, we may not agree with the

majority. but there is no excuse for not getting your job done. that's what i hear from the people back home, from the american people. the simple question, why can't congress just do its work? just do its job? we stand ready to work with republicans. we need a willing partner. there's a lot of work to do for the american people. let's get down to business. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. recently secretary kerry pledged the united states would accept 185,000 refugees from the war-torn syrian area. this would be over two years. america has always been a generous, welcoming country, but i have to tell you while we have compassion for these refugees, secretary kerry's pledge leaves

us with some grave concerns. first to security, how can we verify these refugees do not present a threat to our national security? syria has protch to be a fertile recruiting ground for islamic extremists and terrorists. second, the office of refugee resettlement which has not been transparent and accountable enough to handle the transfers. over the past year, i have been investigating and found that they have not been filing annual reports on their activities as required by law. in addition, there is evidence of widespread abuse of refugees, including children, who are improperly handled by the o.r.r. in many instances a failure to refer the abuse to the f.b.i. has allowed child abusers to walk free. the curtain must be pulled back completely on the o.r.r.'s operations before we can trust it with the responsibility as serious as settling syrian

refugees in the u.s. we must find the delicate balance and protect our safety and security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. pursuant to section 233-e-1 of the social security act as amended by social security amendments of 1977, public law i 216, 42 u.s.c. 433-e-1 transmit herewith the supplementary agreement amending the agreement on social security between the united states of america and the czech republic the slemry agreement. the slementry agreement signed at prague on september 23, 2013, is intended to modify a certain provision of the agreement on social security between the united states of america and the czech republic with administrative arrangements signed at prague object september 7, 2007, and entered

into force january 1, fwine. the u.s. czech social security agreement. the u.s. czech social security agreement is amended by the supplementary agreement is similar and objective to the social security agreements already in force with most yuped contrifments australia, canada chile, japan, norway, and the republic of korea, such bilateral agreements provide for a limited coordination between the united states and foreign social security systems to eliminate dual social security coverage and taxation. and to help prevent the loss benefit protection that can occur when workers divide their careers between two countries. the supplementary agreement amends the u.s.-czech social security agreement to account for a new czech domestic health insurance law which was enacted subsequent to the sippeding of the u.s.-czech social security agreement in twetch by including the health insurance law within the scope of the u.s.-czech social security agreement. this amendment will exempt u.s.

citizen workers and multinational companies from contributing to the czech health insurance system which when such workers otherwise meet all of the ordinary criteria for such an exemption, u.s.-czech social security agreement as amended will continue to contain all provisions mandated by section 233 of the social security act and other provisions that i deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 233 pursuant to section 233-c-4 of the social security act. i also transmit for the information of congress a report required by section 233-e-1 of the social security act on the estimated number of individuals who will be affected by this supplementary agreement. and its estimated cost effect. the department of state and the social security administration have recommended the slementry agreement and related documents to me. i commend the supplementary agreement to the u.s.-czech social security agreement and

related documents. signed, barack obama, the white house. october 6, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on ways and means and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess unt

during his enlistment in the army, emerson was assigned to duties in several free states, during which dred scott married harriette robinson and the doctor died, mr. scott tried to buy his family's freedom from the widow emmerson but she refused and he sued. follow the case of scott vermont sanford in c-span's new -- scott vs. sanford in c-span's new series. exploring 12 historic supreme

court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers and justices in these cases. landmark cases next monday, live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. and for background on each case, while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book, it's available for $8.95 plus shipping at -span.org/landmarkcases. >> we have more road to the white house coverage now with republican presidential a candidate marco rubio. the florida senator spoke in new york city today to members of the tech community about some of the challenges facing businesses as a result of outdated government policies. this is about 50 minutes. mr. >> good morning. welcome. for those of how have never been here before, civic hall is a community center and event space focused on civic

innovation and a collaborative workspace for people who believe technology can make the world a better place. it's with great pleasure today that we're able to host this event and so without further ado, i would like to present to you the junior senator from florida and presidential candidate 2016, senator marco rubio. [applause] mr. rubio: thank you, i appreciate that very much. i want to thank you all for participating in this -- a little loud. is that better? so i'm here today not to just tell you my ideas, but to listen to yours. i think that the big part of what a campaign should be all about is the listening part. no one understands the needs of the on-demand economy as well as those of who you are building it. coming into the discussion, here's something i can state to you with absolute confidence. if there's one thing that matters in the 21st century, it's innovation.

in order to be the leading economy on earth, america must be the most innovative economy on earth. it's that simple. whenever we talk about innovation, what we're talking about is problem solving. we're talking about finding ways to do things more efficiently, more affordably and more conveniently than ever before. i want to begin by telling you about a problem that i had earlier this year that american innovators, including many of you in this room, are attempting to solve. and then i want to tell you something you already know. which is that the government is often getting in the way of solving it. so my problem was this. a few months ago my refrigerator at my home broke it. just stopped working it. died ounls. with four growing kids home for summer break in florida, you can imagine i was facing some pressure to get it fixed. so i googled appliance repair companies in miami and i made some calls. first of all, it was frustratingly difficult to get anyone to take me off hold or even to call me back.

when i finally got in touch said, real person they no problem, we can have someone out to your house in three or four days to look at it. that just can't be how our economy works in the year 2015. other things that took three days in the old economy now take three minutes or three seconds. what struck me in that moment was the following realization. inevitably, somewhere not far away from me, there was someone who was capable of repairing appliances, someone who is just as eager to make extra money that day as i was eager to have a functional refrigerator. the only problem was this person and i had no way of finding each other or connecting. this is a problem that will not exist within a year or two. at least not if american innovators have their way. the reason is because of the on-demand economy. this is a revolution that's

happening right before our isles. also known as the sharing economy or the gig economy. the on-demand economy is allowing millions of professionals across multiple industries to connect directly with consumers. the most obvious examples, folks, are companies like uber and airbnb. last week it was announced that amazon and google would be entering the on-demand market. right behind these giants are thousands of small innovative startups and if you haven't heard about them yet, just wait. the on-demand platform is one example of an important truth facing us in this election. which is that the american economy, as the global one, is fundamentally being transformed. uber didn't even exist when our current president was sworn into office. and today it is worth over $51 billion. and it's not just the fact that the economy is changing. the fact is that the economy is changing faster than it has ever changed. for example, it took the telephone 75 years to reach 100

million users. it took candy crush one year to reach 100 million users. and yet while our economy is changing and changing fast, our government and its policies are not. quite frankly, both parties are to blame. never before, at least in my lifetime, has the political establishment in this country been more out of touch with the american people than it is today. the result is a worsening friction between our 20th century government and our rapidly changing 21st century economy. and nowhere is that friction more apparent than in the on-demand economy. here you have innovative companies who are running up against an antiquated tax code, burdensome regulation and numerous, numerous outdated politicians. that's not all. the companies are also victims of a coordinated attack from established businesses which influence the political process to pass new regulations that block competition.

we've seen this play out with taxi companies lobbying to stop uber and here in new york the government is spending millions to try and stop airbnb from threatening hotel chains. i want to give you another example today. i want to tell but a growing company based right here in new york that, like all businesses in the on-demand economy, is facing unnecessary challenges. as a result of the outdated government. it's a company called handy. and its c.e.o. is here today. handy is a online platform that allows consumers to connect directly with home cleaners, handymen, plumbers and other home service professionals. it's quickly growing, it's now operating in 37 cities with over 11,000 professional as registered to use the platform. handy is grown breaking for consumers for obvious reasons. it provides simple booking at the tap of a finger, a rating and review process that helps people find the best contractor for their needs, and an easy online payment system that

eliminates haggling over prices. but it isn't just great for consumers. one of the things i love most about the on-demand economy is the way it promotes upward mobility for the professionals ho use it. through handy, workers without the resources to start their own cleaning business, they can now have all the independence of self-employment and the customer base of a large established business. professionals who use handy can earn an average of $18 an hour, which is more than the typical worker in the field. best of all, they set their own hours. checking into the app whenever they have time to take on a job and signing out when they have other obligations. many workers use this flexibility to pursue higher education, which is central to upward mobility in this new century. others use it to spend more time with their children or work other jobs. innovations like handy are part of the reason why i'm so

optimistic, not only about saving the american dream in this century, but actually about expanding it. to reach more people and change more lives than ever before. in the last century, my mother worked as a maid in hotels. she had no control over her schedule. no influence over how much she earned. and few opportunities to set herself apart. and yet she achieved the american dream. just think what she could have achieved cleaning homes through a company like handy. she would have had total control over her own financial life. the on-demand economy is a miracle that only american free enterprise could produce. that's why it's so shameful shat -- that the biggest obstacles to the growth of this platform is our very own government. in fact, think about this. i met the c.e.o. of an on-demand startup a few weeks ago and he asked me not to mention his business today out of fear, out of fear that he would attract attention from

legislators, from lawyers and from competitors. what does this say? do we want america to be a place where honest, innovative businesses have to hide their success? of course we do not. we need to be the most business friendly economy on earth. but right now with the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world and a regulatory structure that's directly hostile to innovation, that's quite nearly impossible. here are some of the obstacles that handy and companies like it face every day. first, an outdated tax code. companies like handy have only two options for how to classify their professionals who utilize their services. they can either be classified as full w-2 employees or they can be classified as 1099 independent contractors. but neither one of these makes perfect sense. if handy's c.e.o. classifies the workers as w-2 employees, then much of the flexibility that makes working with handy so appealing would disappear. he'd have to regulate the

workers' hours and he'd have to comply with a litany of expensive regulations that would stunt the growth of the company. so instead the c.e.o. makes sure that the relationship complies with the 1099 independent contractor requirements. but this causes other complications. for example, the company can't provide training to its contractors. they can't even make recommendation as to them based on customer feedback. they can't even ask them to wear a shirt or uniform with a handy logo on it. the c.e.o. is also prevented from providing the perks and benefits that would allow them to attract more high quality professionals to the platform. think about how aroonic that is. -- ironic that is. our outdated politicians bash the on-demand economy for not taking better care of workers yet our outdated government is the exact force pri presenting it from doing -- preventing it from doing so. that's why i've proposed a comprehensive tax reform plan that is both pro-growth and

pro-family and today i'd like to discuss with all of a you some additional ways to make the tax code more welcoming to on-demand companies. some ideas i've had are to maintain the physical presence standard for taxation a, for online purchases. to stop discriminatory taxation of digital goods and services like app downloads and to ensure that the internet remains tax-free. but on-demand companies aren't the only ones hurt by our tax code. they also face the uncertainty of a volatile regulatory environment. just last week, last friday actually, the chairwoman of the federal trade commission said that the on-demand economy would require, quote, targeted regulatory measures, unquote. we have to realize that all the best innovation in our economy is happening in the unregulated space. yet washington has imposed 60,000 pages of new federal regulations just this year, costing our private economy

almost -- over or almost $70 billion in total compliance costs. as president i will put an end to this. i will place a cap on the amount of regulations -- on the amount regulations can cost our economy each year. i will also require federal agencies to include an analysis of exactly how much proposed regulations would impact competition and ovation. i believe the more america regular late -- regulates, the more we create an opening for other countries to deregulate and draw jobs away from our shores. other nations are already scrambling to kater to the on-demand economy. germany, for example, has created a middle ground between full time employees and independent contractors. this classification is called depend contractors -- dependent contractors. it allows professionals to work for a sickle company, receive benefits and protections and yet retain control over their own work. whether this model is the best option for america or not is something we should figure out. but here's what i know for

sure. we have to change the way the political establishment in this country thinks about the new economy. right now they recognize that the new economy doesn't fit our current tax code and our current way of doing things, so they ask themselves, how can we force the new economy to aa dapt to our old policies -- to adopt to our pole, old policies rather than asking, how can we change our old policies to adapt to the new economy? this has always -- that has always been the american way. we are a unique nation in all the world's history. a nation founded on the idea that government doesn't get to choose what our economy looks like. the american people and the private sector get to choose. and guess what? the american people have chosen. they have chosen a convenient, fast, tech-driven economy, one with direct lane of ac a sess to the product and the services they want and need. the american people have chosen an economy in which the most valuable retailer in america,

amazon, doesn't own a single store. they have chosen where the largest transportation company, uber, doesn't own a single vehicle. and where the largest accommodation provider, airbnb, does not own a single hotel. free enterprise has brought us these developments and free enterprise will bring us even more developments in the years ahead. in fact, i believe free enterprise will work better in this century than it did in the last century. because the new economy is all about innovation, creativity and productivity and we americans are the most innovative, creative and productive people on the earth. i believe the 21st century not only can be the american century, i believe it will be the american century. it will be as long as everyone in this room keeps doing what they're doing and as long as we can get washington to stop doing what its doing and start looking for a better way. with that i'd like to hear your ideas and answer your

questions. i thank you for the tunal opportunity to talk about that today. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to do a little bit of a question and answer session. i'll start. if you have a question you'd like to ask, in about 15 minutes, there are two microphones in the aisles. we're going to do it based on anality aer nating between, so i'll give you a signal when we're about to take questions. senator, thank you very much for coming to civic hall and for talking about this issue. there's been lots of cases where incumbent market forces who have political influence

have reacted to the competition that the sharing economy companies are giving them. and a they're using their political connections to try and stop these innovative companies. this is all eventually tied to money and politics. it's great, and i hear you when you say that government is targeting, but if you follow the money, it goes back to the incumbent market. how do you break that cycle? mr. rubio: that's exactly right. i think part of it is to explain to people, we're not experiencing an economic down turn. we are experiencing a mass of economic restructuring. it's like the industrial revolution happening every five years. so our policies need to reflect that. and in reflecting that, that's why it's so important for us not to ascribe to the new economy attributes of the old economy. so that's why i believe a limited government is the best approach for the 21st century. the larger the government, the more powerful the government is, the more influence the government has over the economy, the more the people or the companies that can influence the government win at

the expense of everybody else. so you have massive -- that's why, for example, regulatory budget is so important. the favorite way of established industries to block an innovative competitor is to create a regulatory impediment to that competitor, to enter the space. i always use this example, it may not be perfect, but imagine a block bust voor, if you're looking around this room, some of you probably don't know what that is, a blockbuster video had convinced federal government to pass a regulation saying, in order to rent movies you must come into a physical store and show your i.d. buzz we want to prevent underage kids from renting rated r movie, they'd still be in business and we wouldn't have downloading. that's the mentality that exists in established industries. they find some sort of argument and they use it to create a road block that the innovator can't meet. >> the reason they're able to do that and create that is because they have access and that access is tied to giving money to political dand date conscious candidates or officials. mr. rubio: part of it is electing people who won't fall

for that and understand that that's an impediment to economic growth. that's why the regulatory budget is one of the proposal as i have. >> yesterday a new report came out from the freelancers union that states that 54 million american, almost 1/3 of the work force, is doing freelance work. it's not just in urban areas, it's in rural areas, throughout the country. 86% of the nation's freelancers are likely to vote in 2016. 62% are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports freelancers' interests. some of these people are not necessarily working for handy or for uber or any of the sharing companies, they're just working on their own but they care about things like retirement savings, health care, legal support for nonpayment because somebody's not paying them. and other issues unique to this group. whatever a worker really wants is flexible work but also stable work. what would you do as president -- mr. rubio: you raise a couple of interesting points. our 21st century health care is

on the worker model. we work for somebody, those people offer you an insurance plan, that's how you get your health insurance. in the 2169 century, that cannot be the corner stone of our system. we have to have a portable system of health insurance, which is why i believe every american should be allowed to control their own pretax health care money, whether it's an employer that gives it to you, whether it's your own money or a tax a credit. depending on how much money you make, and you can use it to buy your own health insurance from any company that will sell it to you. that's an important issue. i've argued we should open up the congressional retirement plan. the congress, as a member of congress you're allowed to contribute to the federal 2015 savings plan. that's only available to federal government employees and members of congress and it's a plan that actually performs well. i've argued we should open up that plan to anyone who doesn't have a retirement plan offered to them by an employer. so they too can pay into and have access to congressional retirement plan as a contributor to that program. i think we need to figure out ways to provide that sort of stability, that once came from a traditional employer.

in the 21st century we're going to have to account for the fact that a growing number of americans won't be that -- be that drigsly explode -- traditionally employed. >> you came out against the federal minimum wage. in the sharing economy, what's to keep from us having a race to the bottom? the person who is willing to deliver food for $4 is beaten out by the person willing to do it for $3 an hour. mr. rubio: i'm i'm not in favor of getting rid of the minimum wage completely. i've argued against increasing it for two reasons. one, i don't want to make people more expensive than machines. the second point, it is clear that there are businesses, especially those who cannot pass through the cost, that will adjust to a higher minimum wage by either hiring less people, cutting hours, cutting benefits. and i don't want people harmed by. that i just don't think it's the best way to raise wages. i think the better way to raise wages is a combination of creating an deme that -- an economy that creates jobs that pay more but also making it easier and cheaper for people to acquire the advanced

education they need to qualify for the best paying jobs of the 21st century. so, for example, i've argued about opening space for competency-based learning. in a bipartisan bill, with mike bennett of colorado and myself have offered an alternative accreditting model that will allow people to get the equivalent of a college education but do it by a means that allow you to package learning from a variety of experiences. we should open up pell grant and student financial aid to high school students who duel enroll. - dual enroll. i also think we'll have traditional four-year education. but i've argued that students deserve to know how much they're going to make when they graduate from that thank school with that degree before they borrow money to pay for it. so i have a bipartisan bill called right to know before you go with ron white of oregon that thank requires that before you take out a loan, you are told how much people make when they graduate from that school.

that's a better way to raise wages. is to both create the policies that allow america to be the easiest and best place in the world to create better paying jobs and make it easier, faster and cheaper for people to acquire the skills they need for those better paying jobs. >> you mentioned that you want to limit regulation but in some cases these innovative companies have fantastic services but there are collateral effects. for example, airbnb, which many people love, both the users on both sides of the transaction love, but in some cases low income people are using airbnb to subsidize their incomes. their landlords are finding out, they're getting evicted. the landlord takes that apartment to market rent. low income housing drops. there's a collateral effect. you can probably follow a lot of these companies' path and start seeing a wake of collateral effect which may not necessarily be so great, so if you have no regulation, how do you prevent collateral effects from coming back and biting us? mr. rubio: i want the we -- i

want the water we drink to not be poisoned. i fly on planes, i'm glad they're regulated. i'm arguing there comes a point when regulations go too far and they become an impediment to innovation. in the case of a private property owner, if i'm a private property owner, i own my own property, i can place restrictions on how tenants can use property. people do that all the time. that's different from a government policy that places that restriction artificially, as opposed to a contractual restriction. that's a situation you're facing. structural change in the economy has always been disruptive. the industrial revolution was deeply disruptive. we had to work through issues of child labor and safety issues at factories that we never had before as a society. we're going to have disruptions we have to work through. that doesn't mean you walk away from this. this is the future. we're not going back to the 20th century. the only choice before us is do we embrace the future, harness its promise or allow it to leave us behind. that's the only choice before us. this argue ament that we're going to be able to go back to

the good old days or the way things once were is not going to happen. if we do we're going to be left behind by the fewer. >> sharing economy has become a buzz term. but doesn't fully explain the changing nature of work in america. companies like airbnb and lift and uber are examples, and even handy, are middlemen in effect between someone who is willing to provide a service and someone who is willing to pay for it. wouldn't we be better off just building cooperatives where the people can find each other without having to pay a middleman to do the transaction? because once you build that platform -- mr. rubio: who's going to build that platform? the government? >> citizens could do it and a make it more open so the share hold, -- mr. rubio: i don't think you're going to get innovation that way. the way you come up with great ideas is someone says, i have a good idea and i think i can make money on, it i'm going to do it. every major innovation in the world has been drisk than way. particularly when it comes to providing certains to individuals. you may believe in your idea,

but the fact is that the reason why it's created is because there's a profit motive. somebody has made a decision, i think i can do this for a living and so they found these ideas. i think if you're counting on the collective to come up with it on its own, the not an effective way to move innovation. free enterprise has proven that. the great company of the year 2025 doesn't exist yet. someone is probably 14 years old playing mine craft right now and they're going to figure out -- they shouldn't be playing right now. [laughter] but they're going to figure out how to put this thing together in eight or nine years. but they're only going to do it because they think they can make money doing it. there's nothing wrong with that. there's nothing wrong with the profit motive involved in driving these. >> fosome people argue there are new monopolies being created by new tech companies now that are will prevent innovation. mr. rubio: you can very much be a creature of the new economy and once you are established decide you're an incumbent industry. every established industry was

once an innovator. i'm not argue aing that new economy creatures are going to not behave in the same fashion eventually. that's why we have a system that doesn't allow that to happen. what we should have is a free enterprise system that says this no matter how great your idea, is you can be out of business in two years if someone comes up with a better service, a better idea and can deliver it at a better price. >> what if a company like uber, for example, decides to cut its prices because it can afford to and prevent others in company that may want to create car sharing in a different way, like car pooling, from even being able to enter the market? there's no one to protect them because the first mover made a huge advantage and got a huge amount of money and now they're burning money in order to protect -- mr. rubio: the truth about the new economy is the competitor to uber may not offer a direct exact model it. won't be just a cheaper version of uber. it will be a new system or way of using sharing that is totally different from the model uber is using. we have examples of this all the time. five years ago, three years ago, whatever it may be, the cutting edge industry or the cutting edge company or firm

has very much been replaced by a new one that came in and did kind of what they were doing but an even better and more creative way. i don't think that government interference in that realm is going to lead to the sort of innovation. what it's going to end up doing is setting and concrete and drying the existing innovation that's already in place. >> you mentioned we have a 20th century government but one of the challenges is that this technology continues to evolve and change and seems like some of the regulators are reacting as opposed to staying ahead. if you're president, what would you do to make sure that the government, where it does need to regulate, for example, airlines, making sure they're safe, stays ahead of the technology? planes rit now, for example, aren't connected 24/7, we still chase after black boxing when they crash. there is a role for government to stay ahead of technology. besides just cutting the regulators' budget and limiting the amount of regulation, how do we keep the government on a

21st century path. mr. rubio: the government still has a vested interest in public safety. if you're an uber -- i keep going back to the same companies, i don't want to pick on anybody. but those usual cars are regulated. before that car is on the road it's been inspected, gone through the testing that the federal government requires for motor vehicles. it has regulations locally about how fast you can drive, what the safety features need to be, rules of the road, all those things are still in place. we're not saying uber drivers don't have to observe traffic signals. they still have to follow all of those rules. that's not the issue. the issue is the industry in particular. it's a business model not being regulated. here's the bottom line. there is no way that the federal government could ever keep up with innovate on a regulatory front it. can't move fast enough -- innovation on a regulatory front. it can't move fast enough. >> i'm a little concerned when you say that we're going to limit the amount of regulation when volkswagen is able to play with their software and basically lie to the world about the efficiency of their cars. somebody has to have the budget

to be able to investigate to make sure they don't do that. if you cut regulation, it isn't just going allow for innovative companies, it may create damage to our economy. mr. rubio: a regulatory budget is not just about cutting regulations. a regulatory budget is designed to force prioritization. through a cost-benefit anal sills. all it says is that -- analysis. all it says is that a cumulative impact of federal regulations cannot exceed a certain. a money. these agencies must decide which regulations are worthy. if we only can have x number of regulations, which are the ones we really need and which are the ones that aren't justified. that's what it's designed to do. >> on a cost-benefit analysis, some people with a say get rid of gas emissions because it's cheaper to make cars that don't save air pollution. a huge cost to the environment. mr. rubio: then those people that make that decision will be accountable to their electorate

. what we have now is a system where you can keep add aing new regulations without removing existing ones. it's a system of perpetual regulatory growth. without any cost-benefit analysis. many regulations are being put in place because of the theoretical value of the regulation or because someone hired the right person to influence the government to move in that direction. >> we'll start taking some questions. i just have one more. the white house recently launched a program called the u.s. digital service. which is to bring the nation's top engineers to work inside government, to fix problems. for example, like the v.a. backlog. and save money. in fact, save hundreds of millions of dollars on old antiquated systems that the government currently spends. if you're president, would you continue that program and would you expand it? mr. rubio: we want to see how it works first. it's been offered as a pilot initially. a very small amount. $0 million. but i think if it proves to be something that's effective, where we can attract some of the brightest minds in the

country to dedicate themselves to public service for x number of years, to create solutions to how government provides services, that's something we should definitely be open to. >> i want to ask everybody to please have your questions remain on the topic of today's talk, if you could. questioner: thank you so much for being here today. i very much enjoy your discussion today. especially you mentioned the american dream. i'm a daca recipient. deferred action for childhood arrival. i have a question that's relevant to the topic. i am in the tech industry. you've said our immigration system is broken because it's based on whether you have a relative here rather than married. as president, what will you do to fix the lottery system to attract and keep the best and brightest talent in america, especially for tech? mr. rubio: first of all, do i believe we need reforms to. that especially because some of it is being abused by existing companies and the other part of it is sometimes the visa, is

within three days all the slots are gone. countries like canada are deliberately targeting to steal away some of the best talent graduating from our universities by bragging that you can get the work force to live in canada but not in the u.s. i have a particular piece of legislation that expands the program but also creates rules and regulations so it can't be abused and used against the american worker. but the bigger issue is on the -- we admit a million people to the -- a million people a year to the united states permanently. my argument is, if you're in the best -- if you're one of the best people at what you do, i don't want you temporarily here, i want you here permanently. i want to you become an american. i want you to live in this country and become ingrained in our society and a culture. what i've argued is that the permanent legal immigration system needs to become more merit-based. we start admitting people to this nation permanently, primarily a on the basis what have they can contribute economically, not simply on whether or not you have a

relative lesking here that serves as -- relative living here that serves as the magnet that brings you in. that's why i've argued for a merit-based system. it reflects the 21st century much more accurately. questioner: hi, i'm danielle thompson. i have a question for you regarding open government. and government as platform. open government believes that citizens should have access to all the data, laws and other information regarding government. and government as platform, an idea that believes government should make it easy for citizens to plug and play into their governments in order to govern themselves better. as president, how would you promote initiatives such as open government, which, coming from a conservative upbringing, who believes that people should govern themselves locally, how will you support initiatives of open government and government as platform? mr. rubio: one of the platforms out there is about the online budgeting initiatives or other ideas to make more transparent

the way government operates, particularly spending money. by providing that on an easy to use platform where the american people can ac a sess the mysterious federal government and understand where it's spending money, how the money's being spent, what the salaries of federal employees are, what the spending priorities are. so i would be open to leveraging technology to provide more transparency so that on an a ongoing basis individual americans would be able to have access to the way government operates and the way government spends money and the size of different programs, agencies, etc. i think technology has easy solutions for that if we're willing to implement it. questioner: thanks for being here. craig aaron from free press. very interested, i appreciate you being in this dialogue, we alked a lot about companies, users and individuals. i think there's been this incredible upswing in internet activism in the last few years, uniting people across party lines, around issues of personal control. they don't want the government to be in charge of their online experience. but they don't want to handful of big corporations either. i'm curious as president what

you would do to protect privacy, people's information and leave them in control of their own online experience. mr. rubio: that's important. part of it is we have a system that's largely -- you have to opt out, for example, the way your information is used as opposed to the presumption being the other way. there's this debate between the private sector which says, if we can't sell consumer information, then we can't offer all these services. the flip side of it is that many american users, people even around the world are not aware that their information, unless they opt out, is being used and sold as a marketable good. that tension is very real. at the end of the day, if we're forced to choose between both, i'd still err on the side of privenesy rights of individual americans to opt in to the way their information is used. that meets enormous resistance, especially from banks, who find their consumer spending habits of their clines very valuable -- clients very valueble. but given a choice between these two, i think we always are on the side of individuals and the ability of individuals

to have their private information protected, from being used in ways they're not even aware of. >> on that topic in particular, i don't know if you knew this, but in bankruptcy the creditors have no obligation to maintain the terms of service that was originally signed even if people opted out when they signed on. mr. rubio: meaning if you have a loan or bank account and you opted out of the information, once someone buying your debt, they don't have any -- >> yeah, any of these services. the companies collected all that data and if for some reason that company goes bankruptcy, -- bankrupt, they have no obligation to that privacy. mr. rubio: this is a 21st century issue that we'll have to confront. questioner: it seems like a lot of these rig to -- regulatory battles that companies fight happen to be local in nature. airbnb in san francisco or uber in florida.

how does the federal government get in there while preserving some of these local -- mr. rubio: it doesn't on the local issues. you're right. a lot of these are being fought at multiple levels of government. obviously there's nothing the federal government can could -- federal government can do to tell a city, you have to allow uber to operate. where we have a role is in the tax treatment and employment issues that i pointed out about how do you treat an independent contractor -- that doesn't mean there's a federal solution to all of this, but we have to ensure that our policies are conducive to inovation at the federal level. in addition to creath categories that allow us to account for the new employment, most american businesses, especially smaller ones, today you pay your tax rate on, that on your personal rate, not on the corporate rate, so that's where you find a large established industry might be paying very few taxes. compared to a much smaller company. i've argued that all a business income, no matter how you're structured, all business income should be taxed at one flat

rate of 25% for everyone. that includes the money you're making in a subchapter s, your business income would only be taxed at 25%. not at 39.5% or 35% or whatever your personal rate might be. that's a huge advantage for a smaller business. i would allow businesses to immediately expense anything they invest. again, a large cooperation can afford to take that deduction on a scheduled depreciation. a small business that may not be around in four years they can't expense capital investments up front right away. these are examples of things we can do at the federal level to create a more even playing field for new operators and startups. questioner: greg waltman. i have a queen energy alternative analytical company do innovations in social combleed, professional sports as well. mr. rubio: that's a pretty broad portfolio. questioner: going back to

access. multibillion g, dollar wire fraud, there was a big loss in london. >> let's stay on topic. questioner: journalists sit on the wire all day for a company like time warner inc., contributing absolutely nothing to the economy and target people blocking sales and business -- >> i'm sorry. i would like to you respect -- if you don't mind. i would really like -- questioner: [inaudible] wire fraud with no accountability. how do you plan to deal with fraud? the answer is you can't. you cheated on your wife in florida and -- >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry. questioner: i think you should drop out of the race. your polling numbers are too low to win. >> you're not welcome here. i apologize. mr. rubio: actually kinet of -- kind of weird anyway.

[laughter] >> back to our regularly scheduled programming. please. questioner: i was enjoying this until this last speaker. i'm happy to be here and happy to listen to this discussion. being one of the thousands of independent taxi owners in new york city, i do not have the means to have a research and development component to my business. but i am able to adapt. i am able to adapt. should uber or any other company who has taxi technology, who hasn't bought taxi rights, be able to have those rights that i had to pay for without paying? mr. rubio: i think they're in a totally different business model. their business model is not the same as a taxi cab. it connects the user on a different platform and a different way to the service that they're trying to acquire. and that's just the result of an economic transformation. it happens, it's unfortunate to some people, because it is

disruptive. but every time we've had economic restructuring in this country, it has displaced some people. and our obligation is to ensure that the people that have been displaced can quickly access the benefits of the new economy or the new innovation. so, for example, the invention of the car was very disruptive to the horse drawn carriage industry, yet we had to figure a way to get those people online, either in a factory building cars or other industry that was created, that allowed them to once again restart their lives and get going and moving forward. but we can't stand in the way of these innovations. they're going to happen. they're going to happen in america or somewhere else in the world. our job is to do the best we can to help people that are caught in that disruption, to either acquire new skills or add to their existing skills so they have access to the benefits of that new innovative economy. i think any effort to stand in the way of innovation, not only is fruitless, it's cousht productive. >> getting workers retrained brings up the question of education. and our education system being built on the 21st century model

rather than the -- 20th century proddle rather than the 21st -- model rather than the 21st. there doesn't seem to be enough federal money for teacher training or -- mr. rubio: part of it is, if you're a nontraditional student, you're like this gentleman or somebody wholes has to work full time and raise a family, you can't drop everything and sit in a classroom for two years and be retrained in a gnaw profession r acquire a new skill. competent is he-based plerning -- competency-based learning would allow you to do a number of things. number one, if you had an alternative accreditting model to the existing six big accreditter tos they would accredit innovative programs. if you have 20 years of work experience, that's worth something. that should be given college equivalent credit for. and then whatever you're missing you should be allowed to package from a variety of different sources. whether it's community college course work, free online courses, paid online courses,

additional work experience. so that people can package together the equivalent of a college degree or the equivalent of a certificate award and use that. >> that's at the high level. mr. rubio: no, the entire economy. you can use that to retrain people to become par legals or receptionists, to to become a paralegal at a law office. you can create that as an opportunity to allow people to get credit for military service and other work experience to become a welder or someone that works in factory. >> what about our public schools, particularly in urban areas, where they're underfunded and underresourced and there aren't teachers to train science and math? mr. rubio: the k-12 educational system is a primary obligation of the local and state government. where the federal government gets involved on occasion is helping key segments of our population through funding mechanisms, through the title 1 programs, through head start and so forth. my argument is not to cut those programs. miering argument is that money should -- my argument is that money should follow the child, not the child have to follow the money. i would allow people to use that money to access innovative

programs. that's one of the reasons i talked about opening up pell grant to dual enrollment. at the front end i believe that pre-k through 12 education should remain in the control of local jurisdictions. >> what you could you dozen do as president to ensure there's -- what could you do as president to ensure there's more funding for science and math? mr. rubio: i believe that k-12 education belongs in thea at the state and local level. both in its responsibility and its funding. it's never been a federal obligation. you don't want the federal government dictating the local communities. because that money will always come with strings. and i want the -- you're not going to get educational innovation from the federal level. you're only going to get the creation of new programs and approaches at the state and local level. that's where k-12edcation primarily belongs. questioner:ky respond? >> we want to get as many people as possible. questioner: we have a lot of people losing their jobs.

there's a limit to reeducating these people. especially if they're older. using the -- do you think the government has the responsibility to care for these people and create a safety net? mr. rubio: yes. i believe in a safety net. i don't think free enterprise works without a safety nefment free enterprise requires you to take a risk in many instances. if it fails, the consequences can't be that you're destitute. i don't think the safety net should be a life staple or way of life. i believe we should take our -- number two, i think our safety net is failing it. doesn't cure poverty. the purpose of our anti-poverty program should be to cure property, not to treat its symptoms. that's what our safety net programs have become. a better approach is the one i've argued which is we should take our federal poverty money and allow them to be spent at the state and local level so they can design innovative programs that work in those communities that specifically target the causes or the leading causes of that poverty in that community. the only requirement that i would have, unless someone is permanently disabled and legitimately disabled, the only requirement i would have is that anyone who is receiving

public assistance should be working or going to school and so any solution to poverty involves the following it. has to involve -- not just paying their bills in the short term, it also has to involve the acquisition of the skills knew toad become employable and find a job -- skills you need to become employed and find a job that pays more. i've also argued for a wage enhancement credit. which would allow an individual that only makes $8 an hour to receive an extra $4 an hour because at least they're working. they're not home unemployed. now that becomes a stigma on your resume when you get hired years later. the longer you're unemployed the harder it is to get re-employed again. we've offered a num number of innovative solutions to deal with. that the government's a obligation ultimately is to create systems where individuals will fall on hard times, can get back up and try again. we don't want -- what can cannot become is what it is now which is in some cases a lifestyle and in other cases a system that traps you. it makes you comfortable in your postbut it does nothing to cure it. we need to cure poverty. we're not doing that right now.

questioner: thank you for your emphasis on innovation. i am a technology education entrepreneur and i can tell you firsthand that sometimes startups have trouble finding the right talent to fill positions. our local universities do a pretty decent job training a lot of foreign-important students. some of whom are undocumented, like i have been since the first grade. so as president, what would you do to help foreign-born students and dreamers like me who want to stay in this country, who want to work in this country? mr. rubio: i believe we need to pass immigration reform. i just don't believe we can do it in one massive piece of legislation. the reason why i know that is because i tried. we don't have the votes. we don't have the political support. it's actually gotten harder to do it that way. i think the only way forward is to say to the american people, we recognize that we have 11 million or 12 million people here illegally, we have to stop the problem from continuing to

grow from this point forward, this is not going to happen again. so step one has to be to prove that we've brought illegal immigration moving forward under control. step two is we have to modernize our legal immigration system so that it's more merit-based and reflects 291st century. i believe the american people will be reasonable including the majority would be reasonable how you deal with someone who was brought here as a child who isn't a criminal, if they're a criminal, they cannot stay, but they are not a criminal, what do you do with someone in that circumstance. and depending on your circumstances, you have to come forward and pass a background check and become proficient in english, start paying taxes and you get a work permit. a legal status that would allow them to be in this country for at least 10 years. after that period has expired

i'm open to having people apply for a permanent residency. that would have majority support n this country but that is the biggest impediment. we have 12 mill yop here, if we do it the wrong way, we will have another 12 million. . dience member: yes to bring back your refrigerator example, where do you stand on the right to repair? john deere prohibits only authorized dealers to repair things. same thing for apple. >> you lose your warranty. audience member: there are restrictive terms of service, is

it possible that you brought the wrong brand of refrigerator. many independent contractors are building small repair businesses, but in terms of services and policies of the manufacturers don't allow third parties to repair. senator rubio: i haven't thought about that in depth so i can't give you a great answer. i haven't thought about it. as we move forward in this conversation about innovation and these sorts of services, these are the issues we will have to work through. any economic transformation involves significant disruption, whether to the work force or issues like you have raised and we'll have to work through these. you cannot stand in the way of it and say he are going to try to go back to the way the things were. that is an impossible task and counterproductive one. doesn't mean it's going to be

seamless. i'm sure we can work through many of these, but we have no choice but to do so. this is the u.s. economy and only going to change faster than ever and we need to adjust to it quickly. host: just discovered a new way to think about terms of service. senator rubio: absolutely. so is your refrigerator working now? senator rubio: i bought a new one. host: i have a situation, he said keep the old one and we'll send you a new one, no questions asked. senator rubio: that should have been the refrigerator i should have bought. host: thank our senator for joining us this morning. [applause] . [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> c-span takes you on the road

to the white house, unfiltered access to candidates, rallies and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website at c-span.org. >> u.s. house is in recess for now. members will be back at 4:00 p.m. eastern to start legislative work for the day. see the house live when they come back here on c-span. in the beginning of next month, the house is likely to have a new speaker. speaker john boehner announced his resignation last week. we spoke with congressman tim huelskamp. and he talked about the leadership elections and his planned meeting tonight. representative tim huelskamp is

chair of the tea party caucus. your group is meeting tonight with the house freedom caucus and other conservative groups on the republican side to hear from the speaker candidates this evening. what's the format of this evening's meeting and what do you hope to hear? mr. huelskamp: the declared candidates will have short opening statements and will be open to questions and responses and a lot of questions and short responses from probably 60 to 70 uncommitted members of the caucus. >> you tweeted out, excited to hear from jason chaffetz, kevin mccarthy and representative daniel webster. does the tea party caucus plan to make an endorsement? mr. huelskamp: as a member of the house freedom caucus we will continue to dust that. we have had a clear position of not being committed and we have

had a chance to interview these cappeds and get answers to questions as to either of these candidates would be any different than john boehner. these are questions that came in in the freshman class. we didn't get a chance to ask john boehner how he would work the house. these are questions long overdue and when you have 60% of republicans across america think republicans in washington have betrayed them and they have a lot of questions as well. we are moving everybody up the ladder and doing it as the establishment would have us do it. time for change and moving the house to reflect republican principles. >> what was your reaction to postponethe election to october 29? >> no one has 218 votes to be speaker and we will find that out when they announce the

speaker vote. there's not 218. this will be a month-long campaign. this is the first time in maybe a century where a speaker resigned without health or scandal concerns and john boehner didn't have 218. that is the issue of the day. the speaker runs the house and his on or her leadership determines how the republican party is viewed across america. and we are viewed very poorly because of the iron control of the house that spent more time attacking conservatives than it did on those on the other side of the aisle. >> the full side of the house will vote on october 29. is it your group's plan, the tea party caucus plan to hear from candidates for majority leader and from the whip candidates? >> that will happen in the future but the speaker comes first. that is the ultimate power position in the house.

and i don't want a case where the speaker stands before me as he did before the republican conference and said he has voted to do x thing in this case but he just couldn't get it done. i don't want a speaker mccarthy or speaker webster or speaker chafe et cetera said nothing good happened. we want specifics and the american people want specifics and how will they be different and include more members of the conference. i told the speaker, with all due respect, my voters are just as yours are in ohio and eric cantor's in virginia and should get an equal shot at the process whether you are republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, let's open the process up. and i think what we saw coming out of john boehner was could constrict and restrict and slow

down that process to control every maneuver and stands up two days before and says we can't do anything other than a short-term c.r. and became the 10th time that he teamed up with nancy pelosi to pass things that most republicans disagree with. >> this is a closed door meeting with the republicans only. what are these closed-door meetings for republican members? >> this is going to be unprecedented, rolling back to 2010, john boehner didn't have to face questions like that. i talked to kevin mccarthy and daniel webster and i want this meeting to be with many members there so we can hold whoever is speaker accountable to any pledges that are made.

it is past campaign rhetoric, but what are you going to do specifically to get our house in fiscal order. how are you going to restore the damage that john wrought. i would hope any candidate for speaker would stand up and say you know what, these super pacs won't be attacking sitting members of the house which john boehner did against me just a few months ago. that doesn't help the process and doesn't help build trust in the process and part of the american people believe that washington republicans have betrayed the republican party and that's a real thought and real feeling and real people are thinking. it showed up on the house floor where people said we need to make changes here. it's a good time to be republican. it's exciting and discussioned five years ago that the establishment refused us to

allow us to discuss. >> representing the first district of kansas. thanks for joining us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house is in about 50 minutes to work on 10 suspension bills. live coverage of the house when members come back in at 4:00 p.m. here on c-span. just learning this afternoon that the dean of the house, john dingell is in the hospital. "the detroit news" tweets out that former congressman john dingell has been admitted on monday. he followed this with his own tweet saying back in the hospital, being old sucks. ohio governor john kasich is one of the candidates vying for the 2016 presidential nomination and took part of a town hall in washington. we will show you as much as we

can until the house gavels back in at 4:00 p.m. host: good morning everybody or afternoon. welcome to the fourth presidential candidate question and answer session. as president and c.e.o. of the united states hispanic chamber of commerce, i have the honor of representing 4.1 million hispanic-owned businesses that contribute over $661 billion to our american economy. we also advocate on behalf of 250 major corporations and we do this through our network of over 200 local chambers and business associations nationwide.

while it represents the interests of businessmen and women who happen to be of hispanic descent, we never forget we are american businesses. and every tax bill we pay, every job we create, every product we manufacture and every service we provide goes to benefit this american economy. as an association that represents 4.1 billion hispanic business owners we have accountability to ensure their voices are heard by each candidate, not only as business leaders, but as taxpayers, campaign donors and ultimately as voters. that's why these events are so important. as i mentioned earlier, this session is the fourth in a series previously the organization has hosted senator cruz, governor o'malley and senator sanders for unique comments on their visions. we hosted governor jeb bush two

weeks ago on the same topics. today we are delighted to be joined by our next guest in these series. while this is the organization's first engagement with the governor, we have been watching his presidential campaign and familiar with his extensive body of work both in ohio and in congress. the organization's goal is quite simple. this forum is meant to set the record straight on a wide array of issues including jobs, the economy, the federal budget, immigration, national security, frankly issues that affect all americans. we'll spend 45 to 50 minutes and then we'll take a few questions from the audience. with that, i would like to welcome governor john kasich. [applause]

host: governor, let me start by first commending you for keeping your word and coming to talk to the hispanic community. unlike others in your party, you busy schedule especially with the third g.o.p. debate coming up. i want to thank you for talking to us and to kick things off -- governor kasich: why wouldn't i come? host: i want to get your take on the primary landscape. you have said before that no republican has ever won the white house without winning ohio. my question is, would a bit of home field advantage, what is your plan to become the nominee? governor kasich: the situation is it's a brilliant way in america to pick a president. you start over in iowa and that's the caucus, which is

different and big state, unpredictable what will happen over there. everything is volatile right now. after iowa we head to new hampshire. now new hampshire is 1.2 million people. that's like running for congress. so, there, you show up and very much like iowa, you do a lot of these town halls. i have done 18 of them and they poke you and they smell you and look at you in the eye and try to figure out who your what your experience level and most important understand their challengeses and problems. so we see a national polls, but national polls, we don't have a national primary, you go to iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and you move right along and there isn't any surprise that we consider new hampshire to be important, but not to the exclusion of all

other places. we are building out our infrastructure. and so in new hampshire, i'm very pleased, there is no question, we have the best organization there and organizations win. and in this whole business of the primary and national polls and all that, which really most important and i have run into a lot of political campaigns. you know, if you build a stage and has no scaffolding, the stage could collapse and we have seen that happen with a couple of people. what is most important is as you build that stage, you build the scaffolding so you have a solid foundation and that's the way i have always done it. and i'm having a great time. i show up here here and you thank me for coming. he'll do this and do that, i don't care what he does, let's just have some fun during the time we are here. host: a follow-up for you.

in the republican primary and the party i guess in general, there seem to be few factions, establishment candidates like yourself and outsider candidates like fiorina and carson. these outsiders have proven to be worthy opponents thus far any way and how do you as an establishment figure and some would call you a career politician, how do you convince voters to support you when many americans appear to be looking for someone who is going to disrupt the political norm in washington? governor kasich: i was sitting with bob walker, conservative, to trent lott and we are sitting out in a trailer in california , when looks at walker did we ever become rhinos. i was thinking when did i become

establishment. look from the time i got into politics all the way through where i am today there is no one i can think of who has consistently shaken up the status quo more than i have. you know what it's like to be a republican on the defense committee and limit the production of a weapons sect or effect procurement, you know what it's like to be an individual member of the house and be offering budgets against your own president, you know what it's like to fight against your own appropriations committee, you know what it's like to go to ohio and face the problems i had and say we're not raising taxes and shake the state from top to bottom and in your first year become the most unpopular governor in america because you are a change agent? what i can do is i know how to get it done. i not only want people to stand

on acorner and shout for change, so if you don't get it done, what's the point. i was with a congressman and blaming the senate for not able to pass their balanced budget out of the house. i said is it the failure of the senate or the failure of the house not to convince the senate what they ought to do. i have spent my life badgering eople and assisting in a cheefing. establishment from the standpoint that i know how to move the system, but you would have a lot of people laughing. you can operate in both worlds, it makes you pretty effective. because we need a lot of changes in this country. one time i had a bill to change corporate welfare and i said if are going to reform welfare

for rich people -- poor people, we ought to change welfare for rich people. i said what is so great if i didn't have this provision on corporate welfare, i would be serving the dinner and not eating the dinner, ok. host: let me talk a little bit about fiscal responsibility. you spent 18 years in congress and have been credited as one of the chief architects between balancing the budget way back in 1997 as the chair of the house budget committee. and we know that that is part of your resume. i believe you are proud of it and should be. so you probably have a unique insight on this issue. but right now, as we stand for every one dollar that the u.s. spends on children, generally, we spend $3 on seniors. according to the committee for a

responsible federal budget because of an aging population and you and i know about that, if we continue on this path, in about 10 years we will be spending something closer $4.50 for every one dollar we spend on a child. clearly the path is going to require some difficult decisions moving forward. my question is, if you become president, how will you work to make sure the government is making smart long-term investments like prioritizing kids while not bankrupting the rest of us? governor kasich: you have to have experience and knowledge at a point in time when the demographics are working against us. so, the situation is you don't want to pull the rug out from under seniors who become very dependent on benefits. on the other hand, you got to think about what you are going to do to stabilize the system.

back in 1999, i offered a proposal on social security that would have protected our seniors , would have started the baby boomers at a slightly lower rate in a way in which you calculate social security benefits and would have trickled down and would have given our young people a private account of 2% that would have been paid for out of the $5 trillion projected surplus that we had when i left congress. that thing sat there for 16 years. when you go to the doctor and the doctor says you've got a problem, i would assume let's deal with it now. in this town, you have a problem, you are burying their heads in the sand and blame

everyone else. when we look at social security now, the problem is a lot more severe. the consequences of delaying are going to be bigger. what i just said to you was pretty simple, would have fixed the program for many, many decades. we are now looking at -- and we will have many things to say. we have to figure out which brings the most equity to the seniors and young people. that will probably come a little bit later but soon i will be talking about medicaid and medicare. medicare is a critical program and running out of money. we are going to have things to say about this in the next couple of weeks, but there is nobody that balanced more budgets or proposed -- i have written 18 of them. in terms of young people like in our state, we have a medicaid issue for poor people. i expanded medicaid because i

wanted to make sure to help the mentally ill, addicted and working poor to be productive. we have dealt with medicaid which affects our seniors and we believe in early childhood education. so it's a question of balance. we are trying to control the costs of higher education. we invested a ton of money in k through 12 education. you can't ignore your young, we lieve in meantoring -- mentoring programs in school. it's all about balance. isn't life about balance and figuring out how to make it all work. i'm confident we can do that. and economic growth is the most important thing for everybody in this country. if you don't have economic growth, everything falls flat.

with economic growth, it's amazing how much more you can do help people. host: let me chat about medicaid and health care. as governor, you chose to expand medicaid contrary to what republican legislators in your state wished for. governor kasich: that's not really true. host: calling me a liar, governor? governor kasich: i'm not that guy. what happened was. let me tell you the story, i think it's a very interesting one. our head of mental health and drug rehab was in my office. and i looked at her because we had to make a decision about expanding medicaid and shes' a lady and on the help line and no the problems that people have and she's in my office and i said tracy, what do you think i'm going to do with the medicaid? she said i pray every night that you'll do it because there are

so many people in need. i said guess what, i'm going to expand medicaid. she walked out of my office and she broke down and cried of joy. and we did it for a couple of reasons. we have been able to control medicaid. it went from a 10% growth to 2 .5% growth without cutting one benefit or anybody off the rolls. this is the program that states have the hardest time being able to control. it's not that i'm such a great guy but i have great people working in the medicaid area. the mentally ill, do they belong in prison? i don't think so. if they are in prison, it costs $22,000 500 a year. if i get them on their medication and have the community work with them and not have them in jail and save money and then let them get a job where they become tax paying citizens and realizing their

god-given purpose or someone who is addicted to drugs and don't rehab them they come in and out of prison and we see them breaking into our home or die from an overdose, if we can get out of prison and the rate is less than 20%. the reside vism rate is 50% in the country. do they become productive or working poor or spend your time in the emergency room, we all pay there any way. so we give you comprehensive care. we believe over time it's a smart issue of math, but there's another issue. how about morality? how about a country that can embrace and help people get on their teat. that may not make a headline or make people happy. i'm not in this business to have

a headline but i want to make sure everyone has a chance to be lifted. if people don't want to expand medicaid, that's ok with me. but my question is, what are you going to do about the mentally ill or drug addicted. the legislate tur didn't want to vote on it, but the leadership of the legislate you are made sure that it happened. this time, the house and the . nate both approved expansion it's a long answer, but it's important to hear. host: i appreciate the compassion nature conservativism approach. governor kasich: we have drug courts. we don't fool around with that. this isn't a matter of just give, give, give. you have to accept personal responsibility. it's a sin not to help people

who need help but equally a sin to continue to help people who need to learn how to help themselves. so with these programs, we have a large element of personal responsibility in there. host: great answer. let me ask a little bit about your private sector experience. on wall street specifically. while some candidates boast about the private sector experience and other candidates boast about the public sector experience, you are someone who actually has both. in 2001 after about 18 years of congress you joined lay man brothers and you worked there until the firm's collapse in 2008 which many would say was the catalyst of the financial crisis. during the 2010 ohio gubernatorial race, your opponent, ted strickland, didn't

hold back because of your experience on wall street. one of the attack ads said that you, and i quote, got rich while ohio seniors lost millions. what would you say to voters who might be wondering if you were to become the president, would you have their best interests at heart? governor kasich: the guy that was attacking me lost the election, the first time in 36 years. operated a two man office in columbus, ohio. and my job was to travel around the country helping companies to get stronger to create jobs. i said if i could bankrupt the organization from a two-man office in columbus, ohio, i should be pope. there was great experience, because i got to really understand how job creators and business leaders and board of directors make decisions.

i spent time with google. you think i learned anything about innovation and how america is going to move forward? i worked in financial services undering the -- understanding the challenges. and i learned about not only the difficulties that they face on dumping from foreign companies and destroying jobs and markets, but the challenges that they have in terms of bringing heavy industry back to america. this was fantastic. but that's not all i did. i was on some boards and i talked but one of the things you need to know, i worked at fox news where i was a giant television star. [laughter] host: i was hoping for an autograph. governor kasich: i have tapes in the car. here's the situation, my father carried mail on his back. his father was a coal miner, my

ther's mother could barely speak english. if we didn't have immigration then, i probably would be running for president of croatia or something. i understand when wind blows the wrong way that people find themselves out of work. i lived with it. i was back in my hometown with nbc and they call it dad's great disappearing childhood. all the buildings i went to are knocked down. when you grow up like that, it's in your d.n.a. i think it's good to see all levels, all sides of society to get a real understanding of how lots of things work. host: let's talk a bit more about immigration. our association views immigration reform as an economic imperative that we

believe could unleash innovation, create new businesses, attract the world's best talent to our shores. and i sense you and i probably see eye to eye on that. however, where where i don't think see eye to eye is in this building of a wall and using that as a solution for fixing a broken immigration system. we know that the u.s.-mexico board is like 2,000 miles long and the "national journal" it would cost $6.4 billion and people will find a way to get around it, under it, above it, through it and very importantly, i would like to note that roughly half of our nation's undocumented immigrants are actually here by overstaying their visas and not through

illegal entry. the question is, with all of that said, how do you propose we fix our broken immigration system? and best harness what is good about the immigrant community and particularly immigrant entrepreneurs and how do we make that a competitive advantage for the american community? governor kasich: where do you live? host: dallas, texas and washington as well. governor kasich: do you lock your doors at night? host: yes. governor kasich: you don't want pim walking into your house. i voted for the 1986 reagan proposal. we never locked the doors. and a country that can't control its borders is a country that has a lot of chaos. the $6 billion they leave that much on the floor every night. it is a lot of money, but it isn't prohibitive and in terms of what we say, secure the

border, build a wall, there are technologies today that that can be just as effective as a physical wall, i mean with the ability to have crensors and drones. i think it is imperative that we control our border. that being said, i believe we ought to have effective guest worker program and people ought to come in and work and go back home. without an effective guest worker program, people will sneak back and forth. organized labor doesn't like an expanded guest worker program, but i favor it. and i have a lot of friends in organized labor but on this issue we should expand it so people are comfortable. secondly, once we have things in place, we don't want people coming over, if they come over, they have to go back. no excuses. they have to go back. and for those that are here law-abiding, god bless them,

they are critical part of our society, from doctors, engineers, lawyers -- i don't know if we need more of them, but teachers, whatever. then i think they should have a path to legalization. and that can pass. and when you talk about the visa issue, that's something we want to deal. the whole immigration has to be done in a way in which we address all the different elements. but the fundamentals are this. protect the border, guest worker, people who are here that have been law-abiding get to stay. i hear politicians say, well, the american people like they are speaking for the american people. my sense of the years that i have been involved in government is the public would accept this as a reasonable proposal and i think it could pass the congress. the idea that we are going to

pick these folks up and ship them out, that is unbelievable. what are we going to do, ride through neighborhoods and say come on out now, you are going to its border. it would send panic to our families. there are families that live in fear of being divided. could you imagine being a six or seven or eight-year-old kid and being told they are going to ship your dad out. that is not acceptable in america. and in terms of the whole immigration issue, we need to look -- should we broaden it? clean up the visas, but at the end of the day, people are here now, let them stay. so that is -- host: that is in sharp contrast to your party's front runner. governor kasich: i was telling you about building a stage with the scaffolding. if you don't have the scaffolding, the stage collapses.

i'm not worried about any of that. because, you know, when all is said and done people are going to pick somebody that they think is a reformer, can get the job done and can land the airplane. and somebody that understands their problems. i don't think about front runner now. cripe, i don't think that means much unless we were having a national primary tomorrow, which we're not. host: guest worker program, build a wall, don't worry about the noise? if you are a leader, you -- governor kasich: let me think about what you're saying and if what you are saying makes sense, i'll consider it. if it doesn't make sense because you scream loud, how are we going to run a country like that. you run the chamber, does members squak, do you cave into

them all the time? host: no. governor kasich: you don't? host: that's your second question. i have been experienced in asking questions especially with my daughters. here's the thing, we are a country of immigrants. many of us, right. what does the hispanic community do for us? god-fearing, common sense, hard-working, fantastic part of our group, part of who we are as americans and i don't care who is going to yell loud. when i go to town halls and they can yell at me, i don't have a problem here. part of the difficulty we have in this town is we don't have leaders who are willing to lead instead of reacting to yells the loudest. look at medicaid expansion, you

know how many people are yelling at me. i go to events where people yell at me. you know what i tell them, i said it's a book an old part and new part and put it together. it's a remarkable book. it talks about how we treat the poor. sometimes you have to lead. are the american people ready to put boots on the ground in the middle east? if we don't stop isis this becomes a direct threat to the united states. it doesn't mean you don't listen, but you cannot let the yelling and the screaming determine your decision making. host: point well made. i want to ask another follow-up because i haven't had enough of you yet. during the last r.g.a. conference, you openly expressed the willingness to create a

pathway to citizenship. governor kasich: i said it's not off the table. when you negotiate, you have to be careful of putting in absolutes, but i don't favor that. and the reason i don't favor it is that, i don't believe in jumping the line. you know, i don't believe that you out to be rewarded for jumping in front of somebody else who is waiting. my wife and i have a friend who nicaragua.go back to and she is really not happy with the fact that some people jumped the line in front of her. and i just don't think you want to reward people that do the jump. so a path to legalization to me is really the appropriate way. as far as i would want to go, i just want you to know that you have to be very careful. we have people here, candidates,

slam this on the table, this is the way it's going to be. and one of the things -- newt gingrich told me one time when i was arguing with somebody, he said, you know, john, maybe you ought to figure out how to use your skills to unlock them. knocking pieces off the chest board doesn't -- chess board. you have to be careful what you do and what you say. st: just a few thoughts on birthright citizenship. where are you? >> if you are born here, you are a citizen. that's what i favor. i'm not going to change the 14th amendment. i can't get a balanced budget amendment through, although i will when i become president. host: i want to talk about the

hispanic electorate. in 2012, president obama garnered about 72% of the hispanic vote. and i had a conversation -- governor kasich: why was that? st: pause because you paid attention. the point i made to the president never has the electorate played a historic role and never again will an american president win without openly courting the hispanic ote. 58,000 brand new voters every month and that's going to be the case for the next 21 years in the row. in fairness, hispanics comprise 3% of ohio's overall population,

i understand if you don't have an extensive track record with the hispanic community. but with all of that said as ap presidential candidate, what will you do to attract and electrify the hispanic vote? governor kasich: we just appointed a hispanic judge. we have a very sensitive issue on collaborative police in community. i have a hispanic that i asked to serve on the subsequent board. we appoint people to the university boards. we have one on the state department of education that i just -- that is just beginning to serve there. you have to be inclusive. i not only feel this way about hispanics and african-americans and i spend a lot of effort in ohio to make sure everybody feels they have the opportunity to rise.

and it's -- i also don't think about this from the standpoint of segments there this segment and that segment but americans who have the same hopes and dreams. every mother when she holds a baby has big hopes and dreams for that baby and everybody ought to feel they are included. part of the problem in our country people feel like they don't feel included. as the president, i want to be able -- to be in a position where everybody has the opportunity to hold major posts and major positions and to me it's not even about -- what is that? i mean that's boring, i'm going to appoint you so i can a vote. why don't we appoint people so they can rise. that doesn't mean you look for certain opportunities to make sure you have a society that

everyone feels they are included. not because i want a vote. i don't know if you notice this or not. none of us are going to get out of this place alive. [laughter] governor kasich: remember what the pope said, incredible, wonderful visit from the hole -- holy father. there will be an accounting for what we did on this earth. if we are offering opportunity for everyone that's really good. that's why we do it, not because we are going to get something out of it. it's just the right thing to do. host: point well made, sir. as a bit of a follow-up. i think we all know that words matter. and a few weeks ago, you made a comment about tipping the hotel maid when talking about the

hispanic community that some would say feeds into stereotypes and hillary clinton tweeted -- governor kasich: she's petrified she'll run against me in november. i have to get through the primary to do it. host: and i quote, another product of the party of trump, john kasich talking about latinos doesn't mean just talking about tips. by the way, i went on the record when i was asked and i said i believe that it was a bit awkward, i thought you were a decent man and your comment was well intentioned. so what's your take on all of this, governor, and can you clarify the role that you think hispanics play in an american economy of the future? governor kasich: this is why you can't take this business of running for president too

seriously. let me tell you what happens. i'm in my hotel room and this lady writes me a beautiful note. i don't know who she is and here's what the note says. i really care about your stay in this hotel. what a nice thing for somebody to write and she drew a picture and little flowers on the tree. when you run for president or when you're governor or when you're quote in one of these big positions, your life can move at about 100 miles an hour. and mine sometimes moves at 100 miles an hour. i'm grateful for the fact that for whatever reason -- i'm not telling you i got this figured out but the lord has laid on me the notion that everybody is so important and everybody matters. and so that's really what i was commenting. i was in new hampshire not long ago where i saw a woman doing

some unbelievable housekeeping chores and i said you are just wonderful. what i do think about the role of hispanics? i think they can do everything and anything in this society. so people want to take things and drive divisions, but that's really -- i don't understand that. don't you have better things to do? and me as a candidate, things that i have said about the community have been very, very inclusive, very respectful. so i think hispanics from top to bottom play enormous roles in our society. but you know what? i'm glad i slowed down to notice that lady. rother lawrence, he is a great theologian. he was a dish washer. when he washed dishes, he

prayed. hen i get to heff and, i'm going to see him. the lord looks at what is in our heart and rewards us that way. host: all work is good then? governor kasich: all work is noble and dignity. host: many would assume that ohio's largest industry is manufacturing but according to the ohio farm bureau, it appears that agriculture is in fact ohio's top industry. agriculture contributes like $108 billion to the state's economy and there are literally like 75,000 farms in your state. now i'm in america -- american and i was born in this country, migrant g up i was a

farm worker, i worked in the sun, no coffee break, no child labor laws. you are working from sun up to sun down, no holiday pay. if you wanted shade, you put on a hat. there were no bathrooms, no running water and if i wanted a drink of water, i had to pay a nickel for a laid will of water. governor kasich: what do you think i think about that? host: i know firsthand the abuses that are suffered by our country's agriculture workers. with that said and i bring this up because back in april this year "columbus dispatch" conducted a report ranking ohio as dead last among all 50 states for having policies and laws to support the health and well-being of agricultural workers many of whom are

immigrants, who i believe can be found right now contributing to ohio's largest industry. now governor, you have been pegged at times as a compassion nature conservative and i believe you are and you don't shy away admitting your views on immigration and a number of things are evolving over time. as president, what do you say to what's going on in ohio and how would you ensure that all of america's working poor are treated fairly and decently as the president of the united states? governor kasich: what you told me is news to me. a lot of times things come out and when you get under the hood, you find out they're not true. i promise you i will have an understanding of what the situation is in ohio. my father would on carry mail on

his back and he'd go house to house. he would be there in all the weather conditions. he never made a lot of money. his father was a coal miner who died of black lung and lost a lot of vision in his eye. my uncles when the time came for them to get their pensions, the plants shut down. these gin justices are not appropriate and i'll find out exactly what the situation is. but in no way, shape or form do i think people ought to be abused, that there shouldn't be child labor laws and people shouldn't be treated with respect. i'm somebody who is not at war with organized labor. i have had my problems with them but i made it clear as long as we work together, we'll be fine. i will find out what's going on in that front and we'll deal with it. we don't let things like that

stand. sometimes things are more complicated than they appear on the surface, but we'll dig into this. let me also tell you so people here know, ohio isn't just agriculture and manufacturing, but now i.t. and medical devices and financial services and logistics. ohio is a different state than what you perceive it to be because we have diversified the state. host: i completely agree. on the marriage equality, during the first g.o.p. debate and i was watching and i think you did an amazing job, you were applauded on how you would explain to your child your opposition to same-sex marriage while talking about god's unconditional love and how that should be applied to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. you stated when it comes to gay marriage, and i quote, the court

has ruled and will accept it. i want more clarity on the phrase will accept it. a recent pew report shows 56% of americans today support same-sex marriage is it your view the g.o.p. you should be more cognizant and more accepting and not fight the supreme court ruling? governor kasich: i'm not fighting it and we have an amendment in ohio, but it's decided. so we've moved on from that and i don't support gay marriage. all my friends number of whom are gay and understand that. but it's ok, we move on. and one of the guys that used to work for me who is a friend of mine, i went to his wedding. i said to my wife. what do you think? she said i'm there whether you go or not. it was good. let me say something because

it's the appropriate time. there was an incredible article in the "wall street journal" on saturday in the review section of the paper about the growing drift of the west towards a secular society and how people are always trying to pursue happiness and wealth and comfort and what we're finding this aguess i have search for a secular society isn't working, because you know what? embedded in all of us is a sense of meaning. now i mentioned god and faith and all that several times. i think the pope did it best when he said we should focus on the dos and not the don'ts and people got excited about the potential of religion which is about grace, hope and purpose and living beyond yourself. but there's a bigger issue here.

when the west becomes a fully secularized society, how are we supposed to operate in a free society when everybody wants to pursue things their own way with two guys walking across a bridge, who gets knocked off, what is the appropriate way for us to guide ourselves with the absence of laws? and if we become a secular society without a sense that there is a set of expectations, morals, that are set on high that should guide us, then who's right and who's wrong becomes completely subjective. i don't think that is how we would have the best society. i don't think hispanics would believe that. because i think they believe and i think most americans -- there's a change going on in america. all i'm suggesting to you is this, if we become secularists

and face radical islam and can't renight with the muslim, christian and jewish community to espouse a set of values that is the true way for human beings to conduct their lives and live their lives, we will be at a very severe crisis point. so i don't want anybody to try -- well, they will, i'm just saying to you, the sense of right and wrong that comes from the great religions is something that the west should begin to pay attention to and not continue to drive towards a totally secular society. it's very dangerous for our children and our culture. host: point well made. governor kasich: you didn't hear -- expect to hear that today. host: something we need to talk about. let's talk about the economy. i think this is an issue that

all americans, not just a hispanic issue, but americans care about the jobs in this country and care about the continued well-being of our community and our organization stands for a free market economy so entrepreneurs can pursue their dreams with limited overnment interintervention. 4.1 million are contributing to our economy. at the forefront of economic growth, we are starting new ventures three to one. with all of this as president, how would you continue to spur the growth of all american businesses, but specifically hispanic and minority-owned businesses? governor kasich: i want all hispanic businesses to move to ohio, ok? d the reason is in our state

-- now we have multiple firms. any way, we have no income tax on virtually all small businesses in our state. here's what the problem is. if you don't have economic growth, it stunts your ability to reach out to do creative things. it's just a fact. if mom and dad are in a financial bind, the kids don't do as well. when mom and dad do well, the kids do better, so does the country. first of all, we have a nightmare -- twt, at 59 p.m. appotment, sociasecuri

advisory ardsigned, sincerely, karen l haas. the spr pro tempor pursut to clause 8 of rul 20, the chair willostpon further preedings today on motions toend the ruleon whh a recordd votethe yeas and nays are order or onch the vote incurs objectder clau 6f rule 20. record votes on postpone questions will b taken later. forpurposs the gentlemafrom t see recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move suspen the rules a pass the bill h.1, tamen the fair credit reporting act, clarify t abity to request cosumer repos in certain to estaish an enforce child support yments and awards. cler will rrthe tit of the ll. the clerk: h.r. 2091, a bill to ac to clary the aty to quest consumer reports in ceain cas,o esta and enforce child support payments and awards. thpeaker pro tempo: pursuant to theule, t geleman omexas, . ugebauer, and the gentlewoman

from, no, mrs. maloney, each will contro20es. thhar recoizes the gentleman from texas. mr neugebauer: mr. speaker, i asunanimoucsent tt a meers may have five legiative in which to revind extd and include extraneous material on the this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2091, my friend and colleague, mr. pocan of maine, has worked hard to build a significant bipartisan support for this commonsense legislation. it passed out of the financial services committee with a vote of 56-2. mr. speaker, it's important to remember that most child support payments are collected from noncustodial parents through income withholding. in order to verify income, as ets and debt, state and local child support agencies and courts often request consumer reports from the consumer reporting agencies.

state and local child support -- state and local child support agencies argue that the 10-day notice provision provides for obligaters with an opportunity to hide savings in other assets, run up credit card debt and take other financial or employment action as to avoid or reduce child support payments. this bill authorizes a consumer reporting agency to furnish a consumer report in response to a request by the head of the state or local child support enforcement agency. if the requester serlt fu is that -- certifies that a report is needed. the bill also repeals the requirement of 10 days' prior notice to a consumer whose report is requested. mr. speaker, this is a commonsense piece of legislation and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume.

and i support h.r. 2091, the child support assistance act, because it will help child support enforcement agencies do their job. and will make child support payments more efficient. when a state child support enforcement agency wants to locate a parent who is delinquent on his or her child support payment, the agency requests the parent's consumer report from one of the consumer reporting agencies. this allows the agency to verify the parent's employment and income. which are key factors for child support payments. however, current law requires the agency to provide the delinquent parent 10 days' notice before it can even request the consumer report from the credit bureaus. this 10-day head start serves no legitimate had policy purpose.

in fact, the only thing it does is give delinquent parents time to manipulate their financial position to evade paying their child support obligations. the consequences of this 10-day notice requirement is that some delinquent parents who should be paying child support are not paying all they owe and the money they do pay isn't getting to the families as quickly as it should. this bill would eliminate this loophole by doing away with the 10-day notice requirement. providing 10 days' notice before pulling someone's consumer report might make sense in some circumstances, but in this situation it only slows down the wheels of justice and gives delinquent parents an opportunity to further avoid paying their child support obligations. so i support this bill that was reported out almost unanimously with only two people voting against it, and i'd like to thank my colleague from maine,

mr. poliquin, as well as mr. ellison on the democratic side for their hard work on this commonsense bill. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to yield to mr. poliquin, the gentleman from maine. i appreciate his efforts. with that i yield him five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognized for five minutes. mr. poliquin: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you very much, mr. chair. i am thrilled to stand before the house today as the author of the child support assistance act, h.r. 2091. across america today we have 17 million kids coast-to-coast who benefit from the child support program. in our great state of maine alone, there are some 57,000 kids who need our help. as a single parent myself, i

believe that the most important job in the world is taking care of our kids. unfortunately not every parent believes that. after a court determines that a noncustodial parent owes financial support for his or her children, there currently is, as mrs. maloney stated, a 10-day waiting period between the time when the court determines that money is owed for the kids and when the state agencies can start collecting that money. as a result here across america, there's about $100 billion in unpaid child support coast-to-coast. in the state of maine alone there's over $500 million that's owed our kids. so this bill, h.r. 2091, the child support assistance act, fixes a technical part of this law that is a commonsense fix.

as mrs. maloney stated, it removes this 10-day waiting period. what that simply means is that a parent that is supposed to be responsible for his or her children will have less of an opportunity, less time, to shift those assets or hide those assets, put them in the name of someone else, or quit his or her job and be paid under the table. that is not right and that is certainly not fair. we need in this chamber, republicans and democrats, to stand up and be compassionate and to help those 17 million kids across our country that need this support. as a single parent myself, i know what it's like to work a demanding full time job and to care for a child. in my case, it was one child, my son. i know what it's like to pick up my son after school and then to rush off to the grocery

store and to do our shopping, get home quickly so i can start dinner and he can start working on his homework. and when that's done we have to clean up and i expect sammy to do his reading or i read to him . and then it's a bath, into bed. then while you're working on peanut butter and jelly swands witches for the next day -- and switches for the next day and thinking -- sand wishes for the next day and think -- sandwiches for the next day and thinking about your own job, you have a few hours' sleep before you do it all over again. i can't imagine, mr. chair, what it must be like for a single mom or dad to do this with two, three, four kids. the last thing our schip sing the parents need is to -- the last thing our single parents need is to worry about child support payments that they're rightly owed that the court says they are due, to help their kids, put food on the table or buy a new pair of winter boots or to make sure there's lunch money the next day. in this chamber, mr. chair, we

speak about a lot of things. debt and spending and national security issues. but this bill is so close to the ground that it directly, it immediately will help our kids and our single parents who are trying to raise our kids under very difficult circumstances for a lot of them. so i am thrilled to offer this bill, mr. speaker. i am greatly appreciative of the tremendous bipartisan support and i do thank mr. ellison for all of his hard work on this bill and i do yield my time and encourage everybody to please support the child support assistance act. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i just urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill that mr. poliquin pointed out can make a real difference in the lives of single parents and their children and, again, i

thank him for his leadership on this and -- on it and his very eloquent statement today on the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i have no other -- i'm sorry. yeah. we do. we have the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello, i yield to him for two minutes. mr. costello: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. too many children grow up in today's society without basic essentials. food, clothing, proper shelter. and many times this is the result of a lack of child support payments from an estranged parent. i have a young boy and i can tell you, he takes a lot of energy out of my wife and i and we do everything we can to support him to our fullest, with love and all the basic essentials. but not all children are that lucky. d some are due child support payments that they don't

receive. and i know our local district attorneys do a lot in furtherance and sheriff's departments do a lot in furtherance of collecting those child support payments. but congressman poliquin's commonsense measure here, the child support assistance act, is going to help state and local enforcement agencies aid families in collecting child support payments in a timely manner. how's that going to happen? it's going allow enforcement agency as to obtain consumer obtain -- agency as onsumer reports -- agencies to obtain consumer reports. i believe representative poliquin stated it very eloquently just a moment ago. this is something that we can all get behind, it's for the good of this country, it's for the good of children across america and let's be proud as we ensure our children have the resources to succeed with this legislation being a positive step in the right direction. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2091. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. neugebauer: i move to swent rules and pass the bill -- suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1553. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 212, h.r. 1553, a bill to amend the federal deposit insurance act to specify which smaller institutions may qualify for an 18-month examination cycle. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. . mr. neugebauer: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i'd like to thank representative tipton for his hard work in advocating for our ommunity bank regulatory relief. this is a commonsense regulatory relief measure that has earned significant bipartisan support. it was reported out of the financial services committee with by a vote of 58-0. this legislation is designed to allow additional well-managed financial institutions to qualify for an 18-month exam cycle. the longer exam sigel permits community banks to focus their time and resources on the surrounding community rather than on the exam process. this bill also allows bank

examiners by working with banks that need additional attention rather than banks that are considered well-managed. to qualify, an institution must have total assets of less than $1 billion and the most recent examination it must earned and outstanding or good rating under the uniformed financial institutions rating system. so only smaller, well-regulated financial institutions who pose very little risk would qualify to extend over the extending examine cycles. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: i rise in support of h.r. 1553, the small bank exam cycle reform act. this bill allows more small banks to qualify for a longer 18-month exam cycle. this mean that these banks would only have a fall onsite examination every 18 months

rather than every 12 months. the logic behind this bill is simple. small community banks that are both well-capitalized and well-managed do not need as much regulatory scrutiny as larger, more complex banks. in addition, regulators need the ability to focus their limited resources on the banks that present bigger risks. that's why we have long allowed well-run small banks to have less frequent examinations than larger, more complex banks. this bill simply increases the threshold for banks that qualify for the 18-month cycle from $500 million to $1 billion. onsite examinations are time consumer endeavors, both for the regulator and the bank, and if the regulator is conducting exams of these well-run banks more frequently than he really needs to, then he is wasting precious government resources. in addition, he is also wasting

the banks' resources because the frequent exams requires the time and attention of the bank's executives and staffs and it is costly. therefore, banks with assets between $500 million and $1 billion that are well-capitalized and well-managed will receive real meaningful regulatory relief as a result of this bill. not only is this bill supported by small banks, it is also supported by the regulators,. the o.c.c. has in fact advocated for this change for sometime now. i'm very glad that we are moving this bill through the house today, and i hope that the senate will act quickly on the bill as well so that we can get regulatory relief to some very deserving community banks. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. and i congratulate my colleague, lacy clay, for also being the lead democrat in working very hard on this bill.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman neugebauer, for this time. mr. speaker, community banks are a crucial source of credit for many across the nation. these banks are currently facing an ever-increasing regulatory burden that they can no longer shoulder. these misguided regulations are resulting in a devastating impact on small banks, forcing consolidation or failure and stifling creation of new banks in communities that need access to credit. in rural areas, such as my district in western colorado, oftentimes the only access to credit for small businesses is the community bank. unfortunately, rising compliance costs and complicated regulatory requirements have dried up bank credit for those in need of that most. for these reasons, i introduced, along with representative lacy clay and representative barr, the small

bank exam cycle reform act, a targeted relief effort designed to allow well-managed financial institutions to qualify for 18-month exam cycles. full scope, onsite examinations have ensured depository institutions are a rigorous event for banks of all sizes, especially small banks that may not have dedicated compliance staff. they require significant preparation leading up to the examination as well as the attention to the onsite examiner during the exam itself. whereas larger banks can absorb the work hours associated with these onsite examinations, community banks, much smaller institutions do not have the economy of scale to deflect the burden. however, a longer exam cycle permits well-run community banks to focus their time and resources on the surrounding community rather than on the exam process. opening up opportunities for sustainable economic growth in towns across the united states. the small bank exam cycle

reform act amends the federal deposit insurance act to increase the qualifying asset threshold from $500 million to $1 billion for small banks. this relief is only for well-managed community banks that did not cause the financial crisis but are now living with regulatory blowback. as part of the examination process, financial regulators rate financial institutions on several criteria, including safety and soundness and their compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. to qualify for the 18-month exam cycle, an institution must have earned an outstanding or good rating on their most recent examination. only smaller, well-rated banks, those which pose little risk, can qualify for the extended exam cycles. the banking regulators also support an increase in the qualifying asset threshold. in february, the office of the comptroller of the currency, sent draft legislative ideas for regulatory relief to the house financial services committee. including a proposal that is

the framework for h.r. 1553. the comptroller of the currency, thomas curry, publicly stated, such a change would reduce burdens on well-managed community institutions. it also is applauded by the fdic and the o.c.c. during committee hearings early this spring. not only will this legislation provide relief for community banks, it also will allow examiners to focus their resources, working with banks that need the additional attention or present supervisory concern. this bipartisan legislation enjoys the support of the american bankers association, the community bankers association, the conference of the state banks, supervisors, small business, entrepreneurship council as well as 19 bipartisan co-sponsors. the legislation was voted out of the financial services committee with unanimous 58-0 vote. congress last raised the threshold for outstanding rated institutions in 2006 and granted agencies discretion to increase the threshold for

good-rated institutions in 2007. it is time again to raise the threshold in statute so these small banks can continue to serve their important purpose in our communities, providing capital for small business growth and banking products for their local communities. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i yield two minutes to congressman lacy clay from the great state of missouri, who is also the ranking member on the financial institutions subcommittee and the ranking democrat, lead democrat on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank my colleague from new york for yielding. and i, too, rise today to support h.r. 1553, the small bank exam cycle reform act. i'd also like to commend my --

the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, as well as mr. barr for their leadership on this important issue. the overwhelming majority of banks in this country are community banks with less than $1 billion in assets. as the regulatory landscape has evolved for the nation's financial institutions since the financial crisis, i have worked with my colleagues on the financial services committee to ensure that our mmunity banks are not unduly burdened. h.r. 1553 is a part of that effort as it will extend much-needed relief to main street banks by allowing well-managed, well-capitalized community banks an opportunity to take advantage of an extended 18-month examination cycle. while bank examinations are vital to the safety and

soundness of the american banking system, the time and resources that banks put into preparing for and responding to examinations c be extremely time consuming, particularly for smaller banks with limited staff and resources that cannot afford to divert key personnel away from their core business in order to prepare for examinations. h.r. 1553 also allows banking regulators to better allocate their resources to financial institutions that warrant additional attention and away from community banks that have otherwise demonstrated that they are soundly managed and well-capitalized. i have heard from community bankers in missouri and from across the country that straightforward, bipartisan, commonsense regulatory relief

proposals like h.r. 1553 can contribute significantly to community banks' ability to lend to main street businesses and reinvest in our community. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i yield the gentleman as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clay: thank you. and i look forward to working with mr. tipton and with my other colleagues on the financial services committee to find additional opportunities to enact targeted relief for our community banks. and i would urge my colleagues to adopt h.r. 1553 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves her time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, i would like to inquire whether the lady has any more witnesses. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i do not have any other witnesses, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas is

recognized. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a commonsense piece of legislation. you talk about bipartisan when it passes out of your committee with no opposition, that's the kind of bipartisan support. and i think that says a lot about how important community banks are to america and how important this congress thinks that community banks are. the fact that these organizations that are well-managed and have good atings will have to get an examination every three years only have to have two of them rather than having three of them every year. i encourage support, and with that i have no further witnesses and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1553. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, -- the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. neugebauer: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays

will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> good afternoon. mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1525, to require the s.e.c., the securities and exchange commission, to make certain improvements to form 10-k and regulation s-k and for other such purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1552, a bill to require the securities and exchange commission to make certain improvements to form 10-k and regulation s-k, and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: thank you, mr. speaker. and i now ask for unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks and include additionally extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. garrett: and mr. speaker, now at this point, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: so thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, i want to thank the chairman of the financial services committee, and that would be the gentleman from texas, mr. jeb hensarling, for his leadership in helping bring a number of bills as we've just seen to the floor today. i'd also like to thank all of my colleagues on the financial

services committee from both sides of the aisle, obviously both sides because we have voted unanimously for the disclosure modernization and simplification act out of committee, not just once but twice when you include passage of last year as well. i'd also like to add this legislation passed the legislation by voice vote in december of 2014. so, yes, what is the purpose of this bill and why is it necessary? well, mr. speaker, look, if you step back about eight decades ago, congress made the monumental decision in this country that disclosure, opening up and trarns parentsy would be the centerpiece of our nation's security law. see, instead of carving out a merit review system where the federal government determined which companies were allowed to put our money into, congress wisely went down the other road and decided that those decisions would be best made, where, in the habbeds of the people, in the hands of the investors themselves so long as they provided a sufficient level of disclosure from

publicly traded conditions. . unfortunately over the last adda eight decades since the laws were first put into place, the reports filed by the public companies have grown and a they've grown in size tremendously. larger and more complex than ever, to the point now where the most sophisticated of investors interest trouble understanding even the most basic operations and risks of these companies. this has become to be known as a phenomena of information overload. to put this in perspectivive. a recent article noted that the average annual report from public companies is now 42,000 words, a 40% increase just from the year 2000 alone, and even longer than the entire sarbanes-oxley bill that passed congress in 2002. another recent report found that only 38% of institutional investors view disclosures about executive compensation as, quote, easy to understand. so if you think about it, if the majority of institutional investors can't understand the

disclosure, what chance does the little guy have, the mom and pop investor have to understand all of this? they have very little chance. and can even be harmed by the by business -- by the disclosure. and then the s.e.c. commissioner has put it this way back in 2013. he said, quote, if investors are overloaded, more disclosure actually can result in less transparency and more decisions and worse decisions in which case capital's allocated less efficiently and market discipline is compromised, end quote. what would our bill do today? it would rectify the situation. how? one, it would require the s.e.c. eliminate any outdated or duplicative disclosure requirements are a thank are not material to investors -- that are not material to investors and slow mergers. two, it would allow issuers to file a summary page of their annual report that would include simply cross references to the material already included.

and three, it would require the s.e.c. to produce a broad study on how best to, among all the other things like utilize technology, in order to improve delivery, and presentations systems for disclosure, and also a requirement that the s.e.c. commence a rulemaking in order to implement some of these ideas that come out of the study. you see, these provisions will help our disclosure regime of the 21st century while at the same time address shoot of information overload that i mentioned before. if you go back, as part of the jobs act, congress erected the s.e.c. to review its existing disclosure requirements and it was told to identify ways to make our current disclosure regime less burdensome for issuers and for people as investors. while the s.e.c. produced a report that identified a number of obsolete things and duplicative requirements that could be addressed, unfortunately the agency has yet to act upon them. this despite an ongoing

disclosure effectiveness review that has so far only produced a concept relief. so in the end it's important that this congress come here today and act upon and on behalf of all the american investors, all the people in this country in order to keep the original intent of securities laws relevant today and ensure that the effective disclosure remains the very centerpiece of the capital markets. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i rise today in support of h.r. 1839, which is an excellent example of bipartisan commo price that i think we should do more of -- compromise that i think we should do more of and i'd like to thank -- wait main. i'm on the wrong bill -- wait a minute. i'm on the wrong bill. mr. garrett, i apologize. i jumped ahead of my bill. i really rise also in support of this bill and thank mr.

garrett for his hard work. we worked together on this in the last congress and i added an amendment to improve the bill in the markup last year. markets are constantly evolving and so too must our regulatory regime. this is spr especially true when it comes to reporting requirements for small public companies. the process of scaling and streamlining the reporting requirements for these small companies is something that in order to keep pace with the ever-evolving marketplace has historically been revisited roughly once every 10 years. it requires vigilance by the s.e.c. and also by congress. the disclosure modernization and simplification act directs the s.e.c. to simplify the reporting requirements for small companies in regulation s.k. first the s.e.c. would be required to revise regulation

s.k., to make -- to take care of any low-hanging fruit, that is, make any improvements to regulation s.k., and if they have already identified -- that they have already identified as helpful to small companies. next the s.e.c. would conduct a study of the best way to simplify and modernize the disclosure requirements in regulation s.k., while still providing all the necessary information to investors and to also make specific detailed recommendations to congress for how to achieve this. finally, the bill allows companies to submit a summary page on their form 10-k annual reports in order to make these annual reports easier to understand by investors. in testimony before the financial services committee last year, columbia professor called the idea, and i quote, simple and unobjectionable, end quote. and said that he didn't see how anyone could be opposed to it,

end quote. i agree that this is a commonsense idea that could make lengthy annual reports, which are often hundreds of pages long, and difficult to navigate, significantly more investor-friendly. so i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i thank my colleague, mr. garrett, for his leadership, he's worked on this for several congresses and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i thank the speaker. does the gentlelady have any other speakers? if not, does she want to yield? mrs. maloney: i have no additional speakers so i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i thank -- first of all, i thank the gentlelady from new york for working with us today and also working with us over the last several years as well. trying to move this along. and as you said, as i've said, this is a vote on those proverbial commonsense piece of legislation and if anyone got

confused by all the technical terms that you and i used here, at the end of the day it means, whether you are sophisticated institutional investor or whether you're a mom and pop type of investor or you're something in between, you just want to have clarity, you just want to understand what these reports, all these hundreds of pages of annual reports and quarterly reports are and that's what this bill does it. makes it a little bit simpler and then directs the s.e.c. to go even a step further to develop other ways to do so as well. so with that i look forward to passing this out of this house now for the third time, i believe, send it over to the senate and hopefully get some action in the senate and put it on the president's desk. with that i encourage members from both sides of the aisle to once again out of the house and into the senate and i yield back to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1525. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. garrett: again, thank you, mr. speaker. i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1839 as amended, to amend the securities act of 1933, to exempt certain transactions involving purchases of accredited investors by incredited investors and by other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 213, h.r. 1839, a bill to amend the securities act of 1933, to exempt certain transactions involving purchases by accredited investors and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and

extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. garrett: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: thank you. yes, thank you, mr. speaker. i want to again commend the sponsor of this bill, mr. mchenry of north carolina, who just joined us, for all of his work on this bill and the earlier bills as well. for his continued work on . pital formation issues see, mr. speaker, there's no doubt that the jobs act of 2012 has been a tremendous -- has been a huge success for the american public and the public marketplace. the number of companies that has gone public has risen dramatically ever since, ever since the barriers to capital formation that existed for several years had been lifted, if you will, helping to make our capital markets more attractive to companies and investors in the united states and all around the world as well. but the jobs act also did something else.

somewhat ironically. it included a number of provisions to help companies to stay private for a longer period of time. you see, these provisions have allowed pre-i.p.o. companies to expand their investor base, if you, will and have allowed them to open up the doors to capital that they were previously shut out to. as these companies raise more capital and as these companies issue more shares to investors, it can become even more difficult and even more costly for shareholders to find a willing buyer or to exit their position in that company. that is what this bill is all about. that's what 1830, the raise act, would come in. you see, the rays act would build upon the success of the jobs act of 2012 by creating an environment, if you, will where restrictive securities, of pre-i.p.o. companies, can be traded in a more liquid secondary market. which then could ultimately have the effect of lowering the cost of capital for businesses, so the raise act a does this by

codifying the long stnding -- act does this by codifying the long standing exemmingtses that would provide a means for the resale, if will you, of these private restrictive securities. now, for those just listening here, this sounds a little bit technical, maybe it sound as lot technical, to be effective. but really it's a simple fix. it's a simple fix that could ultimately have the effect of helping literally thousands of businesses all across this country to do what? to raise more capital and put it to use. to put it to use to innovating and hiring more employees. that is, at the end of the day, exactly the type of bipartisan solution our constituents are calling on congress to implement. and i urge all a of my colleagues -- all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the underlying bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. maloney: i rise today in support of h.r. 1839, which is an excellent example of

bipartisan compromise, because i think we should do more of in this body. and i'd like to thank mr. mchenry and ranking member waters for all of their work on this bill. on which i'm pleased to be the lead democrat. this bill codifies a long standing rule that has been recognized in securities law, known informally as rule 41 1/2. which allows investors to resell private restricted securities without registering with the s.e.c. rule 41 1/2 has long been recognized by the s.e.c. and has been recognized by the federal courts on numerous occasions as well. but no one has ever bothered to codify this rule. even though everyone is ok with it and supports it, win investors relying on this informal rule. and the reason that the s.e.c. and the courts have long recognized this rule is that it fully demries -- complies with the spirit of the securities act of 1933.

these sales are really just transactions between two sophisticated investors. as a result, different law firm have different interpretations what have rule 41 1/2 requires and the market has become a very -- has become very fragmented. so i think it's a very good idea to finally codify rule 41 1/2 so that everyone knows the rules of the road and investors can have confidence that they are complying with the law, when they resell private securities to other sophisticated investors. but this bill doesn't just codify rule 41 1/2 it. actually improves upon it by establishing minimum standards for disclosure, marketing and a holding period that will protect investors, foster transparency and make this market even stronger. this bill addresses several concerns that we heard from investor groups and regulators. first, it requires that the seller provide the buyer with

some basic information about the company, which ensures that buyers have the standard information they need before making an investment decision. second, it prohibits bad actors such as people who have been banned from the securities industry, from taking advantage of the rule. and third it prohibits the securities of shell companies from being sold under this new le for 1 1/2 conscious rule, 41 1/2. so i'm pleased we were able to work together with mr. mchenry on this bill and we were able to add these important investors protections because now we have a bill that will enjoy strong bipartisan support . i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. there are no other -- well, i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized.

mr. garrett: and, again, i thank the gentlelady from new york. at this time i'd like to yield to the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from north carolina, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i -- mr. mchenry: i want to thank mrs. maloney for working with me on the provisions that we have been talking about this afternoon. and i want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, ms. waters, for working with us on the compromise we have on the floor today. i join with my colleagues from ross the aisle, which is advisal for adding liquidity to secondary markets and driving growth. today, private growth companies are not only disrupting existing industries but are creating entirely new markets. thanks to the private markets,

in particular, the advancement in american technology and entrepreneurship is thriving. funding the growth of these private companies, however, has created a new paradigm, a paradigm shift, if you will, shift that requires our regulatory framework to achieve a balance between encouraging innovation and growth while ensuring that shareholders and investors are protected. and that needs to remain strong. those investor protections need to remain strong. unfortunately, as successful entrepreneurs and startup employees look to sell their private shares they require a regulatory framework that inefficient, that inefficiency is costly and drives up liquid its and is harmful to growth. most rely on a broadly .1 1/2. n as section 4

s.e.c. letters have shaped these private secondary transactions. our bill attempts to fix this problem. the bill would provide an exemption for these types of transactions, allowing startup employees the ability to execute trade in a way that's consistent, clear and certain. that's why we have federal securities laws for that certainty, that clarity and that consistency, and it would allow for private companies to find a much better way to raise capital by opening up the secondary markets. although the bill is a technical fix, we've worked hard to seek compromise and find commonsense solutions to this complicated exemption. and while we've negotiated in good faith on this bill, as has the party across the aisle, my goal is to ensure the language and compromise will work in the real world. further improvements to the bill may be necessary to further codify uses of that

authority. i look forward to work across the aisle and folks in the senate to clarify the intent here. i look forward to continue to work with our ranking member of the full committee on financial services as necessary to ensure that the law is a useful tool and serves as an example of how policy can meet the demands of a changing marketplace. the bottom line, this bill is a sensible way forward. this bill will lower costs and provide transparent standards for the issues that are important in the pleist secondary transactions. additionally, the bill will give today's private growth companies a foundation on which they can constantly plan their trajectory through the capital markets, both private and public. ultimately, codifying this exemption will ensure the united states remains the best market in the world -- for the world's innovators, to build their businesses here and employ americans and grow our economy. i'm pleased this legislation enjoys bipartisan support, and

i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back to the chairman of the capital markets subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves his time. mr. garrett: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, there are no additional speakers on the floor, so i yield back the balance of my time and i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: again, thank you, mr. speaker. again, i thank the gentlelady from new york for her support on this and the prior legislation. i thank the gentleman from north carolina. you know, when the gentleman from north carolina makes reference to the regulations of 4 1 1/2, then you know there's something wrong out there, there is too many obscure regulations holding back and being impediments to our commal markets. the gentleman from north carolina also came up with the right sumation of this. it's a technical bill to deal

with all these absurdities and technicalities just to make it easier for people to be able to start a business, grow a business, sell a business, hire employees and grow the number of capital formation, the number of employees in this country as well. so with that being said, i look forward to a strong bipartisan support as we've seen in the past on this type of legislation, and with that i yield back to the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1839, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. garrett: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: thanks. i ask for a recorded vote, the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey, do you ask for the yeas and nays? mr. garrett: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule

20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. royce: i move the house suspend the rules and pass senate bill 2078. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 2078, an act to re-authorize the united states commission on international religious freedom and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, tragically religious persecution around the world continues, and i thought i would give one example that we heard in our committee last week in the foreign affairs committee from bazi who is a young 20-year-old ue zitty woman -- woman from iraq. she so bravely recounted her brutal captivity and the abuse she faced at the hands of isis. and as we're talking about religious freedom, she

explained that in her village, the 700 men and boys were killed, including several of her brothers. one small brother survived because he had a bullet in his head and they thought he was dead. but other than that, her family are all gone. she was bought by an american who had been recruited to isis about four years prior, she said. and he bought 10 of the girls nd sold nine and kept her as a concubine. she recounted how he explained to her that because she was a uziti, she was an infidel in his mind, she was a pagan in his mind and therefore he had the right to enslave and rape nd sell women and children and he does this and ever after about a year she escaped but she reported there were about 3,000 girls and women in isis

yazidis that they faced that she faced while in captivity. and these crimes are the latest outrage of people of faith which continue in so many parts of the world. whether it be against yazidis or christian minorities in the middle east or the baha'i in iran or religious communities attempting to worship without official supervision by repressive regimes, for example, in burma or in north korea. anti-semitism also is on the rise, including in europe, and this legislation, which was passed unanimously by the senate last week, will continue the good work of the united states commission on international religious freedom . congress created this commission as an independent federal entity back in 1998,

and the reason it was created was because while the fundamental freedom of religion was under siege around the world, it did not receive enough attention in u.s. foreign policy circles. and this commission is a body of experts who speak out on behalf of persecuted believers of any faith and push for accountability, accountability beyond what the state department or the white house may view as diplomatically feasible. the commission's independent voice remains critical today as the state department too often pushes religious freedom to the side. for example, the state department's ambassador at large for religious sat vacant for two years during the start of this administration and again for another 10 months before the appointment of the current ambassador, rabbi david

saperstein, and this year after a three-year lapse, the department finally made the legally required designation of countries of particular concern for religious freedom. three years of the state department shirking its legal responsibility, but as the commission has found, another eight countries should also be placed on that list and were not placed on the list. and those countries include vietnam, whose recent so-called amnesty of more than 18,000 prisoners included convicted murderers, convicted drug dealers, human traffickers. but what it did not include was prisoners of religious conscience, especially one of

the buddhist church of vietnam. i visited him under house arrest. li, did not include father the catholic priest who has been repeatedly beaten. these were not the people released. no, it was the human traffickers and the murderers. so this commission is critical in calling out these abuses. this bill extends the authorization of the commission for four more years and includes new strategic planning and transparency improvements in the act, and this should ensure the commission's important work remains strongly bipartisan and represents the diverse american consensus on the importance of our first freedom -- religious liberty. and i want to thank senators corker and cardin and their colleagues who worked to craft this bill which received unanimous support in the other body, and i also want to recognize the important work of

the chairman of the foreign affairs human rights subcommittee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, the author of the house side re-authorization bill, who has been a legislative leader on religious freedom issues throughout his career and as always, i appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member, mr. eliot engel, and david cicillinely of rhode island in bringing this -- cicilline of rhode island in bringing this bill to the floor today. this bill, which has unanimous support of the senate, and all ine current commissioners, deserves our support also. with passage goes to the president's desk and with his signature it ensures that religious freedom under continuous threat from extremist and authoritarian governments remains front and center. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of s.

2078, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, this bill will re-authorize the u.s. commission on international religious freedom, what we call ucirf, and it deserves this body's strong support. i want to thank senator corker, senator cardin and senator durbin for the work they did in pushing this bill on the senate side. i want to thank our chairman, chairman royce, and representative chris smith for his strong leadership here in the house on matters dealing with religious freedom. . this bill, which has been endorsed by all nine of the current commissioners would authorize the commission for four years and require that the commission agree on a bipartisan strategic plan to be submitted to congress within 180 days. moreover, the commission will also be required to reach bipartisan agreement on personnel policies which i hope they will see an opportunity as an organization dead cailted to promoting freedom and tolerance through strong,

nondiscrimination rejections for religion, gender, gender identify -- identity and sexual orientation, as well as other federally protected classes. the right to worship freely is a bedrock principle of the deck lo ration -- declaration of human rights and our own constitution this does so much to defend that liberty through valuable research, analysis and reporting or efforts to guide lawmakers from the united states and elsewhere on the importance of this issue. yet every day, religious communities around the world endure violent discrimination and the problem, sadly is escalating. in knew jeera, christian and muslim communities live in fear of the fa that the -- fanatic terrorist group boko haram. in iran they continue to persecute the ba hype faith pakistan has fallen down on the job of prosecuting violence against religious minorities while at the same time convicting religious minorities

for blasphemy. of course people of all faiths are being massacred by isil in attempts to wipe out any beliefs that don't align with its per fegs of -- perversion of islam. this sort of intolerance has no place in 21st century. governments are obligated to respect the religious freedom of all faiths. societies that are more open are more prosperous. when citizens live freely without fear of persecution, they contribute more to growth. the commission wants to see religious freedom thrive around the world, that's why we established the international commission on religious freedom and that's why we should support this today. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting s. 2078. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield four minutes to the gentleman who worked on

the original authorization of religious freedom act, mr. smith of new jersey. he's this chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa global health, global human rights and international organizations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank the chairman for his leadership and commitment to human rights, particularly religious freedom and i want to thank senator corker for helping shepherd this legislation through the senate when there was some contentious issues. mr. speaker, the u.s. commission on international religious freedom was created as part of the landmark international religious freedom act of 199 . originally authored by my good friend and former colleague frank wolf who provided exem blare service and leadership in this house. the creation of ucirf made the promotion and protection of religious freedom a priority in u.s. foreign policy. believe me, before the passage of this law it was not. since its inception, ucirf has been a value wruble, independent and bipartisan sort of information and policy

recommendations for the congress, u.s. government, and the american people. ucirf gives voice to persecuted religious groups and raises prisoner cases, individual cases, at the highest level of the u.s. government. ucirf's annual report, and i encourage members to read it, often prvidse a fuller view of violations of religious freedom than the state department's international report. as an independent body, ucirf has the political freedom to report the facts and provide critical insight and recommendations on countries like vietnam, pakistan, india, or cuba or china. countries where the u.s. government may be hesitant to draw attention to religious rights violations because it is concerned about upsetting foreign governments. it needs to be noted that in the begin, the clinton administration actively opposed passage of the international religious freedom act of 1998.

i know because i chaired the hearings. we heard from people like assistant secretary john shadegg who said it would create a hierarchy of human rights which it did not. it put religious freedom nits rightful place and years later, people from the administration pointed out none of that happened. it was a very important addition to our work. i also want to note that a very broad coalition supporting and and ine to support ucirf the end president clinton did sign the legislation into law. u.s. conference of catholic bishops endorses ucirf re-authorization as to over 80 different -- as do over 80 different nongovernmental organizations. part of the international religious freedom round table. these groups sent a letter to every member of congress that said in pertinent part, while there is lit well agree on, theologically or politically, we

all agree on the importance of religious freedom. mr. speaker, bipartisan cooperation is critically important at a time when religious freedom is under siege throughout the world. anti-semitism, pervasive in most of the middle east, has spread like a cancer to parts of europe. the increase in violence perpetrated against christians, muslims and other religious minorities has reached staggering proportions, including the disturbing reports of otorture, rape, unjust imprisonment, forced exile and murder. the world faces a deepening crisis of religious freedom, restrictions and abuses by government. the pew foundation estimates that over 75% of the world's population lives in countries where severe religious freedom abuses are common place. anti-christian communities in iraq and syria are on the verge of extinction and other religious minorities in the

middle east face a constant assault from isis. isis as we all know has committed and is committing genocide, mass atrocities and war crimes. china continues to suppress religious practice broadly and with impunity. there's been another year for the tibetan buddhists, uighur muslims and christians as well as others who face imprisonment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: i -- mr. royce: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. smith: thank you. burma is a problem, pakistan as we all know, there are problems in iran. not just with the baha'i who are persecuted, again have been facing that with unrelenting pressure but also other christians who live there and other muslims. mr. speaker, the need for ucirf is clear and i hope all members

support this important human rights legislation. i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i do not have any more speaker at this time so i will close. first again to thank the chairman, chairman ed royce, our ranking member engel for once again the bipartisan way in which the work of the forbe, -- foreign affairs committee was conducted. evidenced again today with strong bipartisan support for this bill and i want to acknowledge the great leadership of congressman smith who has worked in this area for a very long time my home state, rhode island, was founded by roger williams, searching for a place that respects religious freedom. rhode island is home to the oldest synagogue in america, the, where president washington famously wrote to the hebrew congregation at the sin gol to reassure them that this new, young nation would be a place that respects religious freedom of all its citizens and it's

this commission that continues to promote that work around the world to ensure that religious freedom is respected everywhere in the world and i urge all of my colleagues strongly to support this legislation. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: before i close, i should yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, chame of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism and nonproliferation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: i thank the chairman for yielding time. mr. speaker, religious liberty is the first right in our bill of rights. it's in the first amendment. there are five rights in the first amendment. religious liberty is the first of those five rights. that is not by accident. our ancestors believed in the right of religious liberty. in fact, throughout the world today, religious freedom is the most important personal right for many, many people of all

religious faltes. the right to practice one's religion, free of persecution, regardless of what that religion s. siddiq azam was promoted to headmaster of an elementary school a few months ago. three muslim teachers didn't like that they had a christian as their boss. yesterday, about 7:45 in the morning, they stormed his office and demanded he resign because he's a christian. he refused. they beat him up until he was rescued by other staff members. curriculums in schools throughout the world are teaching religious intolerance. the saudi school curriculum openly vilifies other faiths, including jews and christians. not too long ago there was a 14-year-old boy by the name of christian. a coptic

he went to school. the teacher of his class, non-christian, saw that he had a cross on his wrist. coptic christians, i understand, have a tattoo of a cross. he was told to cover up the cross. he did not. in fact, he pulled out a cross from underneath his shirt and displayed it as well. the teacher grabbed him around the neck and started choking him and asked the other students what are you going to do about this? and they beat him to death. 14-year-old coptic christian in egypt. persecution happens to all faiths throughout the world. it is the most important, in my opinion, human right, natural right, to practice one's faith, religion, belief, freely without persecution by government especially. this legislation helps protect

that right worldwide. it is an important right here but as i said it's a natural right. and it should be protected and i support this legislation. because it protects the basic right of religious freedom. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank congressman smith and david cicilline and judge ted poe. two weeks ago we were all here on the floor of the house and we charge those ncis listening to his remarks with the important responsibility of safeguarding religious freedom hetch stated at the white house that freedom remains one of america's most precious possessions. of course that freedom is not only an american possession, it is not only enjoyed by certain

religions. that freedom flows from the inherent dignity of every human person and should be protected wherever it is. the united states commission on international religious freedom remains a strong, independent, authoritative voice on behalf of religious believers everywhere. this measure will ensure that it continues to pursue the commission's nonpartisan mission of promoting around the world the right of religious liberty that we hold so dear as a nation. it deserve ours unanimous support and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 2078? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid n the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek reck snigs? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3102 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3102, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to reform fleesms transportation security administration, streamline transportation security regulations and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the

gentleman from new york, mr. katko, and the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. katko: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. katko: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. katko: h.r. 3102 is a critically important bipartisan piece of legislation which serves as a culmination of months of intense oversight on the issue of airport access controls and the insider threat aviation security. the gaps in airport employee access control has made headlines after an investigation revealed that aviation employees were trafficking weapons and ammunition between atlanta and new york, more than 170 guns were trafficked in such a manner. furthermore, a recent inspector general report found that t.s.a. failed to identify 73 aviation workers with possible

links to terrorism. lastly, at airports such as dallas-fort worth, los angeles international and oakland, many major drug trafficking rings have been uncovered involving employees inside -- using their insider ability to access the airports. it is the responsibility of this committee to act to prevent similar stories from continuing to emerge. specifically h.r. 3102 requires t.s.a. to consult with federal and private sector partners to review existing employee screening protocols and work comprehensively to improve the effectiveness of controls at airports across the united states. moreover, the bill improves standards of vetting for the credentials granted to individuals with access to secure areas of airports and takes a robust approach to bolkser the oversight of the access given to these employees. h.r. 3102 codifies a number of recommendations put forth by the aviation security advisory committee, which examined the

issue airport access controls earlier this year at our urging. this legislation reflects rigorous oversight, including a number of hearings, site visits and briefings from homeland security, t.s.a., the f.b.i. and aviation stakeholders. furthermore, i am very proud of the cooperation among our private sector stakeholders, federal partners and the labor community that has helped to bring this bill to the floor today. throughout this legislation's development, we have worked tirelessly with the same end goal in mind -- to enhance the security of our nation's airports and to help the traveling public. the insider threat to aviation is real, and it is critical we evolve our security standards and best practices to stay abreast of the threats to aviation. i wish to thank ranking member rice and ranking member thompson for their hard work and attention to this issue and we've focused on this in a bipartisan manner. i want to thank the chairman of the full committee, mr. mccaul, for the committee's oversight

efforts and pushing this bill through the committee. together, together we can fix these problems and ensure the american public that their airport security is secure to threats. i ask members to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to speak in support of h.r. 3102, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: last year we learned that airport employees used their access to the secure areas of airports to bypass screening to smuggle weapons and drugs onto commercial flights. in response, then-acting ministrator melvin carraway, wanted the aviation security committee come up with approaches to address security vulnerabilities. in april, the asac issued a

thoughtful report with 28 recommendations designated to mitigate threats and risks associated with airport access controls. congress approved legislation in december, 2014, to codify asac in law in the hopes it would result in better aviation security, policymaking at t.s.a. we envisioned the process in which various stakeholders throughout the aviation community were able to come together and address security issues affecting the industry. in this instance, the process worked as envisioned. and t.s.a. is making sure and steady progress towards addressing many of the recommendations. i believe that by advancing this bill today, we will send a message to t.s.a. and aviation stakeholders that we have a strong interest in raising the bar when it comes to securing the nation's airports. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. katko: mr. speaker, i have

no more speakers. if the gentleman from louisiana has no more speakers, i'm prepared to close once the gentleman does. mr. richmond: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers, and i'm prepared to close. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. richmond richmond thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. richmond: thank you, mr. speaker. in short in closing, i reiterate that the committee remains interested in raising the level of security within our nation's airports. as such, we'll continue to track t.s.a.'s airports at bolesering access crollings and addressing the asac's recommendations. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. katko: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. katko: mr. speaker, the issues addressed in h.r. 3102 are a pressing concern to the security of our nation's airports and it is critical we send this bill to the senate today. congress cannot stand idly by and grant approval to lax community standards to employees when we have the authority and responsibility to spur action and keep the traveling public safe from

harm. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i want to thank mr. richmond for his bipartisan comments and that truly is the nature what we have done today, act in a bipartisan manner to attack a problem. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house spraunlsd pass the bill h.r. 3102, as amended. those in favor say aye. -- the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3102, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3510, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3510, a bill to

amend the homeland security act of 2002 to require the secretary of homeland security to develop a cybersecurity strategy for the department of homeland security, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. ratcliff, and the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. ratcliff: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and tend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ratcliffe: mr. speaker, yumeds. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. ratcliffe: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this bill sponsored by representative cedric richmond, the ranking member of the cybersecurities infrastructure protection and security technologies committee of which i am the chairman. this legislation would require the department of homeland

security to develop and to submit to congress the cybersecurity strategy and implementation plan. because the department of homeland security's charged dot-gov ring the domain and to secure the dot-com domain, a comprehensive strategic plan and implementation plan will support d.h.s.'s essential cybersecurity mission. mr. speaker, too often niece days, cyberattacks disrupt the operations of government, of business and of the lives of the american people. the increasingly sophisticated nature of the cyberthreats we face on a daily basis underscores the need to manage and strengthen the cybersecurity of our nation's critical infrastructure. the government accountability office has recommended the implementation of an overarching federal cybersecurity strategy. h.r. 3510 is an important step towards accomplishing this task. h.r. 3510 also precludes any reorganization effort of the

department of homeland security's national protection and program's directorate, or nppd, without congressional approval. this is an effort to ensure that congressional oversight is conducted. mr. speaker, in june of this year, a story in the press announced that the nppd was planning a significant reorganization. since june, very few specifics have emerged, and even those that have have been very sparse in detail. the details that have been made public elicit concern because they support overhauling the infrastructure protection and cybersecurity functions of the directorate without providing details on exactly what this would mean for the mission, for the structure or for the work force of the directorate. the language in this bill follows a bipartisan letter sent just last month to the department expressing congressional concern with the lack of transparency surrounding this proposed reorganization.

in communicating the congressional intent to provide oversight on this issue. the letter also clearly stated that any reorganization or realignment should require congressional authorization. over the past several years, the committee on homeland security, on which i serve, has built up a collaborative working relationship with the nppd, consulting with it to pass several strong and bipartisan pieces of legislation to improve chemical security and to strengthen d.h.s.'s cybersecurity mission and stature in the federal government. given our shared goal of protecting this country and the committee's continued legislative oversight efforts to strengthen d.h.s.'s cybersecurity functions, it's essential that the department submit any proposal to congress prior to reorganization or realignment. it's congress' role and responsibility to authorize the key responsibilities of the

executive branch, to include strengthening our cybersecurity posture and ensuring the security and resiliency of our nation's critical infrastructure. i'd like to thank mr. richmond for the work that he and his staff have done to come together in a bipartisan way on this legislation, and i urge all members to join me in supporting this bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. chmond: thank you, speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3510, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: mr. speaker, i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. ratcliffe. i want to thank the chairman of the full committee, mr. mccaul, and the ranking member of the full committee, mr. thompson, who all signed on to support the legs. h.r. 3510, the department of homeland security cybersecurity strategy act of 2015, will require the secretary of

homeland security to develop a comprehensive strategy and implementation plan for carrying out its diverse and complex cyber and information security missions. today the department of homeland security is not only responsible for working with federal agencies to protect federal civilian networks but also bolster information security within the private sector, principally through the national cybersecurity and communications integration center. it also plays a major role in information security research and development, cybercrime investigations and international engagement with cybersecurity partners. my bill requires d.h.s. to put in place a strategy that includes necessary strategic and operational goals for executing the secretary's broad responsibilities. in september, the inspector general issued a report highlighting the need for such strategy. the report titled "d.h.s. can trengthen its cybersecurity --

cybermission coordination efforts" found that it was lacking and that the department have a across-the-department strategic plan that defined each component, cybermission and responsibility. the department operates front line programs that protect this nation from man-made and natural disasters which cyberthreats increasingly at the forefront to date, it's essential that the department's day-to-day programs, policies and activities have effective in meeting the multilayered cybersecurity responsibilities. as the lead federal agency responsible for securing federal-civilian networks and as a vital information sharing partner to national critical infrastructures, it is crucial that the department have a comprehensive and achievable strategic plan in place. with that, mr. speaker, i urge the passage of h.r. 3510, and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. ratcliffe: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. if the gentleman from louisiana has no further speakers, i'm prepared to close once the gentleman does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. richmond: mr. speaker, i reserve myself as much time as i may consume. toipped the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: mr. speaker, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. richmond: mr. speaker, in recent years, they have expanded their cyberoperations and work force. a lot of money has been spent to respond to cyberevents and persistent information security threats. we must make sure our investments in operational plans and research and development are technically achievable and transparent where they can be. fundamentally, my bill seeks to ensure that the department takes immeasurable strategic posture that can be a model for others and to help protect our nation's vulnerable information security networks. with that i ask my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. ratcliffe: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ratcliffe: mr. speaker, i once again urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3510, and i thank congressman richmond for his approach -- bipartisan approach to bringing this bill to the floor today. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3500 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is pass and without objection the notion reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 1300, the adoptive family relief act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1300, an act to amend section 221 of the immigration and nationality act to provide relief for adopt i families from immigrant visa fees in certain situations. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on s. 1300 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. franks: mr. speaker, when i hold and kiss my little children

good-bye to come to this place every week, the pain i feel in leaving them for several days is mitigated by the conviction that i will be seeing them again very soon. but i stand here tonight, mr. speaker, on behalf of hundreds of american families who are separated from their children, with no sense of certainty or knowing when they'll be allowed to see their children again or to know when their children will be home for good. that is because in september of 2013, now more than two years ago, the democratic pun republic of congo, or d.r.c., ceased issuing exit visas, including for more than 350 children who had already been fully, legally adopted by american families. these families had fully complied with international adoption laws in both the united states and the d.r.c. had already spent months or years going through the tedious

intercountry adoption process. and some of them had already arrived in the d.r.c. with the belief that they would be bringing their adoptive children home at last to their forever families in america. despite significant ongoing efforts by both congress and the state department to alleviate any of the d.r.c. government's concerns and resolve the exit permit process, mr. speaker, it is unknown when that suspension will be lifted. meanwhile, american adoptive families are being faced with the added burden of having to repeatedly renew their adoptive child's adoption paperwork and visas in order to keep it up to date. thus, the adoptive family relief act grants flexibility to the state department to waive the immigration visa renewal feefs $325 per child for adoptive families in america in extraordinary circumstances like this, where the cause of delay is out of the family's control.

mr. speaker, waiving the visa renewal fee would alleviate one portion of the overwhelming burden that these americans and the families are enduring until their adoptive children or child can travel to the u.s. while the u.s. government continues to work toward the democratic republic of congo lifting the exit permit suspension, this legislation is critically important and will offer some practical relief to the american families held powerless in a very difficult situation. it is my hope, mr. speaker, that the many families waiting to bring their adoptive children home will receive encouragement from the strong bipartisan efforts here in congress to support them during this time. as we work collect ily to engage the d.r.c. government and work toward the suspension being fully lifted. this bill is a reminder to them that the congress has not and will not forget their plight and

that we will not cease working on their behalf until their families are finally, permanently united and whole. mr. speaker, i wouldest terribly like to thank chairman goodlatte and chairman royce for their noble and principled leadership in helping to elevate this issue and bring this legislation to the floor. with that, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lofgren: i rise in support of h.r. 1300 the adoptive family relief act. as was mentioned, two years ago the democratic republic of congo suspended issuing exit permits to children who have been adopted and trying to leave the country to be with their parents. and to this day that country continues to suspend issuing these permits and without permit, the children can't join

their mom and dad, the people who have continued them, even though the children are in posofingse the immigrant visas. now, we know to be separated from a child and not to be able to provide love and care for that child is stressful and tormenting episode for any parent. for the families that adopted children in the d.r.c., this is exacerbated by the fact that their children are stuck in a country that has one of the worst health care systems in the world. there are hundreds of families throughout the united states and about 350 of them are waiting simply for an exit permit, missing their children and worried about the health of their children stuck in the d.r.c. the only thing that's preventing them from bringing their child or children home is this exit visa. now, our visas are valid only for six months, unfortunately, and i think as was mentioned, it cost $325 to renew a visa even

though there's no work involved. we checked with the state department. there's minimal expense, this is not going to be a hit on the state department's budget. but it is a hit on the budgets of families. some families have spend $1,000 over the past two years and since we don't know when the d.r.c. is going to start issuing these video is as, we don't know how much money these families are looking at in the future. doesn't tisan bill solve the exit problem but at least it solves the financial burden that we've put, not intentionally, on these families. it's the right thing to do, it will show support for these families during this distressing time and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize the gentleman from indiana, recognize him for

two minutes, mr. misser. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. messer: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman and gentlelady for their leadership on this important issue. i rise today in support of s. 1300, the adoptive family relief act. for many, family is anything. as any parent knows, not seing your child for even one day can be hard. now imagine, you're separated from your child by over 6,000 miles, for more than two years. this is the reality for too many americans. hundreds of adopted children are stuck in the democratic republic of congo because their government has refused to provide the paperwork required for these children to leave. for over two years, the myers a family in my district, have been waiting to bring home their son nd daughter.

papi and ocktavea. we -- and octavia. we can do better for these two and all the other families. as the state department continues to work to bring home these children, s. 1300 provides much-needed relief to american families going through this harrowing experience. i urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. it's the right thing to do and worthy of your support. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves his time they have gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: do you have additional speakers? mr. franks: i have no additional speakers, so if the gentlelady -- i'm sorry, we do. ms. lofgren: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve -- the gentlewoman reserves her time, the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: mr. speaker, i now yield to the gentleman, mr.

smith, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank my good friend, the chair, for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of s. 1300, the adopt i family relief act this bill seeks to remove obstacles for immigrant visas to be issued to adopted children. clearly the challenge of caring for orphans due to crises worldwide is increasing. rather than frustrate, however, or undermine the compassion and love of american families who seek to adopt, legislation modestly seeks to remove some of those barriers and smor those obstacles. i would point out to my colleagues, i have held a number of hearings on adoption in my subcommittee, the subcommittee on africa, global health and global human rights. one of those hearings several months ago, one of our witnesses made a very keen observation, that there are more than 50

million children orphaned on the continent of africa. if you put that number in perspective that would make those numbers of children in a single country -- if they were in a single country, the fourth largest country in all of africa. one remedy for this crisis is intercountry adoption which sometimes brings children from africa to our shores to provide them with loving homes. this is only a partial remedy. many do find a place to live with family members but many others are left to fend for themselves. this legislation recognizes that countries' policies do matter. look at the democratic republic of congo. currently there are more than 400 american families who have successfully adopted children from the d.r.c., however, due to the d.r.c. government's suspension of exit permits, which was implemented beginning in september of 2013, many of these families have been unable

to bring their adopted children home to the united states. about a dozen of those children have paid with their lives, dying in the country before they could receive medical attention. others are in dire need of medical aid which, again this legislation would help at least in terms of the family to -- families to give them a bridge for the financial burdens they face. i would point out that in one of my hearings, one of the witnesses really in a very powerful way said, and her name was jiovana jones, an adoptive parent, she said, as adoptive parents we spent years preparing and it's imperative our children come home immediately. we have done our part. our families have done all we can. we are at our limits. our arms are open now and our homes are ready to receive them today. then she said, we pray our government mirrors or dedication and acts so our children will come home soon. this is an important piece of

legislation and hopefully will facilitate the adoption and at least hope those parents who are putting money on the line -- at least help those parent whors putting their money on the line -- parents who are putting their money on the line to hang in there. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, before coming to the floor, i wanted to reassure myself that the state department did not have the authority to waive these fees just administrate ily and it's pretty clear they need this legislation in order toway these fees. in fact, they want to waive the fees. they want to support these families. there's no argument here between the house and senate, between republicans and democrats, administration and legislative branch. this is something that we can all agree on. you know, to raise kids is one of the most wonderful

experiences you can ever have and we have wonderful american families that want to provide a home for orphans not only in the d.r.c. but orphans all around the world. so it's really important for those of us in the government, administration and congress, to do what we can to support american families who want to raise these adoptive children. it's worth noting that the d.r.c. is the problem today but we have had other problems in the past, countries in latin america and asia. so this change in the law is going to provide the necessary basis for relieving parents from excessive fees, should this occur, god forbid, with other countries. we would ask our state department to redouble its efforts with the d.r.c. to get

these exit permits under way. it's really unfair to the children and their parents to keep these kids stranded. i would just note, finally, that we have not done very much by way of anything touching on immigration where we could have bipartisan support. i still wish that we had before us comprehensive immigration reform. that is not this, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't support this i think that it's important that we pass this and show these american parents that we're on their side and we hope that they can use the funds that they save to provide for their new sons and daughters. with that, unless the gentleman has additional speakers, i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to myself such time as i may consume. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. franks: mr. speaker, there are very few things we do in this body more important than trying to make sure that parentless little children have a hope in life. and through our state department, all across the world, we do very laudable things to try to make sure they have this chance in life. sometimes it's orphanages. other types are help through n.g.o.'s. we're doing everything we can to facilitate children being put into a loving family on a permanent basis, and to bring sometimes childless parents together with often parentless children is i think a very beautiful and noble effort on our part. and i hope that this bill allows that in a greater way with the d.r.c. as ms. lofgren mentioned, with other states across the world if it becomes necessary. and i'm just grateful for all

of the bipartisan support. i know this is something we have come together on and, again, i express the appreciation to chairman royce, chairman goodlatte and to the gentlelady who has expressed her support for this. with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1300. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 2835, an act to actively recruit members of the armed force who is are separating from military service to serve as customs and order protection officers.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. today.

>> representative huelskamp is chair of the tea party caucus, congressman huelskamp, you, your group, is meeting tonight with the house freedom caucus and several other conservative groups on the republican side to hear from the speaker candidates this evening. what's the format of this evening's meeting and what do you hope to hear if the candidates? representative huelskamp: we're splitting our hour and a half meeting to 30 minutes with each candidate. host: you tweeted out, excited to hear from candidates tonight,

chay jets, kevin mccarthy and representative webster. does your caucus plan to make an announcement before the election? mr. huelskamp: i don't think system of we have a clear position of not being committed so we have a chance to interview these candidates and getcht answers to questions about how any of these candidates would be different than john boehner. these are questions, i came in as part of the freshman class of 2010, we didn't get a chance to ask john boehner how he would work the house, how it might be different than the previous speaker. these questions are long overdue. when you have 60% of republicans in america think republicans in washington have betrayed them, there are a lot of questions. we're not concerned with just moving people up the ladder. it's time for real change, real debate and a house that reflects republican principles.

host: what was your reaction to speaker boehner's decision to post-pone the election until ctober 29? mr. huelskamp: clearly nobody has 208 votes to be speaker, and we'll find that out in the caucus. this is going to be a month-long campaign. i think it's a historic time. this is the first time, i believe, in maybe a century where a speaker resigned without health concerns, without scandal concerns, and frankly john boehner didn't have 218 but that is the issue of the day. the speaker runs the house and his or her leadership determines how the republican party is viewed across america and right now we're viewed very poorly because i think of the iron control of the house that spent more time attacking conservatives than it did those on the other side of the aisle. host: the full house will vote on the speaker october 29 with republican leadership elections after that, according to what the new speaker thinks.

is it your group's plan, the tea party caucus plan, to hear from candidates for majority leader and from whip candidates? mr. huelskamp: that will probably happen in the future they feel speaker comes first. again that is the ultimate power position in the house and i don't want a case where the speaker stands before me as he did a couple of weeks ago, before the republican conference, to say he had voted to do x thing for 25 years, in this case, defunding planned parenthood but he couldn't get it done. i don't want speaker mccarthy or speaker webster or speaker chaffetz to stand in front of the republican conference a year and a half from now and say, nothing good happened. we want specifics, the american people wants specifics. how will these candidates be different than john boehner? how will the results change? and how will we include more members of the conference? i told john boehner a few weeks ago, my voters are just as important as yours are, they're as important as eric cantor's in

virginia. so whether you're republican or democrat, liberal or conservative or call yourself moderate, let's open this process up. let's not be afriday of having votes. i think what we saw coming out of john boehner was to constrict, restrict and slow down that process so he could try to control every last maneuver so he stands up two days before the end of the fiscal year and say, we can't do anything but another short-term c.r. it became the 10th time on major legislation that speaker john boehner teamed with nancy pelosi to pass things that many republicans disagree with, as they did again last week on the short-term c.r. host: this is a closed door meeting, c-span cameras won't be inside but take us inside, typically what are these closed door meetings like for republican members? mr. huelskamp: this is going to be unprecedented. going back to 2010, john boehner

didn't have to answer these questions. i've talked to mr. mccarthy, i've visited with mr. webster, i haven't had a chance to visit with mr. chaffetz about this. but we want many members there to hold whoever is speaker accountable to whatever promises are made. it's pastime for campaign rhetoric and flowery words. it's time for specifics, what are you going to do to get our fiscal house in order? how are you going to restore the damage john boehner has wrought by using super p.a.c.'s to attack conservatives like me? i hope any conservative would say, these super p.a.c.'s won't be attacking sitting members of the house as john boehner did against me and other members a few months ago that doesn't help the process. doesn't help build trust in the conference. as part of the 60% of american people that believe washington republicans have betrayed the republican party. and that's a real thought, that's a real feeling, that's what people out there are

thinking. finally it's showing up on the house floor, people are say, we've got to make changes here. it's a good time to be republican. i think it's exciting. these are changes and discussions we should have had five years ago that the establishment refused to allow taos discuss even after such a historic election of 20 10. host: representing the first district of kansas and chair of the tea party caucus, representative tim huelskamp, thank you for joining us. mr. huelskamp: thank you. >> next monday on c-span's new series "land 345rk cases" new york 1830, dred scott was enslaved to u.s. army surgeon emmerson. emmerson was assigned to duties in free states during which dred cott married harriet robinson. when the doctor died, scott tried to buy his family's freedom from the widow emmerson who refused, and he sued.

follow the new series "landmark cases" erevealing the life of times of the people who are plaintiffs, lawyers and defendants in these cases. live on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio. for background on each case, order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book. it's available at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> at today's white house briefing, press secretary josh earnest answered questions about the u.s. military strike on a hospital in afghanistan. the race for the 2016 democratic presidential nomination. and the transpacific partnership trade deal reached this week. josh: good afternoon, everybody. good to see you all. i don't have any announcements so we can go straight to your questions.

>> general campbell said this morning that the u.s. military trike mistakenly hit a medical clinic. now that we have that level of specificity about the fact that this was a mistake on behalf of the united states is the president -- does the president plan to apologize to doctors without borders or families of the victims? josh: you are correct. i had an opportunity to be briefed on general campbell's testimony today and general campbell did indicate the strike n the hospital was was a mistake. there's still more that needs to be learned, however, about how exactly this happened. the president has called for the kind of investigations that will yield a full accounting of what transpyred. there is already under way an investigation that's being conducted by the justice department.

there are also investigations ongoing that are being led by nato and separate third investigation that is a joint investigation that's being carried out by the united states and afghan officials. i acknowledged yesterday, general campbell had been in touch with the afghan president and offered condolences to the afghan people. there have been senior administration officials in touch with leading officials at doctors without borders. what occurred over the weekend is a profound pradgity and -- tragedy and as i mentioned yesterday, volunteers at doctors without borders are physicians who use their training to try to meet the medical needs of people in forgotten parts of the world. and these physicians, at great risk to their own personal security enter into these situations to try to meet the needs of those who, in many

cases, are in a terrible situation. and so to learn of the death of these individuals is tragic. of that to make clear to you and to people around the world that this is something that the united states takes quite seriously. in fact, the department of defense goes to greater lengths than any other military organization in the world to prevent civilian casualties. and that is what leads general campbell to conclude that this is a mistake. it does -- it warrants mentioning that that stands in stark contrast to the strategy that is implemented by extremists in afghanistan, extremists regularly claim credit for operations that target civilian populations. that is part and parcel of their strategy inside of afghanistan.

that stands in stark contrast to the u.s. strategy. that's why the president also has the expectation that steps will be taken to try to prevent this kind of thing from happening again and iles understand from general campbell's testimony today that he has asked his team to conduct a review and to carry out retraining where necessary to try to prevent these kinds of things from happening. but -- before i say a whole lot more about this, though i will acknowledge i've said quite a bit now, but before i say a whole lot more about this we want the investigations to be completed, to have a full accounting of what transpyred and some discussion about what -- transpired and some discussion about what next steps will be. >> reporter: he said leaving just those 1,000 people in the embassy would restrict the ability of the u.s. to train afghan forces and also to carry

out counterterror operations. i know that you said yesterday that you're not going to put a timeline on the president's decision on this. with the top commander there saying this pretty publicly, can you do us at least a sense of which way the president would be leaning on this issue? mr. earnest: i would resist the urge to speculate on that at this point. the president did announce back in march that the united states would leave about 10,000 troops in afghanistan through the end of this year and they'd be engaged in essentially two missions. the first is counterterrorism mission that is explicitly tied to protecting the united states and our interests around the world. the second mission is separate but not completely unrelated, which is offering some training , advice and assistance to afghan security forces. what afghan security forces are trying to do is secure their country so that they can, you

know, stabilize the government there and provide more opportunity to the afghan people, that's in the interest of the united states because we've seen that terrorists have previously tried to capitalize on chaos in that country. to organize and plan and even implement terror attacks against the united states, so it's in our interest to support he afghan security forces as they're pursuing that mission and that support is in the form of training advice and assistance. what that -- what the future presence looks like and what our future strategy will be in afghanistan is something that will be determined by a variety of things. the first is conditions on the ground. what kind of progress has been made toward securing that country, what threats remain, what sort of assistance can the united states provide to the afghan people, to the afghan government and to the afghan security forces, as they try to

provide for that scaurt. -- security. and the president's decision will be driven by those conditions on the ground and what our longer term strategy is there. the president will certainly take into account the recommendations that are provided by general campbell, general campbell obviously is seeing firsthand the challenges that are faced there. but the president also will take input from his diplomatic team, he'll take input from the intelligence community, he'll take input from the civilian leadership at the pentagon, as they all offer their advice to craft a strategy for moving forward inside of afghanistan. we'll also take into account the views and preferences of our nato allies who have also layed an important role in carrying out the missions that i've described. so there are a variety of factors to take into account here. that is not in any way to diminish the input of general

campbell. his input is quite important. but it's not the only input the president will receive to make this decision. reporter: the president's having lunch today with a friend of his. [laughter] any sense what might be on his mind, what might be -- mr. earnest: just a weekly get-together. the president and the vice president do have an opportunity to have lunch just about every week, depending on the busy schedules of those two men. though we made a habit of not reading out the details of their conversations. typically they cover more than one topic over the course of their lunch. i would anticipate that they'll cover more than one topic in today's lunch as well. reporter: the top coordinator in europe today ruled that -- court in europe today ruled that data held on servers here in the u.s. is unsafe because the n.s.a. is spying on it. i know that -- i know what your views are about the programs and about the person who disclosed them so i'm not asking about that. i'm curious about, is there some concern from an economic standpoint that this data patch

that u.s. companies have been relying on to do business in europe is validated? mr. earnest: there is concern about the economic consequences of this particular ruling. we're aware of that ruling and while we're reviewing that ruling, you know, we're disappointed that the court struck down an agreement, that since 2000 has proved to be critical in protecting both privenesy and fostering economic growth -- privacy and fostering economic growth in the united states and the european union. the united states principally through the department of commerce will work with the european union to provide certainty to companies both in europe and the united states to release an updated safe harbor framework. there have been discussions ongoing about an updated framework for some time. we're ready or even as we review the decision, you know, we're going to work with the european commission to release

that updated framework. reporter: what is the white house's assessment of russian arguments that the incursion into turkey's air space was an accident? mr. earnest: the -- i know that nato has indicated that there is more than one incursion. and i know that the secretary general of nato expressed some concerns about that activity. we share those significant concerns and the united states has been consulting with our nato allies about them. but turkey is not just a nato ally of the united states. turkey is also a member of the anti-isil coalition that has been working closely with the united states and 63 or 64 other countries to implement our strategy to the great and ultimately -- degrade and ultimately destroy isil. it took a number of months of diplomaticsy to -- diplomacy to get turkey fully engaged in this effort.

and the length of those negotiations i think is an indication to you and to the world of how important turkey's role is in this matter. and it is -- we certainly appreciate the important role that turkey has stepped up to play in terms of making a military contribution to this effort, but also to provide for the security of their own country, turkey as we pointed out on a number of occasions has the border with syria that stretches some 500 miles. so they are justifiably concerned about the security situation inside of syria and the threat that isil and other extremists inside of syria could pose to turkey. so all that is to say that we have expressed our concerns in the past with russian ac ativity that runs contrary -- activity that runs contrary to this international counter-isil effort that the united states is leading and certainly the kind of activity that was described by the nato secretary

general is not consistent with the kind of can constructive contribution that we'd like to see russia make to the broader international counter-isilest. reporter: the president said last week he was directing his staff to -- [inaudible] -- on gun control. do you expect further action? who's leading that process and did you take hillary clinton's comments about -- [inaudible] -- to implement more executive action if she becomes president and they hit for not having done more? mr. earnest: the president's domestic policy council obviously plays an important role in examining policy contributions like this. the vice president, given his expertise on these matters, also has played an important some of the ning gun safety rules that we've put

forward. these executive actions that have -- were an effort to reduce gun violence in this country. there are a variety of figures here that are involved. the president made a reference to scrutenidsing the laws and i think that would be an -- scrutinizing the laws and i think that would be an indication to you that there are lawyers involved here at the white house on this matter as well. there are a variety of people who are leading this effort. but it is an effort that in the past has yielded some important progress. we've been quite forth right in acknowledging that the progress that we've made in terms of implementing executive actions is not as important as the progress that could be made if congress were to take some of the commonsense steps that they could take. as it relates to the announcement from secretary clinton in the context of her presidential campaign, those kinds of policy proposals are the kinds of ideas that we welcome in the context of this debate. the president made clear that

progress in this regard will require a robust political debate in this country. and we certainly welcome the contributions of -- who, according to just about every poll, is the leading democratic candidate for president, we'd welcome the contribution of somebody with a voice that prominent in the debate. trying to advance this effort. we welcome that kind of contribution to the debate. reporter: lastly, the volkswagen chief executive told workers today that they should prepare for job cuts. are you concerned, because of the emissions scandal -- are you concerned that that will hurt the german economy, which is pretty important to the world economy, or the united states economy, given the plans that are here? mr. earnest: i haven't seen any broader analysis of the economic impact of this

scandal. there are obviously significant concerns that have been raised by volkswagen's -- by the conduct of the leadership at volkswagen, particularly when it comes to complying with important regulations here in the united states. i understand that there have been questions rawsed now in other countries -- raised now in other countries about this matter. our principle concern here is making sure that countries or companies that are interact aing with the e.p.a. as they try to implement the clean air act are doing so honestly and that they're doing so in full compliance with regulations and expectations of honesty and forthrightness. and questions have been raised about that. but i've not seen any broader analysis done about the ossible economic impact of olkswagen's malfeasance.

reporter: the safe harbor agreement. the -- [inaudible] -- seems to be access by american intelligence to european data. i'm wondering, if this ruling puts any greater pressure, gives europe any greater leverage to limit u.s. access to that data, and what impact this ruling will have on u.s. intelligence capabilities. mr. earnest: i'm routinely reluctant to discuss in much detail u.s. intelligence matters from here. but there is a legal matter that i would direct you to which is that the u.s. legal framework for intelligence collection includes robust protection for privacy under multiple layers of oversight and a remarkable degree of transparency. many of those are reforms that have been put in place in just the last few years consistent with the president's stated commitment to greater transparency. the concern that we have about this ruling is, we have a

variety of concerns about this specific ruling. one of them is that we believe that this decision was based on incorrect asummingses about data privacy protections in the -- assumptions about data privacy protections in the united states. and the ruling fails to properly credit the benefits to privacy and growth that have been afforded by this framework over the last 15 years. so, our concerns -- we've got a variety of concerns with the ruling. but we certainly have been working with our european counterparts in recent months to release an updated safe harbor framework and we're going to continue working on that effort. reporter: one of hillary clinton's sort of gun control proposals was -- [inaudible] -- laws that give protections to gun manufacturers and dealers if their guns are used in a crime -- [inaudible] -- maybe a

couple of decades ago, 10 years ago. i'm wondering if the president also supports that as a legislative proposal? mr. earnest: i have not looked in detail at the proposal she's put forward. let me reserve judgment on that and we can have someone follow up with you. reporter: i've been watching the campaign online of t.p.p. mr. earnest: thanks for watching. reporter: i noticed yesterday that a number of white house officials retweeted kevin johnson, the mayor of sacramento, who just a couple of weeks ago, it's been reported, a woman who -- [inaudible] -- dropped it because she was accused by him at 15 years old. he's also been accused of sexual assault by a number of students at the school that he used to be at. i'm wondering if this is the type of figure head you want to

put up in front of your t.p.p. ampaign. he's been somebody the president has worked a lot with on the local level, if he's going to be part of your efforts? mr. earnest: i've seen some of the reports related to the matters that you cited and i think the variety of investigations are under way there. at this point i wouldn't weigh in on those specific matters. i think the president -- knowing that i'm not going to weigh in on the specific matters related to the mayor, i think the president's views on sexual assault and his commitment to stopping sexual assault, whether it's on campus or in the military or anywhere else, i think is quite well known and he's had the opportunity to speak out on this issue on a number of occasions. i don't think there's any doubting his commitment to fighting sexual assault and the

argument that we want to make about t.p.p. and the economic benefits associated with opening up overseas markets for american goods is an argument that many people are making. there are a wide variety of democrats and republicans and a variety of positions across the country, including a number of mayors, who are making this argument and we have been engaged in an effort to lift up those arguments because we believe that -- obviously the president believes with a lot of conviction that reaching an agreement like this to open up be a ac a sess to overseas market -- access to overseas markets for american goods, 11 of the most dynamic countries in the world is a clear benefit to the united states and our economy. so we're going to drive that message quite aggressively and use it as we try to persuade democrats and republicans to take the important but necessary step of ratifying this agreement. reporter: can you give us any

indication of what we can expect the president's trip to oregon? mr. earnest: the president is planning to travel to oregon on friday morning. as you know, the president had previously scheduled trip to the west coast. so it does not require a significant change in his travel plans, for him to travel to oregon and spend some time with the families of those who were either injured or killed in the tragic shooting that occurred there last week. would not anticipate much of a public appearance from the president. his stated purpose of his trip is to spend time with the families that have been affected by this outrageous act of violence. reporter: would there be a public event of some sort? mr. earnest: that the point i do not anticipate there will be a public event. eporter: given the work of the council on others on executive action as, when do you think we

might anticipate something new, some new proposal a on that front? given i think think that the president wants to keep the momentum going on this issue now, given what's happened out there. mr. earnest: i don't have a time frame for if or when any additional executive actions might be taken. obviously the president's team is hard at work on them and has been for some time. concerning what other options may be available to the president, to try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. there are some commonsense things that congress could do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn't have them. in a way that doesn't undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. reporter: we shouldn't expect anything imminent industry in mr. earnest: i don't have any guidance for you on the timeline. reporter: on the incident in afghanistan, he said there's still more that needs to be learned before an apology. i'm not trying to apologize or not. accept responsibility.

but -- [inaudible] -- it's hard to think of a more credible organization, doing the work that they do, this was an established facility, the -- [inaudible] -- exchanged with coalition forces. they say the planes were circling for a half hour or so. there was one specific building out of several that was targeted, an intensive care center and an emergency room. there seems to be a lot of detail that's already available to the administration. and, yes, i understand the need for investigations. but does the united states accept responsibility for this? if you want to apologize at this point? mr. earnest: i think what i'd do is refer you back to what general campbell has said. he said very clearly that the strike on the hospital was a mistake. he noted, as i have in the past, that the department of defense goes to deteriorate greater lengths than any other military in the world to prevent civilian casualties.

there's no denying that has transpired here is a profound tragedy. for many of the reasons that you are -- have cited. before i go further than, that do i want these investigators to collect all of the available information, to try to learn exactly what happened and provide the full accounting that the president has asked for. reporter: you said there were some administration contacts with them. mr. earnest: that's correct there. have been senior administration officials who have been in touch with leaders at doctors without borders. reporter: as far as the investigation, can you describe or characterize -- mr. earnest: i don't have details of those conversations to share at this point. reporter: i ask because based on what they are saying and the credibility of this organization, this is a, in many ways, just a profound event and i think the criticism or the concern is that the administration is not

responding in a way that they would like. mr. earnest: i certainly understand the sense that a lot of people have, to understand exactly what happened. and for there to be reforms or changes in the rules of engagement or other procedures that are in place in the military to make it less likely that events like this happen again. there certainly is a desire on the part of the president to have a clear understanding of what exactly transpired. the risk of not getting the kind of full accounting that the president would like, if we rush the investigation. and this is an investigation that's only been under way here for three days or so now. there is a sense of urgency about this. there's no denying the significance in scale of the tragedy that transpired at the m.s.f. hospital.

as i mentioned yesterday, these are physicians who are not collecting a large salary and in most cases, i think maybe even all cases, these are individuals who are volunteering their time, who have left the safety and security of their homes to go and try and provide for the medical needs of people that they would otherwise never meet. in fact, they're going to a place like kunduz because this is a place in the world where people have either forgotten or they're understandably scared to travel to. these doctors use the training that they have, they display tremendous courage to go there in the first place and the fact that they were killed even as they were providing that medical treatment is a terrible tragedy. -- there's no diminishing the sense of loss that is being felt by that organization and by the families of those who were lost. but what is necessary is a full accounting what have exactly transpired and that's what the

department of defense is working on. i think i would reiterate that the expectation is that this is the kind of investigation that . uld move quickly but at the same time an accurate accounting what have transpired, so that accountability can be enforced if necessary, and certainly changes to the rules of engagement or other standard operating procedures can be less ented to make it likely that something like this would ever happen again. reporter: coming back to the trip to oregon. the president at least twice explicitly said that it was his intent to politicize a what happened out there. in what ways does he intend to politicize this trip if he's not going to do a public appearance? mr. earnest: i think in this instance, on friday morning, the trip would not be about politics. that trip would be about merely consoling the families of those who were so profoundly affected

by this tragedy. i think the president in his public statements both on thursday, in the immediate aftermath of the event, and on friday made quite clear that n.r.a. and ally the other advocates for gun manufacturers have done is effectively politicized this issue, to prevent congressional action. and the president's view is that if we're going to win -- that it's going to be important for the american people, who share his view, that there are some commonsense things we can do to reduce gun violence, that they're going to have to mobilize politically to count that are political effort on the part of the n.r.a. and other organizations like that. reporter: you said just a few minutes ago that it would be helpful on the gun issue to have hillary clinton out there making the case for measures to combat gun violence. i assume it would also be helpful to have hillary clinton out there making the case for the trans-pacific partnership.

given her work as secretary of state in the development of that agreement and her strong support for the development of that agreement as secretary of state, would you expect shah thank she would be out there -- would you expect that she would be out there supportive of this agreement? mr. earnest: i would expect that she would make up her own mind. reporter: soon? we haven't heard from her yet. mr. earnest: she'll have ample time to make a decision about whether or not she supports the agreement. the full text of the agreement has not been released yet. i certainly would be sympathetic to her desire to want to review the agreement in detail before offering up a position on it. that's the expectation i would have for every member of congress. and given the president's commitment to transparency, that's something that we are hoping we can do relatively soon. but it's a long document and there are a variety of issues to finalize before that text is made public. the president's made -- has committed to making that text

public prior to his signature and prior, of course, to congress having to take it up. reporter: would you expect that she would support this agreement given her past support for the edmonton of this -- for the development of this agreement? mr. earnest: i would expect she'll take a look at the details of the agreement and arrive at her own conclusions. reporter: would the president be disappointed if she was not? mr. earnest: the administration would certainly welcome her support and the support of any other presidential candidates who wanted to come out in favor of the deal and urge congress to support it. but ultimately this be will be a decision for her to make. one of the things i want to mention is we have heard other presidential candidates sort of indicate what they claim to be is an openness to working with the administration to try to prevent other acts of gun violence, many of them talk about the need for better mental health treatment and better mental health care for those individuals who need it. one way that -- one particular

program that has been particularly effective in expanding access to mental health care across the country is the affordable care act. so vote within 50 times to repeal a piece of legislation that has done more to expand mental health care across the country is certainly not keeping with their commitment to want to actually address this significant problem. one of the biggest providers of mental health care, particularly in disadvantaged communities, is medicaid. and we've seen a number of republicans, including republican governors, republican state legislators, resist the effort to expand medicaid, which would actually expand substantially mental health care coverage to millions of americans. so for those who say they want to work with the administration in at least one area when it comes to limiting acts of gun violence, we would welcome their contribution and their support for irmment -- implementing the affordable care act and a expanding medicaid. reporter: would you welcome the

support of republican presidential candidates, you would welcome their support of obamacare? mr. earnest: if they say that they want to work with the administration on mental health care, if that's the real way that we're going to stop these acts of gun violence, then i've got some good ideas but about how they can do it. reporter: i wouldn't hold your breath. edward snoden in an interview with bbb -- edward snowden in an interview with bbc said he'd come back to the united states to serve jail time. where are we on that? do you think that offer is serious? are there ongoing efforts to bring him back? mr. earnest: we've made clear what our position is, which is that he is an american citizen who has been charged with serious crimes. and we believe that he should be returned to the united states so he can be afforded all a of the due process rights that are afforded to every other citizen. but at the same time he should face those charges. i don't have an update in terms of our efforts to try to bring

about his return to the united states. but for any possible discussions or even negotiations between the u.s. government and mr. snowden's lawyers, i'd refer you to the department of justice. reporter: i'm going to ask you about a report in the journal that suggested that the russians are targeting u.s.-backed rebels in syria. does the administration believe that is the case? if so, how does this country avoid getting roped into sort of a proxy war with russia? if that's the case. mr. earnest: the president made a firm commitment in his news conference on friday that the situation in syria is not going to turn into a proxy war between the united states and russia. the fact is we see russia doubling down on their support for assad that only draws them further and further into a civil war inside of syria. and it risks a variety of things it. risks russia's further isolation from the international community. it certainly risks the successful completion of the

political transition. in fact, we believe it would delay the successful completion of a political transition and that's significant because the russians themselves acknowledge that a political transition is what's required inside of syria to address the concerns they've raised. the other concern for the russians is obviously involving themselves even more deeply in a sectarian conflict inside of syria. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> we're going to break away from this ordered -- recorded portion of today's white house briefing and take you live now to the floor of the house of representatives, a couple of votes tonight. and then some more debate, live coverage on c-span. the yeas an the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votings will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the moon of the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauerto suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1553 on whh the yeas n