between those from isis and the actual refugees. if this is not disturbing then i don't know what is. there are also thousands of former refugees who have settled in europe over the past several decades now going to join isis in the middle east. the european union's counterterrorism chief, nearly 4,000 europeans are estimated to have left western european, gone -- europe, gone and joined isis. we've even seen this in the united states refugee settlement communities as well. and -- in minneapolis, minnesota, there have been 22 young somali men that we know of since 2007 that left their new refugee home in the united states to join the terrorist organization, al-shabab. in somalia they're fighting against u.s. allies and u.s. trained troops. there are 27,000 somali refugees in the minneapolis area and president obama's

plans call for thousands more. in texas, 37-year-old bilal abud is an iraqi american who is suspected to have come to the united states as a refugee on asylum seeker in the year 2009. when the f.b.i. went to his home, they found evidence of ties with isis. including pledging an oath to its leader, al-baghdadi. former cab driver in virginia , who came to the united states as a somali refugee, is on the f.b.i.'s most wanted terrorist list for providing material support to al qaeda and al-shabab. he's considered particularly dangerous because he worked to recruit other u.s. terrorists for these terrorist organizations. he lived in alexandria, virginia, just a few miles across the river from where i am standing right now. according to mike moreau, a

professor of homeland security and national security analyst at the clarion project, a poll was conducted in november of 2014 of 900 syrian refugees. in this poll of recent refugees, 13%, or roughly one out of seven, claim to have sympathies toward eye sills. alarming -- isis. alarmingly and incredibly that amounts to a potential 130 isis sympathizers. the immigration and nationality act known as the i.n.a. specifies that applicants for the resettlement program be subject to various grounds of inadmissibility, including criminal, security and public health grounds. the grounds of inadmissibility applying to refugee applicants include the broad terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds or trig, in section 212 of the i.n.a., the immigration and

nationality act. very disturbing is the fact that beginning in 2005, the department of homeland security , the state department, and the department of justice began exercising their discretionary authority to waive these categories of inadmissibility for refugee applicants. and then in 2015 the department of homeland security began implementing new additional exemptions for individuals if they only provided insignificant or certain limited material support to terrorists. this includes routine commercial and social transactions or provided humanitarian assistance to undesignated terrorist organizations. s of this past june, the united states government has granted more than 15,560 t.r. -- trig exemptions to refugee

applicants. that's right. more than 15,000 times the government of the united states has waived past participation with terrorist organizations so that refugees could come and enter into the united states. this must stop. the warning signs are everywhere of the potential of terrorist suspects posing as refugees. while president obama redoubles his efforts to bring these people in the united states and put at risk the lives and safety of the american people. we have recently had two terrorist gunmen in my state of -- in my state of texas in garland, texas, who linked themselves to isis. the shooter in chattanooga, tennessee, who killed five u.s. service members, recruiters, and the brothers in the boston marathon bombing who killed three spectators and injured an estimated 260 others. what we need to ask ourselves

is, how did the federal government fail the american people with respect to vetting s? se refugee of course not all refugees are islamic jihadis. indeed, most are not. but the few that are pose a very real threat to the safety and security of the american people. the 9/11 terrorist attackers numbered 19. the boston terrorists only two. as elected representatives, our responsibility to the american citizens and our communities should be our number one priority. the refugee resettlement program has long operated under the radar of most americans. the average american has to no -- has no idea that this resettlement program is a u.n. plan that chooses which refugees come to the united states and that the united states taxpayer foots the bill. but as it has grown over the last few years, and its implementation has become a

threat to small communities, saddling them with the problems that refugee resettlement brings, without their say-so and often without even their knowledge, residents in several states, including texas, are starting to ask hard questions. no longer satisfied with past answers. they are showing up at town hall meetings, starting blogs and email lists, digging up information and informing their friends and neighbors of what's really going on with refugee resettlement and such diverse american communities as minneapolis-st. paul, minnesota, amarillo, texas, and the state of idaho and many other locations, just to name a few. to really see what america's future will be, we have to look no further than western europe. which has taken in over half a million refugees just this year. not to mention the millions over the past decades. a very popular destination for

refugees coming to europe is sweden. the country is currently facing a largescale refugee crisis. and the government does not know where these refugees will live. how they will work. and how w.h.o. will foot the bill for them -- and who will foot the bill for them. according to the swedish national board of housing, building and planning, sweden needs to build half a million homes by the year 2020. this costly housing initiative will cost about $387 million a year and will only fund half of this by 2020. sweden is also known for its horrific rape numbers. recent refugees and now their swedish-born children are responsible for more than half of those convicted of rape, murder and robbery. clearly the existing approach to addressing the plight of refugees is simply not working. are these really the sort of

problems we want here in the united states? again, i am not saying that brutal rapes, gang violence and domestic terror are the norms. but rather they are the risks that have been seen in europe, that come along with accepting large numbers of refugees without proper vetting and screening. while refugee crises are tragic, crimes committed by transplanted peoples against unsuspecting, unprotected victims in their own country are even more tragic. the five wealthiest countries on the arabian peninsula, saudi arabia, united arab emirates, qatar, kuwait and bahrain have not taken in a single refugee that we know of. instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of syrians is a threat to their safety. as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people. the only help so far from saudi arabia is an offer to build 200 mosques in germany. it's quite apparent that the

fear of importing terrorists is real for american communities, if syria's own neighbors will not admit these refugees. my investigation of the refugee resettlement policies have also led to a concern for the most persecuted religious minority in the entire middle east region, christians. of the nine non-governmental organizations that receive federal granchts and contracts to reset will the -- federal grants and contracts to resettle refugee, six are designated religious charities. however, i could find no mission statements from any of them about saving christians. the u.n. connection could explain why so many non-christian refugees are chosen to be brought into the united states, while persecuted christians in syria, iraq, egypt and other nations there have a very hard time getting within sight of the statue of liberty. in fact, the glaring shortcoming of the u.n. refugee

program is that it falls short of helping one of the most persecuted groups around the world, and that is christians. according to reporting by -- reporting by two reporters, the united nations high commission on refugees refuses to classify christians as a persecuted group eligible for resettlement on this basis. because our department of state chooses to adhere to a definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government, the murders of christian men, the rapes of christian women, and the butchry of christian children apparently do not count. these people are routinely beheaded, crucified, burned at the stake, sold into slavery and have their property confiscated. in iraq, isis has blown up dozens of churches, kidnapped christians and held them for ransom, even after they have already murdered them. last summer they started

marking christian homes with a red letter n for nazarine, before they took the homes and compiled the owners. unfortunately for many christians, compile is a better option than the -- exile is the better option than the inhumane atrocities that many in the region are facing. many are sexually enslaved by isis, like kayla mueller. kayla mueller was a christian american human rights activist from prescott, arizona. she was taken captive in august, 2013, by isis in syria after leaving a doctors without borders hospital. after she was taken by the terrorist group, she was repeatedly raped by al-baghdadi, who is the leader of isis. there are still many other cist ian isis prisoners -- christian isis prisoners, including 460 taken from syria. and many more who have already been killed. many have been taken by al-shabab in africa, pope francis has even gotten

involved and is calling this targeting of christians a form of genocide. many christians who want to flee persecution face the difficult decision of where to turn and where will they be safe? a decision of how to flee and what mode of transportation to take can be critical to christian families. it was reported this past april that 12 christian migrants trying to get to europe by boat were simply thrown overboard by fellow muslim migrants and drowned. most are afraid to go to the u.n. refugee camps and they fear that actions taken by some of their more radicalized muslim neighbors within the camps. there are very few christians in these camps and other non-muslims because they fear for their own personal safety. unfortunately for these persecuted religious minorities, the only persons able to qualify easily for u.n. refugee resettlement are those

people who are in these u.n. refugee camps. and there in the camp they can be designated as priority one eligible by the united nations high commission on refugees. and then they qualify for resettlement. this is critical to know because the u.n. refugee camps are the only source from which the u.s. will accept u.n. refugees under this resettlement act. and since very few christians feel safe in these camps, it is apparent that this is the reason that less than 4% of the u.n. resettled refugees are christians. former archbishop george kerry said it best when he stated that this inadvertently discriminates against the very christian communities most victimized by the inhuman butchers of the so-called islamic state. it is a sad reality for christians in this part of the world right now. they are so desperate to leave that they have said that they will go almost anywhere, except

the u.n. camps, to try to rebuild their lives. there's another method, however, other than the resettlement act, by which it is possible to admit christians and other groups into the u.s. as refugees. the u.s. state department has the authority to designate certain groups like christians as priority two refugees, which would enable them to enter the united states without having to be living in a u.n. refugee camp. the u.s. state department needs to act on this immediately. it defies logic that we would want to potentially -- potentially import the problems of the middle east into the very heart of america. the recent terrorist attacks in garland, texas, chattanooga, tennessee, oak city, and the boston marathon should serve as a dire warning, a report submitted by the obama administration for proposed refugee admissions says that in the year 2014, the median age

of refugees from iraq and syria was 28 and 23 respectively. and over half of these refugees were of working age, between 16 years and 64 years of age. in fact, according to the u.n. statistics, 65% of these syrian refugees are military-age males who should be defending their own country and pose a risk of having isis infiltraters among them. again, we don't need to look any farther than europe for all the evidence we need to see the dire consequences of this program to american safety and security. according to the gatestone institute, half a million known migrants and refugees came to the european union in the first eight months of 2015. this number will most likely reach one million by the end of this year. and this does not include the number of individuals who slipped in undetected. of the maritime arrivals in europe, the top countries of

eigin are syria, afghanistan, are etria, pakistan, somalia, sudan and iraq. for the refugees who arrive by land, the top three countries are origin are syria, afghanistan, and pack stan. there's been much criminal activity, including multiple cases of rape, among refugee camps. on august 6 of this year, police finally reported that a young 13-year-old girl was raped by another asylum seeker at a refugee camp in germany. the rape had taken place in june but the police kept quiet about it for several months, not wanting to alarm thierman local population. it was only after a local media outlet published this story about the crime that it came to light. according to german social work organizations, large numbers of women and young girls housed in

refugee shelters in germany are being raped, sexually assaulted or forced into prostitution by male asylum seekers. an edtorial column said police are refusing to go public about the crimes involving refugees because they don't want to give legitimacy to criticism of the dangers of mass, unchecked my grace from -- migration from the middle east. this refugee population, there are many elements that neither europe nor the united states would ever invite in and the challenge is separating them. europe is dealing with a stark reality. that it does not want to face and would prefer to turn a blind eye. police in the bavarian town of maring have issued a warning to german parents not to allow their children to go outside unaccompanied. in another bavarian town,

administrators at the dietz gymnasium told parents not to allow their daughters wear revealing clothes to avoid, quote, misunderstandings, unquote, by the refugees in their town. these are not the only problems in the country a country which pledged to take more refugees than any other country in the european union. certain cities have been turned into no-go zones for police, according to a police report from their headquarters in the north rhine-westfalia region. this is the most populous state in germany. it states that the ability of police to maintain public order cannot be guaranteed over the long term, quout -- quote-unquote, according to the news magazine which leaked the report. there are districts where immigrant gangs are taking over

entire metro train for -- trains for themselves. local residents and business people were being intimidated and silenced. people taking trams in the evening and nighttime describe the experience as living nightmares. policemen and especially policewomen are subject to high levels of aggressiveness and disrespect. unassimilated refugees and imgrans have turned large sections of europe's great cities into no-go zones where even the police will not go. jewish immigration from france is the highest since world war ii. in the near term, nothing will change, according to this report. the reasons for this, the high rate of unemployment. the lack of job prospects for immigrants without qualifications for the german labor market. and ethnic tensions among the migrants themselves. the -- one police department wants to reinforce its presence on the streets and track offenders more consistently than

before. i am not suggest -- suggesting that every ref joe or even the majority of the this refugees are engaged in such criminal activity. it is a very small number. but what i am suggesting is that there are some among them who have terrorist intentions that have infiltrated these communities and it is difficult to screen them out. even one is too many. president obama's plan is a potential national disaster waiting to happen. no one is saying that we should not help those who are in refugee camps. we should. america is the most generous and compassionate country in the world. $4.5 ady are spending billion in humanitarian aid, food, shelter and medicine for these displaced persons in these refugee camps. what we should not do is endanger the american people and the safety of our children and our grandchildren. each of us serving in this body

took an oath to support and defend the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic and isis has already exploited this u.n. program to infiltrate europe. we have a sworn duty to prevent foreign enemies from entering the united states and allowing them to become domestic enemies. particularly at taxpayer expense. the president's plan and the current policy of the refugee resettlement act deflies all logic. i'm sure that i will be critized and -- criticized an attacked for making this speech and sharing these disturbing facts with you today. but i'm compelled by the oath of office i took when i was sworn in as a member of the united states congress to t the safety and security of the american people above political correctness. i didn't come to congress to be politically correct. i came to uphold the u.s. constitution and to protect our national security. protecting our american way of life, the greatest experiment in

liberty and freedom in all human history. it is our highest calling as elected leaders of this great nation. those who criticize many for these remarks should instead turn their criticism toward ose who are exploiting refugees and to the terrorists who are infiltrating these very refugees who are entering europe and the united states. i encourage my colleagues to further investigate the federal refugee resettlement program. a to join me in calling for a moratorium on the president's proposal while we fully examine the cost to the american taxpayer and the national security implications of his policies. let us reassert our congressional authority over the refugee program. and put the safety and security of the american people above all else. it is crucial that congress take a look at the results of my

proposed reassessment of the refugee resettlement program. its cost to the american taxpayer. its threat to our natial security. and its inch pact on our small towns and communities by passing h.r. 3314. th resettlement accountability and national security act of 2015. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back under the speak ear -- speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texasmr. al green, for 30 mutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the leadership for allowing us to have thisime to discuss h.res. 84. this recognizes the works of the honorable frank m. johnson a federal judge not only was he a federal judge he was one of the greatest unsung he throfse civil rights

movement. a great student of jurisprudence. and i would dare say he was a hidden hand of justice in the civil rights movement before continuing, however, let me just thank some additional persons. it's appropriate that i thank the six original co-sponsors of this resolution. of course we would mention the honorable alcee hastings of florida and we thank him for signing onto this resolution. we also would like to thank the honorable sheila jackson lee of texas, the honorable greg remeeks of new york, the honorable eleanor holmes norton of washington, d.c., and i especially want to thank the honorable terri sewell of alabama, because judge johnson was from alabama and she has signed onto this resolution, meaning that she has given its approval and i am grateful to her. she is a great, great member of this body and has done quite well in representing the people of her district and indeed her state and country.

finally, the honorable frederica wilson of florida. all these members have signed onto this resolution honoring the honorable frank m. johnson and the honorable frank m. johnson, mr. speaker, was a unique person in american history. unique in that he was one of those people who made real the great and noble american ideals, liberty and justice for all, government of the people, by the people, for the people. he truly, he truly made justice more than a word. it meant something to him and as a result, people were able to benefit from justice. justice was more than a word for the honorable frank johnson. he did not have it easy, however. he was appointed to this federal district court by the honorable president dwight eisenhower. done so in november of 1955. and after being appointed, he

immediately had a very difficult case to come before him. and this is when we learned of the character of frank m. johnson. his character was such that he refused to allow himself to be intimidated. over the course of his life, he had a cross burned on the lawn of his yard. over the course of his life, and he lived for 80 years, his mother's house was bombed. it was thought that it was his home and it was bombed by the k.k.k. he was a person who had as a classmate in law school governor george wallace. he was a person who probably could not have been predicted to be one of the most significant persons in the civil rights movement at the time he was appointed to the bench. there are people who for whatever reason decide that they are going to do the just and honorable thing and frank m.

johnson was such a person. while he lived, he had to have 24 hour protection, 24 hour protection for his very life because there were those who saw him as a threat to the way of life that existed at that time. and they wanted to end his life because of his being perceived as a threat to their way of life. so what is it about him that caused people to want to burn a cross on his lawn? that caused persons to bomb his mother's house thinking that it was his. what was it about this man that caused people to believe that he instrumentality that was moving the south in a direction that they did not want to see it move into. well, he was one of those persons who actually proved, mr. speaker, that black lives matter.

he proved that black lives were as important as any other lives. that all lives matter, but he proved that black lives matter by his decisions that he made. i indicated earlier that one of his first decisions, mr. speaker, was a difficult one. it was a case that involved the bus boycott in montgomery, alabama. d it was a case wherein rosa parks, the alabama female of african ancestry took a seat on a bus and after taking that seat, she was required to move because as others came on the bus who were white, she would have to move as would any other black person and give white persons an opportunity to have seats on the bus. she would have to move either back or if all the other seats were filled she would have to stand. she refused. as a result of that refusal, mr. a civil rights movement

was born in montgomery, alabama, and a protest movement was led by the honorable dr. martin luther king, and as a result of this protest movement, many people galvanized they came together and decided they would not ride the buses and they would transport themselves to and from work. well, one might think that this boycott was the reason that the bus line was eventually integrated, after about a year of protestations. but mr. speaker, the hidden hand of justice was the honorable frank m. johnson. because he on a three-judge nel concluded that the brown decision, which applied to schools, should be applied to public accommodations, should be applied to public transportation. he convinced another judge to do system of as a result, they

issued an order that desegregated the buses in montgomery, bale. the protest movement was absolutely necessary but he showed that black lives mattered when he decided that he was going to stand for justice and that he was going to issue that order integrating the bus line. ter on, in the case of gomilion versus light foot, it about d the it was tuskegee's plan to dilute black voting strength. it was common for black voters to be diluted so much there was no black representation. gerrymandering was common place so blacks did not have opportunities to represent constituents in city councils,

not only city councils but county governments. as state represent -- representatives, state senators. gerrymandering. well it was the on habble -- honorable frank m. johnson that invalidated that plan they had and ordered the redrawing of the lines. . literacy tests were required for blacks but they weren't required for whites. blacks had to take the test, which was impossible to pass in many cases, how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap, all sorts of ridiculous things were required of blacks, but this judge, the hidden hand of justice, the man who believed that black lives mattered, required black people be registered to vote to the same extent as the least qualified white person was registered to vote. allowing black people to register allowed more black representation to manifest itself in the years that followed.

the case of lewis vs. grayhound, 1961. this involved the honorable john lewis. it involved the protesting at a bus station. it involved being seated at a counter. and it involved desegregating the bus lines and the bus stations. john louisiana was one of several persons who -- john louis was one of several persons who was arrested and this violated his civil rights and it was the honorable frank m. johnson that required the desegregation of the bus depots across the length and breadth of the country, directly doing it in montgomery, alabama, it eventually became the law across the land. again, he demonstrated that black lives mattered to him. and he moved on it. he didn't just believe it, he acted on his beliefs. in the case of sims vermont frank in 1962, this had to do

with alabama reapportioning. alabama had not reapportioned since 1900's. the lines had been left as they were because by leaving them as they were, they could keep certain people from having a right to vote. or having their vote really count in the scheme of one man, one vote. it was frank m. johnson who required that one man, one vote principles be utilized, giving black people a greater voice in voting. in leigh vermont macon county board of education in 1963, this was the first statewide desegregation of schools and it happened in alabama. and it happened because frank m. johnson concluded that black lives mattered. he ordered the desegregation of these schools and it was the beginning of something that was spread across this country. he was a part of the

avant-garde of the civil rights movement, but he did so with a pen from the bench. as a matter of fact, he did not wear a robe when he was on the bench, and he did not have a gavel. he believed that if you are a just judge and you're going to follow the law, he believed that you didn't need the robe and you didn't need the gavel, you just needed to follow the law. and he did so. he did so in the case of williams vs. walz. this is a landmark case -- wallace. this is a land mark case in that it involved the honorable dr. martin luther king. as we know now, persons assembled at the bridge, they assemble there for the purpose of -- assembled there for the purpose of marching from selma to montgomery. when they assembled there, they decided that they would, in marching from selma to montgomery, they would assemble themselves at a church.

and they marched from that church to the bridge. if you have not been to the bridge, you should do so. because as do you so, you will see that that bridge -- as you do so, you'll see that that line of scrimmage -- you will see that that bridge has an arch. as you move across the bridge, you can't see from the start of your movement to the bridge what lies on the other side. but on the other side of the ridge were men, members of the men on horses with clubs, ands these men on horses with -- and these men on horses with clubs confronted the marchers who were peaceful, they were unarmed, they were black, they were white, they were multi-- in terms of their ethnicity, multiethnic. they were persons of goodwill who but only wanted to exercise their freedom of movement, to demonstrate, to move from one city to another, protesting the way african-americans were being treated in the south in

terms of their voting rights, terms of their inability to receive the same treatment as others under the law. well, in doing this, in marching from selma to montgomery, when they encountered these officers with clubs, these officers beat them . the honorable john lewis was a part of the march. he has said on many occasions that that he thought he was going to -- that he thought he was going to die. they beat them all the way back to the church where they started. all the way back to the church. ood on the heads, on the bodies, on the ground, on people as they tried to flee and tried to fend for themselves against these members of the constabulary. the marchers returned later to

march again. but this time they had gone to court and they had appeared before -- excuse me -- the honorable frank m. johnson. and he issued an order requiring the people to get out of the way and allow the marchers to move from selma to montgomery. few people are aware that bloody sunday was followed by an order from the hidden hand of justice, the honorable frank m. johnson. and i would dare say that that order and that movement, that march, were the basis for the passage of the civil rights act of 1965. it passed shortly thereafter, a president signed it into law, and as a result many people who are in congress today are here

because that march took place and because the judge, the honorable judge, the hidden hand of justice, frank m. johnson, signed an order requiring the constabulary to get out of the way. what's interesting about this order, mr. speaker, is that it was issued by his classmate, whom i mentioned earlier, governor george wallace. governor george wallace and frank m. johnson were at constant odds with each other. they were at odds with each other not only as it relates to this march but as it related to the integration of schools, as a matter of fact, there were many people in alabama who are of goodwill who started to call frank m. johnson the real governor of illinois. because he stood toe to toe with governor wallace. and in so doing, he made real

what the governor had the opportunity to do, but refused to do. the honorable frank. johnson, the hidden hand of justice, in alabama and the united states of america. in white vs. cook, 1966. he ruled that blacks should be allowed to and must serve on juries in alabama. black people have not always had the opportunity to serve, even when the law said they had the right to serve. and as a result of not having the right to serve, by virtue of the way people interpreted the law, they were denied service on juries. it was the honorable frank m. johnson that permitted this to happen by his ruling. mr. speaker, how much time do i have left? i'd like to make sure that i properly cover certain materials. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman has 14 minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. frank m. johnson in making this ruling, -- johnson, in making this ruling that allowed blacks to serve on juries, was taking a giant step forward in that he was bringing black people into the courthouse and they were now allowed to come right in and go right in and sit up front. black people haven't always been able to go into the courthouse and sit on the front row. they haven't always been respected when they've been in the court rooms. in my lifetime i have heard african-american lawyers referred to as boy in the courtrooms of this country. in my lifetime i've seen african-american lawyers required to wait while white lawyers were being served. in my lifetime, i've seen some things that i'm not proud of. but in my lifetime, i've seen great changes take place. and many of these changes took

place because of people like frank m. johnson, unsung hero, people who have not received the kinds of accolades, the kinds of kudos that they merit for the actions that they took and the bravery that they exhibited. but tonight i want to make sure that at least one person who was an unsung hero gets the notoriety that he deserves. and of course i'm speaking of the honorable frank m. johnson. in 1966, united states of alabama, he ruled that the poll tax was unconstitutional. the poll tax. at one time you had to pay a tax to vote. unfortunately that time has returned. in my state, the state of texas, we now have a poll tax. that time has returned. frank m. johnson declared it unconstitutional.

giving black people the right to vote without having to pay a fee. well in my state, the state of texas, we find now that if you want to vote and you don't have a license to carry a gun and you don't have certain other i.d.'s, well, you'll have to then acquire an i.d. to vote. and while the state of texas will provide at no cost a certain type of i.d., these i.d.'s are predicated upon you having proof of birth. a birth certificate. i took the test myself, i went to the poll to vote and i went to the polls without my voter registration, intentionally, i might add. and i voted a provisional ballot. i was given time to go out and acquire the proper identification. i did it knowing that i would bring the proper identification, and i did so, and i voted timely the but i did this because i wanted to

see -- timely. but did i this because i wanted to see, what does one go through to simply get the birth certificate? i applied for my birth certificate. i was born in the state of louisiana. i applied for it and to this day i have not received my birth certificate and this was about a year ago that i applied for it. i still have not received it. from the state of louisiana. applied for it, paid the fee. now, why am i saying it's a poll tax? because in the state of texas, if you get your birth certificate from the state of texas, then there is a provision for indigent persons to acquire the certificate and the i.d. and you can do this without a fee. but if you're from out of state, you've got to pay that fee to that out of state agency to get your birth certificate so that you can get it to the state of texas and you can get your i.d. the point is, paying for the right to vote is a poll tax. no one should have to pay to

vote. no one. frank m. johnson outlawed the poll tax in the state of alabama. i pray that we have some other frank m. johnsons on the bench who will eventually outlaw the poll tax in the state of texas. because to frank m. johnson, black lives mattered. they mattered. and they ought to matter to other people who understand that discrimination still exists, that people are finding clever ways to keep people from voting today just as they did many, many years ago. the struggle for human rights, human dignity, civil rights, is not over. there are still challenges before us. there are still people who are in high places, who are making it difficult for people to vote. i thank god for the frank m. johnsons of the world who are willing to stand for justice

and make it possible for people to have the same right to vote as other people have had in this country for many years. and i know that there are some who would say, you have the right to vote, you ought to have an i.d. well, i don't have a problem with people having an i.d. i do have a problem when you have to pay for that i.d. so that you can vote. voting is separate and it's sacred in this country. and we ought not require people to have to pay a fee to acquire an i.d. so that they can vote. he declared the poll tax unconstitutional in 1966. in 1970, the ordered the desegregate of the montgomery chapter of the ymca. the ymca has not always had its doors open to blacks. and many of the institutions in this country who did open doors, opened only the back door. i know.

i've been to the back door. i know what it's like to go to a bus station and have to go to the back door. i know what it's like to go to a food service establishment and have to go to the back door to get your food. i've been there. i know what it's like to travel across country and to have to pick your places to stop because in certain places it was known that you were not permitted to stop and in those places where you were permitted to stop, you would have to use back doors, a good amount of the time. so i know what discrimination looks like. i've seen the face of discrimination. i understand how it hurts people. i understand the pain that's inflicted upon people. i'm proud that we can now go through front doors because of judges like frank m. johnson who have the courage to order the

desegregation of public accommodation facilities in this country. i am so proud that there are unsung heroes who took a stand when others would simply conclude that this is not the right time. the country is not ready. there were many other judges who could have taken the same position that frank m. johnson took but they didn't do so. it takes courage to do the righteous thing. frank m. johnson was a righteous person and he had the courage to do the righteous thing. versus ase of the naacp dotter which required alabama to hire one black state trooper for every white state trooper, until arity was acheed, it was the

honorable frank m. johnson who ordered this to be done. frank m. johnson understood the necessity to have the d.p.s. in alabama demonstrate diversity he understood that if you have a diverse police department, department of public safety, that you're going to get people there who can help other people be better people. it was by doing this that we got more blacks into the department of public safety in alabama and as a result, across the country later on. but he had the courage to do this. because he knew that black lives matter. now this is not to say that only a certain color of person is going to make a good peace officer. not true. people of all hues, of all ethnicities, of all races, of all creeds can make good peace officers. but there are some who are not

good. and those have to be removed from their position. you ought not have people who don't respect all people, but especially at this time when we're seeing so many things happen to black people that don't understand that black lives matter. i cannot resist the temptation to avoid speaking about what happened to that young girl in outh carolina. i think the sheriff did the right thing. he has removed that officer from his department. but there's something about that case that i think we need to talk about. very briefly. firstly this. if the camera's eye had not been i e, i conclude, prognosticate, he would not have been fired. he would not have been fired without the camera's eye. the sheriff himself said that

two adults who were there, who saw what happened, two adults, one a teacher, two adults said they thought the officer's behavior was correct. they didn't have a problem with the officer's behavior. it was the eye of the camera, mr. speaker, that made the difference. he camera brings to us what we cannot acquire when we get people with conflicting stories about what happened. we had an opportunity to see for ourselves what happened. this is why we need body cameras. this is why congressman cleaver and i introduced the cam tip act in this congress so people across the length and breadth of this country can be protected who are officers, if they have

the body camera on, you have evidence of what occurred. citizens are protected. -- can have t have frivolous charges made real. body cameras make a difference. they're not the pan see ark they're not the silver bullet. they won't be the end-all. but they will be a means by which we'll have additional evidence of what actually occurred. and many times that evidence is going to be much more potent, much more revealing, than what people will say when they have conflicting stories. i believe we ought to do all that we can to help the municipality the police departments across the length an breadth of this country acquire these body cameras. these will make a difference in the lives of people. in this case, in south carolina, if not but for the eye of the camera, i conclude we would have different results buzz you had two adults two proclaimed the

actions of the officer to be appropriate. it was frank m. johnson who declared that there should be parity in the d.p.s. in alabama. finally, i want to mention this case. it is a case of a 39-year-old white female. iola muzal, who came down to alabama to do what she thought was the righteous thing and help in the civil rights movement. she was murdered by the k.k.k. and after an informant in the k.k.k. revealed the identity of the culprits, and when they were brought to trial with overwhelming evidence in the first trial, there was a hung jury. in the second trial, an

all-white jury acquitted the officers. but in the third trial, before the honorable frank m. johnson, they were all found guilty. but they were not found guilty without the judge requiring the jury to deliberate at length. he may have been one of the first to give what's known as an allen charge today. requiring the jurors to continue to deliberate, not withstanding their belief that they had exhausted all of their options. he required them to continue to deliberate and as a result, these three members of the k.k.k. were found guilty and after having been found guilty they were each sentenced to 10 years. so i'm honored tonight to have brought to the attention of this august body, to the attention of our state of texas, to the attention of the united states , many ca, the many

exploits positive of frank m. johnson and i pray this resolution will pass in the congress of the united states for this unsung hero who understood that black lives matter. i thank you, mr. speaker. i believe my time is up and i'm honored that you were gracious enough not to remove me from the microphone. thank you for the additional time. god bless you. the speaker: spop -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3819 an act to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, trns it and other funds from the highway trust fund and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. green: mr. speaker, i do now make a motion that the house do

adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorr the budget deal now moves to the senate where it looks like it will be the last legislative deal, made by current house speaker john boehner before re-- before he retires on friday. >> on the next "washington journal," representative sheila jackson lee of texas talks about the two-year budget deal that passed the house earlier and the house speaker election. then we have more about the budget deal with congressman charles dent of pennsylvania.

"washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states admonish to draw near and give their attention. >> this week on c-span's landmark cases. we'll discuss the historic supreme court case of schenck vs. the united states. in 1917 the united states entered world war i. patriotism was high. and some forms of criticism of the government were a federal offense. charles schenck who is general secretary of the philadelphia socialist party handed out leaflets against the draft. >> this was the flyer produced by charles schenck in 1917. 15,000 copies of this were produced and the point was to encourage men who were liable for the draft not to register.

gleffs arrested, tried and found guilty under the recently enacted espionage act. he then appealed and the case went directly to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled, weighing the issues of clear and present danger and freedom of speech, our guests include attorney thomas goldstein, and beverly gauge, professor of history at yale university. that's coming up on the next landmark cases, live, monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span root. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases ompanion book. >> it's a very touchy business,

being the son or daughter of a dictator. you wouldn't wish this kind of life on most people. really. so it's a collection of very interesting, sometimes lurid, stories. but they're also points about tyranny, about friendship or daughtership, about loyalty, about nature-nurture, about politics. even about democracy. >> this sunday night on q&a, national review senior editor on his book, children of monsters, which looks at the lives of the children of 20 dictators, including stalin, muse linney, and saddam hussein. >> i was able to talk to some knowledgeable people. i couldn't talk to any family members. which was usually the case. in the preparation for this book. there are only so many around to talk to. and only so many willing to say what they know or to divulge their feelings or experiences at all. i was digging around for any scrap, any tidbit i possibly could, because these sons and

daughters, most of them, some of them are famous and important, some of them become dictator but most of them are foot notes and asides and you really have to dig to find out about them. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q ands a. >> being lady-like does not require silence. why should my husband's job or yours prevent us from being ourselves? i do not believe that being first lady should prevent me from expressing my ideas. [applause] >> betty ford spoke her mind, was pro-choice, and a supporter of the equal rights and a supporter of equal rights

amendment. she had her husband gerald ford openly discussed her battle with breast cancer. she struggled with drug and alcohol dependency. confronting her addiction to find her post white house career. on c-span's original series "first ladies." from martha washington to michelle obama. onthere it :00 p.m. eastern american history tv on c-span3. coming up tonight, we hear from house speaker nominee paul ryan from wisconsin and florida congressman paul leinster. after that, matthew green talks about his book on the history of the speaker of the house. us republicans have chosen wisconsin congressman paul ryan to be the nominee for that next house speaker.

in the new york times,, " although mr. ryan was short of the 218 votes needed to win thursday's floor vote, supporters said he would pick up backers now that he is the nominee. anything over 218 wins, i think will be well above that." remarks by representative ryan and webster following the vote. rep. ryan: thank you, everybody. this begins a new day of the house of representatives.

john boehner served with humility and distinction and we all him a debt of gratitude. but tomorrow, we are turning the page. we are not going to have a house that looks like it looked the past few years, we are going to move forward. we're going to unify. our party has lost its vision and we are going to replace it with a vision. we believe that the country is on the wrong track. we think they country is headed in the wrong direction and we have an obligation here in the people's house to the people's business to give this country and alternative. we are going to respect the people by representing -- by representing the people. i want to thank my colleagues for bestowing on to me this great honor.

a principal base member group in congress. we have changed the debate, change the discussion. a top-down approach to one that works. if we can do that, we will be successful. [inaudible] it might be something we could do but i'm going to try to work it out. i think it is a picture of the methods we have been trying to

get across. , whole life more are saying can you help us how this principle-based member group where every member has a chance to lead. i think we have broad support of the principles that we talked about. a matter of loyalty to one end --or another, in the [inaudible]

>> tomorrow, the u.s. house votes for the next speaker of the house. andblican nominee paul ryan democratic leader nancy pelosi of the two candidates. next, a look at the role of the speaker of the house with catholic university politics professor matthew green. this is 30 minutes. >> we are on location at catholic university in washington dc where we are meeting professors will also written books. today, matthew green, who wrote this book, "speaker of the

house." green: speaker of the house of a number of responsibilities. he or she is the top officer of the house of representatives, in fact the only one named in the constitution. speakers are there to represent the house of representatives with the senate and to the american people. the speaker is responsible for ensuring that the house operates correctly, that legislation is , interacting with the president, the american people. general that in the house is working the will of the people. >> do you have to be a member of the house to be speaker? mr. green: technically, you do not. all the countries it says is that the house should choose it speaker. as a practical matter, it has always been a member of the

house of representatives but that is not a limitation of the house imposes -- that the constitution imposes. >> how partisan is the post? mr. green: that is a great question. the officenship of of speaker has changed over time. from the very beginning, the office of speaker has both partisan and nonpartisan responsibilities. extent, the speaker was expected to represent the majority party in the house, but also, to some extent, the speaker has parliamentary responsibilities, ensuring the rules are followed, every member has the same rights, and to preside over the day-to-day operations of the house and house floor. over time, the does -- the position of the speaker has become more partisan and reached the height of contemporary partisanship around the 1990's

with speaker gingrich and speaker pelosi. speaker boehner has pulled away to some extent from that and i think has tried to reintroduce some less partisan aspects. it is still a very partisan position and the majority party expects the speaker to carry out the will of the majority party. who have been some of the more effective speakers are well-known ones? mr. green: the first that comes to mind is sam rayburn, who is speaker from 1940 until the early 1960's. he was a prominent speaker in part because he lasted so long. it is very rare to have a speaker last as long as that. he also was a rare speaker in that he understood the house in which he served at the understood what it was that motivated members of the house of representatives.

he had what you might say is a feel for the chamber. that made it possible for him to get a lot done because he understood the possible and congressional politics. some major legislation that was enacted during that time period was enacted during his speakership, whether it was transportation legislation, early civil rights legislation, legislation related to world war ii. he was, in many ways, one of the best-known members of the house. we also have speakers with demonstrated considerable respect. newt gingrich, in his early years, particularly the first 100 days, really turned the house into a real machine producing major, major legislation relatively swiftly. particular then enactment of health care

legislation, which was a huge feat with the outcome, in large part because of her leadership. we have had speakers --most speakers at least, since the 1940's, have been known for producing one major work of legislation. to top that list, i would have to say, would be sam rayburn. peter: what is the speaker's normal interaction with the senate? wouldn't say the present speaker has a normal interaction with the senate. it varies by who the speaker is, which party is in control of the house and the senate. it depends on the personal personalities of the speaker and senate leadership. there is an expectation that speakers need to have an open line of communication with leaders in the senate because you cannot get legislation enacted without the senate's

approval. to that respect, there is some communication or relationship. the degree of closeness that there is between the speaker and the senate or that leaders is going to vary tremendously by who the speaker is and who the members in the senate are. peter: who have been some of the least effective speakers? mr. green: least effective speakers, well, good question. there are certainly a host of speakers in the 19th century who didn't serve long and are known for doing much. you can put those on the list. if we want to put -- if we want to keep our focus on speakers since the 1940's, which is the focus on the book, i would say the first thing that comes to mind is probably either carl albert, who served in the early 1970's, or john mccormick, who came right after rayburn and served from 1961 to 1970.

they had more difficult times getting legislation enacted. they had a more difficult party to work with. the majority party, the folksats, had rebels, that wanted to go their own way, and that makes it hard to pass legislation. they also have personal issues. mccormack, towards the end, he had been waiting to be speaker for many years, so when he finally got the chance, he was somewhat elderly. i had heard at some point that presented at the house with an oxygen tank. he didn't necessarily have the fortitude, the constitution necessary to put in the effort necessary to get big legislation done. i think that's mccormack and albert were probably lower on the list that were effective contemporary speakers. peter: how would you grade john boehner? mr. green: i hesitate to grade

john boehner to the extent that he is still speaker and we see in history that sometimes speakers save their biggest, most amazing accomplishments for the end of their tenure. i think the jury is still out. i would say this about speaker boehner. back in the early 1930's we had a speaker named john garner, who is a democrat from texas and later became vice president under fdr. he once said that speaker was one of the most difficult jobs in washington. imagine how much has changed since the 1930's when john nance garner was saying that. now, the speaker has to deal with huge amounts of campaign funding, independent groups that are funding primary challenges, you have a 24-hour news cycle, a

plethora of interest groups. all of these things are pretty tremendous pressure on the job of speaker to try and get things done without making too many people angry. i think that boehner -- those are challenges to his speakership. you couple that with, shall we say, independent-minded members of his party in the house of representatives, can make it harder for him to enact legislation, especially when he can't get any votes from the majority part -- from the minority party. i think boehner has done somewhat the best he could do with a bad hand he was dealt. peter: speakers are also members of congress. how much attention to they pay to their particular district once they become speaker? mr. green: this is one of the things i argue in the book. traditionally, people assume

that when speakers become speaker, they are thinking about their party. they want to do what their party wants, and after all, the majority -- after all, their party is the majority party who decides who the speaker is. i also point out that speakers have done things on behalf of issues and concerns that matter to them personally. every once in a wild, you see speakers pushing -- once in a while, you see speakers pushing for things that matter to them personally. in the case of speaker boehner, issues like education, which is very important to them personally. nancy pelosi on human rights. john mccormick on education. and gasurn on the oil industry in texas. we do see speakers saying sometimes, that this matters so much to me that i want to pursue this.

they do have to think about themselves being reelected. there are sometimes things they do because, if they don't do it, it might put them in danger of losing their seats. the last speaker to lose reelection was, fully in 1994. 1994. tom foley in they will be attention to their districts and do things that might be particularly important to their own constituents. foley, who wasom the last speaker who lost their election? mr. green: it was in the 19th century, i can't remember his name. it has been well over 100 years. peter: what makes a good speaker in your view? mr. green: what makes a good speaker? i would say it is a combination of a number of things. "listener.uld say,

-- i would say, be a good listener. they have to know when a member of congress says something if they are really meaning what they say or something else is going on there. relating to that is knowing the districts of members of congress so that, if you have someone your party saying, i can't support you on this because my constituents would oppose it, you are able to say, actually, i also understand your district and they don't think it is quite the situation you portray. in other words, being able to persuade members. obviously, persuasion is a third thing that matters. in addition to these personal traits, what makes a good speaker and an understanding that they are, in the end, representing the entire chamber. they representing the whole house of representatives. -- that is why, they

often say, i know you want this but it will make our chamber look bad, hurt our ability to do our work. ,hen we help the whole chamber and we help the house of representatives as an institution, fundamentally what we're doing is helping the american people and the country. peter: what is the level of interaction historically that a speaker has had with the president? mr. green: historically, speakers have had a fairly significant degree of interaction with presidents. just as speakers they do have a relationship with the senate in order to get bills enacted, they have to have a relationship with the president to get those bills signed into law. the president is seen as the american people as the person who sets the national agenda, represents the country at large, so it is important for speakers

to have some relationship with presidents, and hopefully a positive working relationship. that has been a challenge for eakers when they are in the opposite party at the president. time,e seen, from time to cases were issues divide speakers and presidents. if you look at the late 90's, the impeachment proceedings of bill clinton. obviously that creates a huge strain on that relationship. at the same time, there is an understanding that there has to be some avenues of communication. if they don't talk to each other, nothing gets done. the president loses, but the speaker also loses. to talk to the phone once a week, to meet if necessary, those are part of the job that speaker. peter: why do you choose to write this book? mr. green: the experiences i had when i was a congressional aide in the mid-1990's.

i worked on capitol hill and i was there during the 1994 the electionch was in which republicans won control of the house and senate. most notably, the house, because they haven't had -- because they hadn't had a majority in the house in 40 years. i was struck by a few things. one was that you can tell the next day walking through the whole of congress what party a staffer was because people were either overjoyed when it looked as if death had passed them over. that was quite a remarkable experience. also, watching speaker gingrich and how he operated as speaker. he forcefulness with which exercised speakership and the speed that he was getting things and acted really made an impression on me and got me thinking of the things speakers do and whether gingrich was an anomaly or part of a trend as

one of many speakers who use the power of the office to try to get things done. that was the experience that got me thinking about writing about the speaker. later, in graduate school, looking for a topic to write about, i realized that the speakership was something that had been explored that much. i was still interested in it. the end of the gingrich speakership and the pastor -- and the hastert speakership which had just begun. i found all these interesting stories about speakers owing back to the 1940's with raburn. i started thinking, if speakers matter, how do we know that they matter, when we know that they are actually changing the outcome and a vote? and also, to understand why they do it. is it always something their party wants or is it something else?

my research found something interesting, which is that they not only have make a difference and to make a difference, but make a is -- and do difference, but they do things sometimes because they think it matters, even if their own party doesn't think it matters. peter: good newt gingrich's -- could newt gingrich's speakership have been longer? mr. green: historical counterfactual's are always difficult. there was a way in which gingrich always had a similar problem to speaker boehner, which is a fairly large group of new, young members. this is not unusual, both parties have had this. they come in, they are seles, -- they are zealous, have a feeling they can change things. invariably, that group, or members of it, start to get

disillusioned. they feel that things that they were elected on aren't getting done. and they begin to challenge the speaker. the happened with albert in 1970's and in many ways happened with speaker boehner. with gingrich, he had a similar problem. in many ways, it would have been a difficult situation for anyone. a more personal aspect, i would say, is that gingrich is the kind of speaker who believed in being a general, the leader of the troops that folks would follow. the thing i mentioned earlier about listening and understanding where members are coming from was not necessarily gingrich's strong suit. because of that, i think it exacerbated these tensions and led some republicans to question his ability to lead past the first couple of years of his speakership. those elements of his personality, i think contributed

to the relatively short nature of his tenure. had he been a different type of leader or acted differently after the first two years, then possibly we would have seen gingrich last longer. peter: john boehner recently said after the government shutdown that he didn't really want to do it but he saw what his members were going. mr. green: right. this is an example of the difficulty that boehner, personally, is in, with a lot of members who have strong opinions, strong views, and at that time, felt this was their source of leverage to get the policy outcomes they want. useident obama was going to estimates like the debt limit. -- what at a spark

smart speaker does, is to see where your members are. they don't have as many tools at their disposal -- tools at their disposal as you might think they would. parliamentary leaders can say, if you don't support me, you are not going to be nominated again. a speaker doesn't have that kind of power. he had to do what he had to do. there is also a way in which it topart of the job of speaker try to educate members and explain, look, if we follow path a, this is going to be very harmful to our party and also harmful to the country. if we take path b, it will be less harmful. we won't get what we want necessarily. if we take path a, we definitely we't get what we want and will make ourselves the party

that looks that. not saying that it is easy to accomplish that or the other members of congress could have done a better job, but i think that was what was missing from the equation when it came to the shutdown last winter, was the difficulty of boehner and the leadership team, whether it was inability or just not a possible situation, to get members to understand the direction that many of them wants to go was problematic. i will add one more thing which is an important part of the equation, which is the majority party -- the minority party. if boehner had been able to get votes from democrats, it wouldn't have been an issue. in decades past, something like that was possible. in today's highly partisan congress, that is not something speakers have at their disposal. minority parties generally refused to give votes to the majority on big issues.

that constrain speakers. now you have to get votes only from your majority party, and if you have a critical mass of members that don't want to go along, you are in trouble. this is something that has made it harder as speaker than ever before. peter: what are some of the rewards and punishments a speaker has his or her disposal? -- has asked his or her disposal? mr. green: they ranged from saying, i will schedule a v vote for a bill you want, to saying i will put in a good word for you for a committee position. speakers have a decisive influence on who gets committee assignments. speakers can say, i am going to visit your district and help raise money for you. that is an important aspect. speakers also have little things that people might dismiss that are very important to members, such as saying, we're going to

have a congressional delegation going to syria. i can only have three members of congress, would you like to be one? this is something that is a great incentive. those are some of the rewards that speakers can provide. there are also some punishments, which are the reverse of that. they can say, you are not going to get the committee position, or i am not going to give you the congressional delegations spot on the congressional delegation trip. members ofly, congress care about committee assignments, raising money. what has happened, particularly with the boehner speakership, is you have a group of members in this party who aren't interested in these things. maybe they aren't running for reelection or they can get funding from outside interest groups, or they are saying i am not interested in moving up.

i want to stay on the committee i am on and do what i want to do. that is one of the other reasons it has been hard for boehner's speakership. you have members saying, what you have to offer is enough for me. there is one other benefit speakers used to be able to provide which boehner no longer can. those are the so-called earmarks, where specific funding can be put in a bill and provide money for a specific dam or road in a district. speaker pelosi argued for getting rid of these so they stop using them. when they stop using them, they no longer had a very important caret. say, myof congress constituents don't want me to vote for this bill, what can you do for me? boehner was say, i can't get you that. so i just going to have to vote against you.

-- so i am just going to have to vote against you. that is a huge problem, the lack of benefits they can provide members for their votes. peter: how would you rate the nancy pelosi as a speaker? mr. green: in terms of her effectiveness, i would rate nancy pelosi very highly. i think that she was a very active speaker. if for nothing else, she will be known for providing critical for the passage of the affordable care act or obamacare. when it looked like it was going to fail at the last minute. her ability and her relentlessness in taking that job and lobbying members and helping members of congress in working to get things done was really quite remarkable. i think the jury is still out, but if they will be any criticism of the pelosi speakership, it will be whether or not there was a too high of a

price to be paid for some of those legislative accomplishments. in the first two years of the obama white house, you have the house of representatives under her leadership passing a slew of bills. some of the became law, some not, but some of them were tough votes. votes on climate change, obamacare. those members subtly lost reelection. now, it is not clear if the votes ultimately cost every election, but for some of them it may have made the difference. to the extent that it did, it may have cost the democrats the house of representatives. this is a dilemma that all speakers have. do you get major bills passed in hurt your members' reelection chances or do you help them? subtlyextent that she injured president obama's agenda, that could be something

that would be part of her legacy that is less positive. 1994, whenhat day in republicans took back the house of representatives, did you have a smile on your face or a scout? -- for a scowl ? mr. green: it wasn't a smile or a scowl. i worked for a democrat. it was a sigh of relief, really. it was a year in which the democrats were in danger of losing. a shock and relief but also a little bit of intellectual curiosity. now that the republicans have a turn, let's see what happens next. peter: what do you teach here> ? mr. green: i did several courses in american politics. i teach a course on the u.s. congress. as part of that course, i have

the students play a member of congress and they tried to get a bill enacted. that is a great experience for the students and for myself, if for no other reason that at the end i get to play speaker. i also teach a course called how were in american politics. we learn about different -- called power in american politics. we learn about different aspects of power, interest groups, power of the states, power of the president, power the voter. why don't speakers traditionally vote on legislation? mr. green: it is the legacy of this hybrid position of speaker as i mentioned before. they are both a partisan leader and also a nonpartisan leader. since you are nonpartisan, it means you are not supposed to be taking part in the issues of the day that put you on one side of the question or the other.

the speaker supposed to be presiding over the house. people might question their ability to do that if they are also participating. traditionally, speakers do not participate in votes. they can, they are not prohibited from doing so, but they traditionally do not. in the 1970's, speaker started participating more and more often, i think culminating in gingrich voted quite a bit. nancy pelosi did as well. boehner, as i mentioned before, moved back a little bit from that partisan role. i think that is in part a reflection of his believe that the speaker needs to move himself out of the debate and conflict in order to be seen as someone who really has the whole house and the interests of the whole house at heart. peter: we have been talking with catholic university professor matthew green about his book. here is the cover.

you are watching book tv. tomorrow, the u.s. house votes for the next speaker of the house. republican nominee paul ryan and democratic leader nancy pelosi are the two candidates. the houseboat starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. coming up on c-span, debate from the u.s. house on the two-year $80 billion budget deal. then, remarks from u.s. women's world champion at the wombat -- abby womback. "washington journal" representative sheila jackson lee of texas talks about the budget deal that passed the house and the speaker election. then we have her back -- that we have representative charles dent

from pennsylvania. washington journal is live every morning on c-span. >> c-span has your best access to congress, with live coverage from capitol hill. in the closing months of the year, the house and senate have several key items to address. on thursday, it is the vote for the next speaker of the house. rep. ryan: i have shown my colleagues what success looks like, what i think it looks like to lead, and why my family commitments come first. i have left the decision in their hands, and should they agree with the requests, i am happy and willing to get to work. >> also, the deadline for a highway funding bill. in early november, the nation will reach its debt limit, and in december, temporary government funding will expire with a temporary government shutdown on the horizon.

stay with c-span for life government -- for live coverage of congress. wednesday, the house approved a two-year, $80 billion budget deal. the final vote 266-167. 79 republicans joined all democrats voting yes on the measure, which extends the ability of the u.s. to borrow. the debate is just one hour. have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 1314 and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rogers: i rise today to present the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 1314 an agreement that of 2015. an agreement that helps advance

this nation's -- this nation toward our goals of fiscal stability, strong national security and entitlement reform. these are goals we've been dvocating for years. first, this agreement prevents the economic damage of a default. which could happen as early as next week. by suspending the debt limit through march, 2017. next the agreement includes the first significant reform to ocial security since 1983. by closing loopholes, increasing program integrity and cracking down on fraud. resulting in $16 billion in long term savings. the agreement also finds

savings in other mandtory programs, including over $30 billion in medicare entitlement savings. as i've said many, many times before, and i've heard it said many times by others here on the floor, mandatory and entitlement programs are the primary drivingers of our deficits and -- drivers of our deficits and our debt. in fact, we've saved $195 billion on discretionary spending in these last four years. in the meantime, the entitlement mandatory side of the budget continues to zoom skyward. reforms to these programs are necessary and overdue. and i hope that this bill today paves the way for additional action in the future. this bill also repeals a flawed provision of the president's health care law.

eliminating the automatic enrollment mandate that forces workers into employer-sponsored health care coverage that they may not want or need. finally, in my opinion, most importantly, this agreement provides for a new top line spending -- new top line spending caps for the next two years. this will roll back the harmful automatic meat ax approach of sequestration cuts which gut important federal programs and slice the good with the bad, including slicing into our military strength. two-year plan, why is that to so important? well, it provides much-needed certainty to the appropriations process and to the defense department and all the other agencies of the government. certainty, ensuring our ability to make thoughtful, responsible funding decisions over that

time. having established agreed-upon top line numbers for both fiscal 2016 and 2017 will allow congress to do its work on behalf of the american people and avoid a harmful government shutdown, or the threat thereof. particularly crucial when it comes to our national security. it provides the pentagon with the certainty needed to plan for the future, maintain readiness and provide for our p troops. these adjustments are fully offset by mandatory spending cuts and other savings, not through tax increases, as the administration proposed in its budget submission earlier this year. and these new levels do not undermine our remarkable success in limiting federal discretionary spending. since 2011, as i've said

before, we've reduced discretionary spending, that is what we appropriate here on the floor, by $175 billion. and we remain on track to save taxpayers more than $2 trillion if you extrapolate those numbers through 2024. with passage of this important agreement, my committee stands ready, coiled, poised, to implement the details of this deal. going line by line through budgets and making the tough but necessary decisions to fund the entire government in a responsible way. we will begin work with our senate counterparts as soon as this bill is signed. we have our eye on the december 11 deadline and it's my goal to complete our appropriations work ahead of that date to avoid any more delays,

continuing resolutions, or shutdown showdowns that hurt important federal programs our economy and, coincidentally, the trust of the people in the congress. i want to thank and commend our leaders for their courage, their tenacity, their resolve. and while i know that this deal is not perfect, there are things i would change if i had the chance, the process by which it emerged is less than ideal, i believe still it's in the best interest of the country that we move forward with this arrangement. this agreement takes steps in the right direction, from finding savings in our entitlement programs to protecting our economy from a dangerous default to providing for the future of the nation through funding certainty. these are goals that i believe we can all get behind. and so i ask my colleagues to

support this bipartisan agreement today. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i want to start by joining the comments of the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, in congratulating all those who came together to iron out their differences and produce this agreement. it is not a perfect agreement. but it is far better than the alternative, the alternative which would have produced great damage to the economy, as opposed to this agreement which will help boost economic growth and make important national investments. what a difference a week makes. just last week we had on this floor a bill that would have jeopardized the full faith and credit of the united states. it was a piece of legislation that says, the united states

government only has to pay some of its bills. doesn't have to pay all of its bills. that would have been an awfuls pretent that would have put the economy at risk. even worse, it said, well, when we decide which bills we're going to pay, we're going to first pay all the bondholders, like china and the folks on wall street, rather than our soldiers and veterans and the doctors who provide care to our seniors. i'm glad we gotten beyond that, madam speaker. this will ensure the full faith and credit of the united states. it will also lift the very damaging sequester caps that ave been put in place. that according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office was going to slow down. we're investing in education,

scientific research, transportation and military readiness. i know these decision -- those decisions will be left to mr. rogers and the appropriators and i wish them all the best in making those decisions and hope we come back by mid december with an agreement to go forward and not further strets of -- threats of government shutdown. but this agreement at least provides the room and space to make those important investments. it also prevents a looming 20% cut in social security disability benefits. and provides that reassurance to millions of americans who otherwise would have been on the edge. it prevents what would have been a whopping increase in medicare part b premiums for millions of seniors around this country. who would have been stretched extremely thin and probably not been able to make all their payments, whether they were mortgage payments, rent payments or food payments, at the same

time they were facing those huge medicare part b premium increases. so that was addressed as well. now, like mr. rogers, there are lots of things i would like to see in this bill that were not but on balance, this is an important step forward. certainly a great improvement over where we were just a week ago and so again, i want to express gratitude to everybody who helped make this possible and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. sessions: madam speaker, thank you very much. mr. chairman, thank you. last night in the rules committee, we looked at this bill, talked about it, and -- talked about it and its importance to the nation. first let me say that this is an

agreement between the white house and the house. this is an agreement we can move forward on and avoid many destructive things that might happen. not only to the american people and the economy, but really our own credibility. our ability to work together at this very careful time is important that we produce the ability for the american people to see this can happen. now, there's a lot of things i agree and disagree with that are said. first of all, harm the economy, good gosh, when you only have 1% g.d.p. growth, the president has already done that with massive tax increases. the president has done that with rules and regulations. and we are trying to make sure that what we're doing in this bill is to stick to the republican plan. what is the republican plan? it has been going into our sixth year that we are going to hold government spending flat and we do that essentially not only

with a c.r., which we will do again in a few weeks but through effective use of sequestration. what we have done is been able to take the sequestration dollars and utilize them in such a way that we pull in, as the chairman was speaking about, we're pulling in mandatory spending. we believe after five years of staying flat with government spending that we are in a more dangerous world than ever and our military must have more money, our security operations must have more money. so what we're going to do is to look at the entire process, come up with an idea about bringing in more money that funds our security, that funds our military, and offsets that so that we can do this by looking at long-term mandatory spending that will bring in over $170

billion worth of savings over the mirror that we look at. over the time frame that's important for the american people to have confidence that we will not bankrupt this country and that we can continue. now, the bottom line to this whole exercise is, is that what we have done is work together. and working together, we now have a plan to move forward and we will simply go to the next exercise, and that is funding the government for the year. the republican plan is simple. we are not going to give this government one extra penny to put us into a bankruptcy circumstance but we are asking also back that the president of the united states give us an opportunity to grow our economy. taxes are too high. we have too many rules and regulations. but the republican party will stick to our plan and that's

what we're doing here. i thank the gentleman and the young chairman for the time. i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to mr. levin of michigan, a distinguished ranking member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: first and foremost, this bill takes the important step of protecting the full faith and credit of the united states. we will pay our obligations and not only to foreign bondholders, but to our citizens. whether veterans or our children, unlike the republican majority bill last week. it protects millions of seniors from a 50% increase in their

monthly medicare part b premiums an spreads out the cost of paying for the fix over a number of years. it ensures that all 11 million americans that rely on social security disability insurance won't see their benefits cut by 20%. it is fiscally responsible, while not undermining our changing the structure of vital programs in any way. let me repeat that. it is fiscally responsible while not undermining or changing the structure of vital programs in any way. it ensures in social security a uniform national process for disability valuations. and it closes a loophole used mostly by higher income individuals who receive higher

social security benefits than intendd. it regularizes payments to medicare for care given in outpatient facilities. finally, the agreement raises the spending caps for two years for domestic spending. not only for defense priorities as some have earlier proposed. so i just want to repeat that so it's clear. the agreement raises the ending caps for two years for both domestic and defense spending. that means we can better fund critical domestic programs that were cut under sequestration, increasing support for education health research, food safety, job trainingand health care for veterans. this was a product of a lot of

effort. of members, of staff, and various committees. the leadership. on a bipartisan basis working with the administration. i just want to leave expressing my support and expressing that we will truly have a broad, bipartisan vote for this bill today. i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. and the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: madam chairman, i'll be brief but i rise in support of the agreement before us this afternoon. madam chairman, as my colleagues are aware, the department of defense and the intelligence community have borne the brunt

of our efforts to reduce the budget deficit and control our burgeoning national debt. under the budget control act of 2011, roughly half of all the discretionary spend regular duckses were taken from programs in the national security area. my colleagues, 2011 was a different time. security environment has changed significantly. since that time, threats from terrorist groups and nation states have risen dramatically. the security spend regular duckses envisioned four years ago seem extremely unwise and dangerous today. in this agreement the department of defense will receive additional resources, badly needed resources. $30 billion this year. and $50 billion next year. but almost more important, this agreement gives the pentagon and our intelligence community predictability, certainty. the ability to organize and plan its activities for two years.

it also gives our soldiers and their family a degree of certainty that they will be supported as they do the work of freedom. senior leads of the army, navy, air force and marines and the department itself will now be able to plan as to how they will configure, equip, train, sustain and deploy our forces in the most effective and efficient manner possible. this ability will result in budget savings and a more effective fighting force. madam chairman this agreement is by no means perfect. but this agreement does require support because it provides predictable funding for our nation's security at a time of changing and growing -- of change and growth. every member ought to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i yield two minutes to mr. cummings from the great state of maryland, the

very distinguished ranking member of the oversight and government reform committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cummings: thank you for yielding. i rise in support of the bipartisan budget agreement. i'm very encouraged that this agreement includes provisions from my bill, the medicare drug price fairness act which i introduced back on may 18. my legislation requires generic drug manufacturers to provide rebates to medicaid -- to medicaid when they raise prices faster than the rate of inflation. my legislation will help americans get life-saving prescriptions they need. it will save $1 billion over 10 years, according to the congressional budget office. just this morning, the nonpartisan kaiser family foundation issued a report citing this issue, the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs is the number one health care priority for the american people. the report fund that 77% of

those surveyed, including democrats, republicans and independents, identified the issue as their top health concern overall. this legislation is a strong and welcome step to help keep drugs affordable, but we must do more. we need to investigate drug companies that are taking advantage of the american people by jacking up their prices just to boost corporate profits and make their executives rich. over the past month, press reports have been filled with almost daily accounts of drug company executives trying to justify the obscene price increases while lining their pockets. my colleagues may have heard -- who so-called increased the price of a drug that treats life-threat vening infections from $14 to $750 overnight he called it a great thing for society, end quote.

my colleagues may have also heard about michael pearson, the c.e.o. of valiant pharmaceuticals, which increased the price of two drugs used to treat heart failure and hypertension by 512% and 525% on the same day it acquired them. they are obstructing congressional oversight and refusing to provide documents relating to its increases. i'm pleased at the -- to support this budget bill. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house armed services committee, the -- eman from texas, the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is mr. thornberry: we cut our military budget 21% from 2010 to

2014. madam speaker, i think everybody in this body will acknowledge that the world isn't 21% safer today than it was four years ago. if you look around the world, whether it is the growth of isis into more countries or the continued challenge of al qaeda and its various afailiates to syria with historic russian reinsertion today, to china building islands in the south pacific, to north korea, to iran , intentionally an agreement it made on its missile testing just after the u.n. ratified the nuclear deal to daily cyberattacks. the world is growing increasingly dangerous and we send men and women who wear the uniform of the united states out to meet that danger. and yet we cut their budget 21%